Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 429-441

  Weisberg, Deena Skolnick ^a   Taylor, Jordan C V ^a   Hopkins, Emily J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Explanation; Neuroscience; Reasoning; Seductive allure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943171863     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Re-views Neuroscience, 11, 284-292. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/nrn2795.
2. Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes' baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York: Basic Books.
3. Bloom, P. (2006). Seduced by the flickering lights of the brain. Seed Magazine. Retrieved from http://seedmagazine. com/content/article/seduced_by_the_flickering_lights_of_the_brain/.
4. Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4-16. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3102/0013189X026008004.
5. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43, 9-64. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1257/0022051053737843.
6. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Eriksson, K. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(6), 746-749.
8. Farah, M. J. (2012). Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1146/annurev. psych. 093008. 100438.
9. Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2013). The seductive allure of "seductive allure." Perspectives on Psycholog-ical Science, 8(1), 88-90. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/1745691612469035.
10. Ferguson, C. J. (2015). "Everybody knows psychology is not a real science": Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. Amer-ican Psychologist, 70(6), 527-542. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/a0039405.
11. Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(5), 926-944. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1162/jocn_a_00750.
12. Forstmann, M., & Burgmer, P. (2015). Adults are intuitive mind-body dualists. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: General, 144(1), 222-235. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/xge0000045.
13. Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of explanation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), 406-411. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1038/nrn1907.
15. Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transac-tions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biologi-cal Sciences, 359, 1775-1785. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1098/rstb. 2004. 1546.
16. Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 938-948. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/0963662512454072.
17. 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. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1162/jocn_a_00407.
18. Keehner, M., Mayberry, L., & Fischer, M. H. (2011). Different clues from different views: The role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. Psycho-nomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 422-428. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3758/s13423-010-0048-7.
19. Keil, F. C., Lockhart, K. L., & Schlegel, E. (2010). A bump on a bump? Emerging intuitions concerning the relative difficulty of the sciences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1), 1-15. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/a0018319.
20. Kelemen, D. (1999). Why are rocks pointy? Children's preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440-1452. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/0012-1649. 35. 6. 1440.
21. Kikas, E. (2003). University students' conceptions of different physical phenomena. Journal of Adult Devel-opment, 10(3), 139-150. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1023/A: 1023410212892.
22. Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67(2), 111-129. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/a0023963.
23. Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. (2006). Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 99, 167-204. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. cognition. 2004. 12. 009.
24. Lombrozo, T., Kelemen, D., & Zaitchik, D. (2007). Inferring design: Evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Psycho-logical Science, 18(11), 999-1006. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2007. 02015. x.
25. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343-352. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. cognition. 2007. 07. 017.
26. 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(4), 720-725. http://dx. doi. org/10. 3758/s13423-013-0391-6.
27. Morse, S. J. (2004). New neuroscience, old problems. In B. Garland (Ed.), Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind and the scales of justice (pp. 157-198). New York: Dana Press.
28. Morse, S. J. (2011). The future of neuroscientific evidence. In The future of evidence: How science and technology will change the practice of law (pp. 137-164). Washington, DC: ABA Book Publishing.
29. Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 2, pp. 3-36). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
30. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. jesp. 2009. 03. 009.
31. Rhodes, R. E., Rodriguez, F., & Shah, P. (2014). Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1432-1440. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/a0036844.
32. Rhodes, R. E., & Shah, P. (2015). Seeing behavior through the brain: Evidence of neurorealism, Manuscript under review.
33. Rips, L. (2002). Circular reasoning. Cognitive Sci-ence, 26(6), 767-795. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/S0364-0213(02)00085-X.
34. Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron, 35(1), 21-23. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/S0896-6273(02)00763-8.
35. Saks, M. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Aharoni, E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2014). The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(1), 105-131. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/jels. 12036.
36. Satel, S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: Basic Books.
37. Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., Roskies, A. L., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gaudet, L. M. (2011). Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(3), 357-393. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/a0023581.
38. Scurich, N., & Shniderman, A. (2014). The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations. PLOS One, 9(9), e107529. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0107529.
39. Sperber, D. (2010). The guru effect. Review of Philoso-phy and Psychology, 1(4), 583-592. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s13164-010-0025-0.
40. Trout, J. D. (2002). Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science, 69, 212-233.
41. Trout, J. D. (2007). The psychology of scientific explanation. Philosophy Compass, 2, 564-591. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1747-9991. 2007. 00081. x.
42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 153-160). New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Weisberg, D. S. (2008). Caveat lector: The presentation of neuroscience information in the popular media. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 6(1), 51-56.
44. 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(3), 470-477. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1162/jocn. 2008. 20040.