Decomposing the Seduction: The Role of Individual Differences, Relevant Knowledge, and Education on the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations (SANE Effect)
Past research suggests that individuals often place disproportionate value on arguments that include neuroscientific terminology, a phenomenon referred to in the literature as the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations (SANE). Even when the information is superfluous to understanding the research, neuroscience information included in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon can impair people’s ability to evaluate the explanation’s underlying logic critically. While the inclusion of neuroscience information appears to affect judgments of the credibility of the information, the available evidence suggests the effect is not universal, with positive and negative findings reported. Nonetheless, explanations that incorporate neuroscience information, especially when visual in nature, appear to impact the credibility of information in the public sphere and can have a profound effect on reasoning and decision-making in critical venues such as the courtroom. Employing summaries of eight articles developed by Im and colleagues (2017) [1], two psychological processes (learning & development) and two areas of psychology (cognitive & affective psychology). Inclusion of superfluous neuroscience information was manipulated across four levels that included text of a psychological finding alone, research descriptions that included the addition of extraneous neuroscience text, neuroscience text accompanied by a graph, and the neuroscience text accompanied by a brain image. Participants rated the credibility of each arguments contained in each article, with the amount of information randomly assigned. Additionally, I examined the perceived quality of research by pairing different combinations of natural or behavioral science topics paired with natural or behavioral science equipment. Relevant measures of individual differences included depth of religious faith, the five factors of personality, gender, academic major, and academic rank. Tests of knowledge of both psychology and neuroscience were included as well. Among the results, familiarity with research topics was consistently associated with the credibility of research vignettes. Other variables of note included gender, agreeableness, academic major, and academic rank. The results, their implications, and suggestions for future research are discussed.
References
[1]
Im, S., Varma, K. and Varma, S. (2017) Extending the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations Effect to Popular Articles about Educational Topics. BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology, 87, 518-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12162
[2]
Weisberg, D.S., Keil, F.C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E. and Gray, J.R. (2008) The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. JournalofCognitiveNeuroscience, 20, 470-477. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20040
[3]
Bassett, D.S., Cullen, K.E., Eickhoff, S.B., Farah, M.J., Goda, Y., Haggard, P., etal. (2020) Reflections on the Past Two Decades of Neuroscience. NatureReviewsNeuroscience, 21, 524-534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0363-6
[4]
Gruber, D. and Dickerson, J.A. (2012) Persuasive Images in Popular Science: Testing Judgments of Scientific Reasoning and Credibility. PublicUnderstandingofScience, 21, 938-948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512454072
[5]
Tabacchi, M.E. and Cardaci, M. (2016) Preferential Biases for Texts That Include Neuroscientific Jargon. PsychologicalReports, 118, 793-803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116649000
[6]
Bowers, J.S. (2016) The Practical and Principled Problems with Educational Neuroscience. PsychologicalReview, 123, 600-612. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025
[7]
Butterworth, B., Varma, S. and Laurillard, D. (2011) Dyscalculia: From Brain to Education. Science, 332, 1049-1053. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201536
[8]
Howard-Jones, P.A. (2014) Neuroscience and Education: Myths and Messages. NatureReviewsNeuroscience, 15, 817-824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817
[9]
Howard-Jones, P.A., Varma, S., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., etal. (2016) The Principles and Practices of Educational Neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). PsychologicalReview, 123, 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036
[10]
Schwartz, M. (2015) Mind, Brain and Education: A Decade of Evolution. Mind, Brain, andEducation, 9, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12074
[11]
Varma, S., McCandliss, B.D. and Schwartz, D.L. (2008) Scientific and Pragmatic Challenges for Bridging Education and Neuroscience. EducationalResearcher, 37, 140-152. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08317687
[12]
Aono, D., Yaffe, G. and Kober, H. (2019) Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom: A Review. CognitiveResearch: PrinciplesandImplications, 4, Article No. 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0179-y
[13]
Egbenya, D.L. and Adjorlolo, S. (2021) Advancement of Neuroscience and the Assessment of Mental State at the Time of Offense. ForensicScienceInternational: MindandLaw, 2, Article 100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiml.2021.100046
[14]
Greene, E. and Cahill, B.S. (2011) Effects of Neuroimaging Evidence on Mock Juror Decision Making. BehavioralSciences&theLaw, 30, 280-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1993
[15]
Schweitzer, N.J. and Saks, M.J. (2011) Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense. BehavioralSciences&theLaw, 29, 592-607. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.995
[16]
McCabe, D.P. and Castel, A.D. (2008) Seeing Is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017
[17]
Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O. and Illes, J. (2005) fMRI in the Public Eye. NatureReviewsNeuroscience, 6, 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1609
[18]
Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C. and Hodges, S.D. (2015) Superfluous Neuroscience Information Makes Explanations of Psychological Phenomena More Appealing. JournalofCognitiveNeuroscience, 27, 926-944. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00750
[19]
Rhodes, R.E., Rodriguez, F. and Shah, P. (2014) Explaining the Alluring Influence of Neuroscience Information on Scientific Reasoning. JournalofExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, 40, 1432-1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036844
[20]
Weisberg, D.S., Taylor, J.C.V. and Hopkins, E.J. (2015) Deconstructing the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. JudgmentandDecisionMaking, 10, 429-441. https://doi.org/10.1017/s193029750000557x
[21]
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[22]
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211, 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
[23]
Churchland, P.S. (1986) Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-brain. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4952.001.0001
[24]
Gazzaniga, M.S. (2005) The Ethical Brain. Dana Press.
[25]
Stanovich, K.E. and West, R.F. (2000) Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? BehavioralandBrainSciences, 23, 645-665. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003435
[26]
Hook, C.J. and Farah, M.J. (2013) Look Again: Effects of Brain Images and Mind–brain Dualism on Lay Evaluations of Research. JournalofCognitiveNeuroscience, 25, 1397-1405. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00407
[27]
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997) Personality Trait Structure as a Human Universal. AmericanPsychologist, 52, 509-516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.5.509
[28]
Stanovich, K.E. and West, R.F. (1997) Reasoning Independently of Prior Belief and Individual Differences in Actively Open-Minded Thinking. JournalofEducationalPsychology, 89, 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342
[29]
Farah, M.J. and Hook, C.J. (2013) The Seductive Allure of “Seductive Allure”. PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience, 8, 88-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612469035
[30]
Hopkins, E.J., Weisberg, D.S. and Taylor, J.C.V. (2016) The Seductive Allure Is a Reductive Allure: People Prefer Scientific Explanations That Contain Logically Irrelevant Reductive Information. Cognition, 155, 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.011
[31]
Diekmann, J., König, C.J. and Alles, J. (2015) The Role of Neuroscience Information in Choosing a Personality Test: Not as Seductive as Expected. InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment, 23, 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12099
[32]
Hopkins, E.J., Weisberg, D.S. and Taylor, J.C.V. (2019) Does Expertise Moderate the Seductive Allure of Reductive Explanations? ActaPsychologica, 198, Article 102890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102890
[33]
Bennett, E.M. and McLaughlin, P.J. (2024) Neuroscience Explanations Really Do Satisfy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience. PublicUnderstandingofScience, 33, 290-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231205005
[34]
Im, S.H., Varma, S. and Varma, K. (2020) Relevance Matters: The Effect of Neuro-science Information on Evaluative Judgments Depends on Its Perceived Relevance. ScienceEducation, 104, 1-26.
[35]
Fischer, J. and Mundry, R. (2024) The SANE-Effect Revisited. https://osf.io/4mwje/?view_only=f576e2a957f448718b431d59db4a27dd
[36]
Baker, D.A., Schweitzer, N.J., Risko, E.F. and Ware, J.M. (2013) Visual Attention and the Neuroimage Bias. PLOS ONE, 8, e74449. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074449
[37]
Keehner, M., Mayberry, L. and Fischer, M.H. (2011) Different Clues from Different Views: The Role of Image Format in Public Perceptions of Neuroimaging Results. PsychonomicBulletin&Review, 18, 422-428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7
[38]
Marshall, J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Mayberg, H. and Clark, S.E. (2017) The Role of Neurological and Psychological Explanations in Legal Judgments of Psychopathic Wrongdoers. TheJournalofForensicPsychiatry&Psychology, 28, 412-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1291706
[39]
Michael, R.B., Newman, E.J., Vuorre, M., Cumming, G. and Garry, M. (2013) On the (Non)Persuasive Power of a Brain Image. PsychonomicBulletin&Review, 20, 720-725. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0391-6
[40]
Schweitzer, N.J., Baker, D.A. and Risko, E.F. (2013) Fooled by the Brain: Re-Examining the Influence of Neuroimages. Cognition, 129, 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.009
[41]
van Elk, M. (2019) Socio-Cognitive Biases Are Associated to Belief in Neuromyths and Cognitive Enhancement: A Pre-Registered Study. PersonalityandIndividualDifferences, 147, 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.014
[42]
West, M.L., Lawson, V.Z. and Grose-Fifer, J. (2014) The Effect of Electrophysiological Neuroscientific Deception Detection Evidence on Juror Judgments in a Criminal Trial. BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology, 36, 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.881288
[43]
Minahan, J. and Siedlecki, K.L. (2016) Individual Differences in Need for Cognition Influence the Evaluation of Circular Scientific Explanations. PersonalityandIndividualDifferences, 99, 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.074
[44]
Scurich, N. and Shniderman, A. (2014) The Selective Allure of Neuroscientific Explanations. PLOS ONE, 9, e107529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107529
[45]
Rozenblit, L. and Keil, F. (2002) The Misunderstood Limits of Folk Science: An Illusion of Explanatory Depth. CognitiveScience, 26, 521-562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
[46]
Funder, D.C. and Ozer, D.J. (2019) Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense. AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsychologicalScience, 2, 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
[47]
Krull, D.S. and Silvera, D.H. (2013) The Stereotyping of Science: Superficial Details Influence Perceptions of What Is Scientific. JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology, 43, 1660-1667. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12118
[48]
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning (2024) Basic Classifica-tion. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/classification-methodology/basic-classification/#doctoral-universities
[49]
American Psychological Association (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002, Amended Effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
[50]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2023) Protection of Human sub-Jects, 45 C.F.R. § 46. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html
[51]
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Swann, W.B. (2003) A Very Brief Measure of the Big-Five Personality Domains. JournalofResearchinPersonality, 37, 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1
[52]
Ehrhart, M.G., Ehrhart, K.H., Roesch, S.C., Chung-Herrera, B.G., Nadler, K. and Bradshaw, K. (2009) Testing the Latent Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. PersonalityandIndividualDifferences, 47, 900-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.012
[53]
Plante, T.G. and Boccaccini, M.T. (1997) The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. PastoralPsychology, 45, 375-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02230993
[54]
Plante, T.G. and Boccaccini, M. (1997) Reliability and Validity of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. PastoralPsychology, 45, 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310643
[55]
Plante, T.G., Yancey, S., Sherman, A., Guertin, M. and Pardini, D. (1999) Further Validation for the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. PastoralPsychology, 48, 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021950628088
[56]
Storch, E.A., Roberti, J.W., Bravata, E.A. and Storch, J.B. (2004) Strength of Religious Faith: A Comparison of Intercollegiate Athletes and Non-Athletes. PastoralPsychology, 52, 485-489. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:pasp.0000031527.02433.5b
[57]
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Ruscio, J. and Beyerstein, B.L. (2010) Busting Big Myths in Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior. ScientificAmericanMind, 21, 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind0310-42
[58]
Jarrett, C. (2014) Great Myths of the Brain. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118312698
[59]
Ellis, Y., Daniels, B. and Jauregui, A. (2010) The Effect of Multitasking on the Grade Performance of Business Students. ResearchinHigherEducationJournal, 8, 1-10.
[60]
Loh, K.K. and Kanai, R. (2014) Higher Media Multi-Tasking Activity Is Associated with Smaller Gray-Matter Density in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex. PLOS ONE, 9, e106698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106698
[61]
Evans, J.S.B.T. and Stanovich, K.E. (2014) Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition. PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience, 8, 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
[62]
Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J. and McGrath, L.M. (2017) Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. FrontiersinPsychology, 8, Article ID: 1314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314
[63]
Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P. and Jolles, J. (2012) Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers. FrontiersinPsychology, 3, Article ID: 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
[64]
Satel, S. and Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013) Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal Mindless Neuroscience. Basic Books.
[65]
Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. JournalofEconomicPerspectives, 19, 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
[66]
Svedholm-Häkkinen, A.M. (2015) Highly Reflective Reasoners Show No Signs of Belief Inhibition. ActaPsychologica, 154, 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.008
[67]
Lindell, A.K. and Kidd, E. (2011) Why Right‐Brain Teaching Is Half‐Witted: A Critique of the Misapplication of Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, andEducation, 5, 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228x.2011.01120.x
[68]
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002) The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism. TrendsinCognitiveSciences, 6, 248-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01904-6
[69]
Bao, W., Wang, Y., Yu, T., Zhou, J. and Luo, J. (2022) Women Rely on “Gut Feeling”? the Neural Pattern of Gender Difference in Non-Mathematic Intuition. PersonalityandIndividualDifferences, 196, Article 111720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111720
[70]
Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S. and Wheelwright, S. (2007) Cognitive Style Predicts Entry into Physical Sciences and Humanities: Questionnaire and Performance Tests of Empathy and Systemizing. LearningandIndividualDifferences, 17, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.004
[71]
Brosnan, M., Hollinworth, M., Antoniadou, K. and Lewton, M. (2014) Is Empathizing Intuitive and Systemizing Deliberative? PersonalityandIndividualDifferences, 66, 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.006
[72]
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V. and Heier, H. (1996) Individual Differences in Intuitive-Experiential and Analytical-Rational Thinking Styles. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 71, 390-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
Halpern, D.F., Benbow, C.P., Geary, D.C., Gur, R.C., Hyde, J.S. and Gernsbacher, M.A. (2007) The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics. PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest, 8, 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
[75]
Kanyonga, L., Kafanabo, E.J., Chumba, S.K. and Kessio, D.K. (2024) Students’ Gender Differences and Scientific Inquiry Competencies in Technical Education and Training Institutions. InternationalJournalofScienceEducation, 1, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2421465
[76]
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. and Brunton-Smith, I. (2008) Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis. PublicUnderstandingofScience, 17, 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159
[77]
Hill, C., Corbett, C. and St. Rose, A. (2010) Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. American Association of University Women. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf
[78]
Lawson, A.E. and Weser, J. (1990) The Rejection of Nonscientific Beliefs about Life: Effects of Instruction and Reasoning Skills. JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching, 27, 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270608
[79]
Keil, F.C. (2010) The Feasibility of Folk Science. CognitiveScience, 34, 826-862. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x
[80]
McCrae, R.R. and Costa Jr., P.T. (1999) A Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In: Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. Eds., Handbookof Personality: Theoryand Research, 2nd Edition, Guilford Press, 139-153.
[81]
John, O.P., Naumann, L.P. and Soto, C.J. (2008) Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In: John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. Eds., Handbookof Personality: Theoryand Research, 3rd Edition, The Guilford Press, 114-158.
[82]
Soto, C.J. and John, O.P. (2017) The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and Assessing a Hierarchical Model with 15 Facets to Enhance Bandwidth, Fidelity, and Predictive Power. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 113, 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
[83]
Joyce, J.M. (2007) VIII-Epistemic Deference: The Case of Chance. ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety(Hardback), 107, 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2007.00218.x
[84]
Nettle, D. and Liddle, B. (2008) Agreeableness Is Related to Social‐Cognitive, but Not Social‐Perceptual, Theory of Mind. EuropeanJournalofPersonality, 22, 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.672
[85]
Ashton, M.C. and Lee, K. (2007) Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview, 11, 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
[86]
Graziano, W.G. and Tobin, R.M. (2002) Agreeableness: Dimension of Personality or Social Desirability Artifact? JournalofPersonality, 70, 695-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05021
[87]
Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982) The Need for Cognition. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 42, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
[88]
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A. and Jarvis, W.B.G. (1996) Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition. PsychologicalBulletin, 119, 197-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
[89]
Petty, Richard E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C. and McCaslin, M.J. (2009) Chapter 21. The Need for Cognition. In: Leary, M.R. and Hoyle, R.H., Eds., HandbookofIndividualDifferencesinSocial Behavior, Guilford Press, 318-329.
[90]
Zerna, J., Scheffel, C., Kührt, C. and Strobel, A. (2023) Need for Cognition Is Associated with a Preference for Higher Task Load in Effort Discounting. ScientificReports, 13, Article No. 19501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44349-3
[91]
Frey, K.P. and Eagly, A.H. (1993) Vividness Can Undermine the Persuasiveness of Messages. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 65, 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.32
[92]
Stanovich, K.E. (2012) On the Distinction between Rationality and Intelligence: Implications for Understanding Individual Differences in Reasoning. In: Holyoak, K.J. and Morrison, R.G., Eds., TheOxfordHandbookofThinkingandReasoning, Oxford University Press, 433-455. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0022
[93]
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J. and Lohr, J.M. (2003) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Initial Thoughts, Reflections, and Considerations. In: Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J. and Lor, J.M. Eds., Scienceand Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Guilford Press, 1-16.
[94]
Ali, S.S., Lifshitz, M. and Raz, A. (2014) Empirical Neuroenchantment: From Reading Minds to Thinking Critically. FrontiersinHumanNeuroscience, 8, Article ID: 357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00357
[95]
Unsworth, N. and Miller, A.L. (2026) The Importance of Attention for Variation in Learning to Learn. JournalofMemoryandLanguage, 146, Article 104711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2025.104711
[96]
Unsworth, N. and Miller, A.L. (2025) Individual Differences in the Dynamics of Attention Control. JournalofExperimentalPsychology: General, 154, 829-851. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001695
[97]
Zhao, C. and Vogel, E.K. (2025) Individual Differences in Working Memory and Attentional Control Continue to Predict Memory Performance Despite Extensive Learning. JournalofExperimentalPsychology: General, 154, 1268-1283. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001728
[98]
Im, S., Cho, J., Dubinsky, J.M. and Varma, S. (2018) Taking an Educational Psychology Course Improves Neuroscience Literacy but Does Not Reduce Belief in Neuromyths. PLOSONE, 13, e0192163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192163
[99]
Väth, P.A., von Petersdorff, J., Neumann, C., Mundry, R. and Fischer, J. (2024) Replicating the ‘Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations’ Effect in a Classroom Experiment and an Online Study. RoyalSocietyOpenScience, 11, Article 241120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241120
[100]
Lilienfeld, S.O. (2012) Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific. AmericanPsychologist, 67, 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023963
[101]
O’Connor, C., Rees, G. and Joffe, H. (2012) Neuroscience in the Public Sphere. Neuron, 74, 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.004
[102]
Brusselaers, N., Steadson, D., Bjorklund, K., Breland, S., Stilhoff Sörensen, J., Ewing, A., etal. (2022) Correction: Evaluation of Science Advice during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sweden. HumanitiesandSocialSciencesCommunications, 9, Article No. 91. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01254-w
[103]
Desmond, H. and Dierickx, K. (2021) Trust and Professionalism in Science: Medical Codes as a Model for Scientific Negligence? BMCMedicalEthics, 22, Article No. 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00610-w
[104]
Keating, C. (2024) Improving Trustworthiness in Global Health. TheLancet, 404, 925-927. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01816-6
[105]
Tippins, E., Ysseldyk, R., Peneycad, C. and Anisman, H. (2023) Believing in Science: Linking Religious Beliefs and Identity with Vaccination Intentions and Trust in Science during the COVID-19 Pandemic. PublicUnderstandingofScience, 32, 1003-1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231174845
[106]
Gioia, T. (2025) Our Knowledge System Has Collapsed. Can We Survive Without It? The Free Press. https://www.thefp.com/p/the-knowledge-system-collapse
[107]
Baron, J. and Hoeksema, M.J. (2021) Science Advocacy 101: Realizing the Benefits, Overcoming the Challenges. BehaviorandSocialIssues, 30, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-021-00069-9
[108]
Hubert, M. and Kenning, P. (2008) A Current Overview of Consumer Neuroscience. JournalofConsumerBehaviour, 7, 272-292. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.251
[109]
Schwarz, N., Newman, E. and Leach, W. (2016) Making the Truth Stick & the Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology. BehavioralScience&Policy, 2, 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151600200110
[110]
Gurley, J.R. and Marcus, D.K. (2008) The Effects of Neuroimaging and Brain Injury on Insanity Defenses. BehavioralSciences&theLaw, 26, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.797
[111]
Henry, D. (2017) The Influence of Neuroscientific Evidence on Mock Jurors. Master’s Thesis, Yale University. https://cogsci.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Thesis2017Henry.pdf#:~:text=Gurley%20and%20Marcus%20found%20that%20participants%20who,neuroscientific%20evidence%20of%20the%20diagnosed%20mental%20disorder
[112]
Mirzadegan, I.A., Blanton, A.C. and Meyer, A. (2022) Measuring and Enhancing Initial Parent Engagement in Parenting Education: Experiment and Psychometric Analysis. JMIRPediatricsandParenting, 5, e37449. https://doi.org/10.2196/37449 https://pediatrics.jmir.org/2022/3/e37449
[113]
Bordens, K.S. and Abbott, B.B. (2025) Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. 11th Edition, Mac-Graw-Hill.
