IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v10y2015i5p429-441_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations

Author

Listed:
  • Weisberg, Deena Skolnick
  • Taylor, Jordan C. V.
  • Hopkins, Emily J.

Abstract

Previous work showed that people find explanations more satisfying when they contain irrelevant neuroscience information. The current studies investigate why this effect happens. In Study 1 ( N=322), subjects judged psychology explanations that did or did not contain irrelevant neuroscience information. Longer explanations were judged more satisfying, as were explanations containing neuroscience information, but these two factors made independent contributions. In Study 2 ( N=255), subjects directly compared good and bad explanations. Subjects were generally successful at selecting the good explanation except when the bad explanation contained neuroscience and the good one did not. Study 3 ( N=159) tested whether neuroscience jargon was necessary for the effect, or whether it would obtain with any reference to the brain. Responses to these two conditions did not differ. These results confirm that neuroscience information exerts a seductive effect on people’s judgments, which may explain the appeal of neuroscience information within the public sphere.

Suggested Citation

  • Weisberg, Deena Skolnick & Taylor, Jordan C. V. & Hopkins, Emily J., 2015. "Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(5), pages 429-441, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:429-441_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000557X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:429-441_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.