Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 938-948

  Gruber, David ^a   Dickerson, Jacob A ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b GEORGETOWN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

brain images; fMRI; persuasion; popular science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868035530     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512454072     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Beck D.The appeal of the brain in the popular press.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010;5:762-766.
2. BlassE (2007) Scientists using MRI to predict intentions, Big Brother seen nodding approvingly. Engadget, March6. Available at (accessed May 26, 2011): http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/06/scientists-using-mri-to-predict-intentions-big-brother-seen-nod/.
3. Bolter JD,Gromala DAesthetic Computing. Fishwick P, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006:369-383.
4. DiChristinaM (2008) How to unleash your creativity: Experts discuss tips and tricks to let loose your inner ingenuity. Scientific American: Mind, June. Available at (accessed May 26, 2011): http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-unleash-your-creativity.
5. Dumit J.Objective brains, prejudicial images.Science in Context. 1999;12 (1): 173-201.
6. Fishwick PAesthetic Computing. Fishwick P, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006:3-29.
7. Gerbner G.Science on television: How it affects public conceptions.Issues in Science and Technology. 1987;3 (3): 109-115.
8. Gere C.Brain-in-vats, giant brains, and world brains: The brain as metaphor in digital culture.Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 2004;35:351-366.
9. Grossberg LDancing In Spite of Myself: Essays on Popular Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1997:.
10. Hall SPeople's History and Socialist Theory. Samuel R, ed. London: Routledge; 1981:227-239.
11. Hamilton SN.Traces of the future: Biotechnology, science fiction, and the media.Science Fiction Studies. 2003;30 (2): 267-282.
12. Hensen R.What can functional neuroimaging tell the experimental psychologist?.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2005;58 (A): 193-233.
13. HsuJ (2009) Intel wants brain implants in its customers' heads by 2020. PopSci.com, November20. Available at (accessed May 21, 2011): http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020.
14. Jack J.A pedagogy of sight: Microscopic vision in Robert Hooke's Micrographia.Quarterly Journal of Speech. 2009;95 (2): 192-209.
15. Jack J.What are neurorhetorics?.Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 2010;40 (5): 405-410.
16. JoshiM (2010) Part of brain that suppresses instinct identified. TopNews.in, December23. Available at (accessed May 26, 2011): http://www.topnews.in/health/part-brain-suppresses-instinct-identified-29877.
17. Joyce K.Appealing images: Magnetic resonance imaging and the production of authoritative knowledge.Social Studies of Science. 2005;35 (3): 437-462.
18. Kimble J,Olson L.Visual rhetoric representing Rosie the Riveter: Myth and misconception in J. Howard Miller's "We Can Do It!" poster.Rhetoric and Public Affairs. 2006;9 (4): 533-569.
19. Klauer KC,Musch J,Naumer B.On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning.Psychological Review. 2000;107 (4): 852-884.
20. Koelsch S.Investigating emotion with music: Neuroscientific approaches.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2005;1060 (1): 412-418.
21. MalkinC (2011) Love is blind.and numb?: Why you can't always feel when love hurts. Psychology Today, January6. Available at (accessed May 26, 2011): http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/romance-redux/201101/love-is-blind-and-numb-why-you-can-t-always-feel-when-love-hurts.
22. Martinec R,Salway A.A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media.Visual Communication. 2005;4 (3): 337-371.
23. McCabe D,Castel A.Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.Cognition. 2008;107:343-352.
24. McLeodI (2011) Canadian researchers testing brains for hostility. National Post, March6. Available at (accessed May 21, 2011): http://www.nationalpost.com/Canadian+researchers+testing+brains+hostility/4392752/story.html.
25. Miller CThe Ethos of Rhetoric. Hyde MJ, ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press; 2004:197-218.
26. Prasad A.Making images/making bodies: Visibilizing and disciplining through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Science, Technology & Human Values. 2005;30 (2): 291-316.
27. Preuschoff K,Bossaerts P.Adding prediction risk to the theory of reward learning.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2007;1104 (1): 135-146.
28. Racine E,Bar-Ilan O,Illes J.fMRI in the public eye.Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2005;6:159-164.
29. Ramani D.The brain seduction: The public perception of neuroscience.Journal of Science Communication. 2009;8 (4): 1-8.
30. Telotte JP.The world of tomorrow and the "secret goal" of science fiction.Journal of Film and Video. 1993;45 (1): 27-39.
31. Weingart P,Muhl C,Pansegrau P.Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film.Public Understanding of Science. 2003;12:279-287.
32. Weisberg DS,Keil FC,Goodstein J,Rawson E,Gray JR.The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008;20 (3): 470-477.