Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
BRAIN IMAGES ARE OVERLY PERSUASIVE AND SEDUCTIVE - Coggle Diagram
BRAIN IMAGES ARE OVERLY PERSUASIVE AND SEDUCTIVE
SEEING IS BELIEVING: THE EFFECT OF BRAIN IMAGES ON JUDGMENTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING
0. INTRODUCTION
Summaries of data
help understand the data and increase scientific credibility (in particular images of the brain)
This seductive allure of brain images can be a problem in the
transposition
of neuroscientific findings into the
media
Neurorealism
Neuroessentialism
This allure can be explained by the people's
natural affinity
to
reductionistic explanations
of cognitive problem
1. EXPERIMENT ONE
Comparison the ratings of articles with
brain image
and with
bar graph
to summarize the datas
How to rate the articles?
Is it well written?
Is the title a good description of the results?
Is the scientific reasoning made sense?
The articles are invented and have
scientific reasoning errors
No significant effect in title question
Significant effect in the other two questions
Brain Image >> Bar Graph and No Brain Image condition
2. EXPERIMENT TWO
Experiment One can influenced by the fact that brain images are more
visually complex
than bar graph
In this experiment we modify the bar graph with the
topographical maps
of brain activation (same information but less used
Brain images have higher rates than topographical maps
Both of them visually complex
3. EXPERIMENT THREE
The aim is
generalizing
the two precedent experiments introducing a
real news service
article (without scientific reasonings)
Half of partecipants have a
critical review
after the article, half of them don't have it
Title
Not main effect of brain image
Main effect of criticism
The critic review is critical towards the title because involves real criminal activity generalization
Ratings of agreement
Main effect of brain image
Not main effect of criticism
4. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Brain images have a
seductive effect
indipendently the type of article (invented with errors or real without
Why?
Possibility to offer tangible physical explanation for cognitive processes
Even if the neuroimaging data like fMRI are indirect
But respect other datas they don't offer nothing more
Simply infuencing judgments of scientific credibility
Brain images are simply considered more scientific valid
This result is more general compared to the result of
Weisberg et al. study
Cognitive neuroscience data increase in students the ratings of satisfaction for
poor scientific explanations
but
not
for
good ones
Possible difference in brain images and cognitive neuroscience explanations
Brain images
activate less consciously aspect of ratings
Cognitive Neuroscience Explanations
may affect people's conscious deliberation
Small effect size
due to pre-exposure to brain images in real world
Ethical implication
about neuroscientist who have to be more aware about social implication of their research
Possible
benefits
of this effect, such as creating a positive perception of neuroscience research in public
THE SEDUCTIVE ALLURE OF NEUROSCIENCE EXPLANATIONS
0. INTRODUCTION
Psychological researches
fascinate
the public when
neuropsychological measure
and explanations are presented
We suppose that this fascination is derived by the
interference
of these measures with
public reasoning
(already not perfect)
In this way, the neuropsychological measures are
accepted uncritically
1. EXPERIMENT ONE
General information
about the experiment
Novel adult
partecipants
Between-subject experiment
Type of
Explanation
Good / Bad
With Neuroscience / Without
Neuroscience information satisfy specific criteria to not adding nothing more to the explanation (is redundant)
In the
procedure
, it's explicit that the researches are attendible (and they have to value the grade of satisfaction)
The partecipants can consider the bad explanations in a less critical way? (
Experiment Two
)
Main effect of type of explanation
Good Explanation >> Bad Explanation
Main effect of neuroscience
Explanation with Neuroscience >> Explanation without Neuroscience
Interaction effect?
Not for good explanation
Significant difference for bad explanation
Bad explanation with Neuroscience >> Bad Explanation without Neuroscience
2. EXPERIMENT TWO
Neuroscience students
partecipants also tested in relation to the timing of classroom training (pre-class vs post-class)
Within-subject experiment cause number limitations
Main effect of type of explanation
Main effect of neuroscience
Interaction effect?
For good explanation
Good explanation with Neuroscience > Good explanation without Neuroscience
For bad explanation
Bad explanation with Neuroscience > Bad explanation without Neuroscience
Not main effect of timing
Only significant interaction between sex and preclass satisfaction ratings in With and Without condition (useless)
3. EXPERIMENT THREE
Neuroscience experts
partecipants to understand if neuroscientific information add something to the explanation
Main effect of type of explanation
Not main effect of neuroscience
Interaction effect?
Not for bad explanation
For good explanation
Good explanation Without Neuroscience >> Good explanation With Neuroscience
The neuroscientific data is considered as incomplete
Demonstrated by post hoc questioning
4. WHY ARE NONEXPERTS FOLDED?
We can suppose a
reasoning bias
but the effect observed is only for bad explanation
Possible
seductive details effect
: the neuroscientific information make more difficult encoding and recalling main argument of a text
But remained
unclear
the
motivation
of the increasing of satisfaction
People
look for reductionist explanation
(neuroscientific information connect physical explanation to behavioural phenomena)
Neuroscience can illustrate
connection
between
mind
and
brain
not implicitly accepted (so relevant)
Possible intersection
of these details
Powerful visual imagery
Same effect possible for other type of information (also related to neuroscience)
Necessity
to
be caute
in our research