Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1432-1440

  Rhodes, Rebecca E ^a   Rodriguez, Fernando ^b   Shah, Priti ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b WestEd   (United States)

Author keywords

Neuroimaging; Reasoning; Scientific communication

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROSCIENCE; PHYSIOLOGY; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CULTURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROSCIENCES; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84906516210     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0036844     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
2. Cohen, J. E. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and non preferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
4. Eriksson, K. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 746-749.
5. Evans, J. S. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454-459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
6. Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2013). The seductive allure of "seductive allure." Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 88-90. doi:10.1177/1745691612469035
7. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732
8. Ginossar, Z., & Trope, Y. (1987). Problem solving in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 464-474. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.464
9. Greene, E., & Cahill, B. S. (2012). Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 280-296. doi:10.1002/bsl.1993
10. Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 938-948. doi:10.1177/0963662512454072
11. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414
12. Hook, C. J., & Farah, M. J. (2013). Look again: Effects of brain images and mind-brain dualism on lay evaluations of research. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1397-1405. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_ 00407
13. Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227-254. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100
14. Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71, 1347-1366. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00232
15. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
16. Lindstrom, M. (2011, September 30). You love your iPhone. Literally. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
17. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
18. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017
19. Michael, R. B., Newman, E. J., Vuorre, M., Cumming, G., & Garry, M. (2013). On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 720-725. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0391-6
20. Morris, C. G., & Maisto, A. A. (2002). Psychology: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/morris5/
21. Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216-237. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003
22. Sanitioso, R., & Kunda, Z. (1991). Ducking the collection of costly evidence: Motivated use of statistical heuristics. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 161-176. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960040302
23. Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Introducing psychology. New York, NY: Worth.
24. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342-357. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342
25. Tallis, R. (2012). Aping mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. London, England: Acumen. doi:10.1017/UPO9781844652747
26. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-andbiases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275-1289. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
27. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470-477. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20040