Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages

Cognition

Volumn 129, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 501-511

  Schweitzer, N J ^a   Baker, D A ^a   Risko, Evan F ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Judgment; Neuroimages; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

NEUROTOXIN; NEW DRUG;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN FUNCTION; BRAIN SCINTISCANNING; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DRUG ABUSE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HEADACHE; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROSCIENCE; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA INJURY;

BIAS; JUDGMENT; NEUROIMAGES; PERSUASION;

ADULT; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BRAIN; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; NEUROIMAGING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION;

EID: 84884166612     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Appelbaum P.S. Through the glass darkly: Functional neuroimaging evidence enters the courtroom. Psychiatric Services 2009, 60:21-23. 10.1176/appi.ps.60.1.21.
2. Baker, D. A., Schweitzer, N. J., Risko, E. F., & Ware, J. (in press). Visual attention and the neuroimage bias. P LOS One.
3. Baskin J.H., Edersheim J.G., Price B.H. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Neuroimaging in the courtroom. American Journal of Law & Medicine 2007, 33(2-3):239-269.
4. BBC News (2005). Can Brain Scans Detect Criminals? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4268260.stm.
5. Brown T., Murphy E. Through a scanner darkly: Functional neuroimaging as evidence of criminal defendant's past mental states. Stanford Law Review 2010, 62:1119-1208.
6. Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E., Kao C.F. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 1984, 48(3):306-307.
7. Compton S.E. Note: Not guilty by reason of neuroimaging: The need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 2010, 12:333-354.
8. Dumit J. Objective Brains, Prejudicial Images. Science in Context 1999, 12(1):173-201.
9. Erickson S.K. Blaming the brain. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 2010, 11:27-77.
10. Greene E., Cahill B.S. Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 2011, 30(3):280-296. 10.1002/bsl.
11. Gruber D., Dickerson J.A. Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science 2012, 10.1177/0963662512454072.
12. Gurley J.R., Marcus D.K. The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 2008, 26(1):85-97. 10.1002/bsl.797.
13. Hook C.J., Farah M.J. Look Again: Effects of Brain Images and Mind-Brain Dualism on Lay Evaluations of Research. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2013, 25(9):1397-1405. 10.1162/jocn_a_00407.
14. Ikeda, K., Kitagami, S., Takahashi, T., Hattori, Y., & Ito, Y. (in press). Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: The effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0457-5.
15. Keehner M., Mayberry L., Fischer M.H. Different clues from different views: the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18(2):422-428. 10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7.
16. McCabe D., Castel A. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 2008, 107(1):343-352. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017.
17. Michael R.B., Newman E.J., Vuorre M., Cumming G., Garry M. On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2013, 20(4):720-725. 10.3758/s13423-013-0391-6.
18. Pratt B. "Soft" science in the courtroom?: The effects of admitting neuroimaging evidence into legal proceedings. Penn Bioethics Journal 2005, 1:1-3.
19. Rose N. The biology of culpability: Pathological identity and crime control in a biological culture. Theoretical Criminology 2000, 4:5-34. 10.1177/1362480600004001001.
20. Roskies A.L., Schweitzer N.J., Saks M.J. Neuroimages in court: less biasing than feared. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2013, 2-4. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.008.
21. Schweitzer N.J., Saks M.J. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 2011, 29(4):592-607. 10.1002/bsl.
22. Schweitzer N.J., Saks M.J. Jurors and scientific causation: What don't they know, and what can be done about it?. Jurimetrics 2012, 52:433-455.
23. Schweitzer N.J., Saks M.J., Murphy E.R., Roskies A.L., Sinnott-Armstrong W., Gaudet L.M. Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2011, 17(3):357-393. 10.1037/a0023581.
24. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
25. Vincent N.A. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. Neuroethics 2011, 4:35-49. 10.1007/s12152-008-9030-8.
26. Weisberg D.S., Keil F.C., Goodstein J., Rawson E., Gray J.R. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20(3):470-477. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20040.