Naive realism in public perceptions of neuroimages

Naive realism in public perceptions of neuroimages

Play all audios:

Loading...

Access through your institution Buy or subscribe The Perspectives article by Illes _et al_. (Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research, _Nature Reviews Neuroscience_ 11, 61–69 (2010))1 discussed the thorny but important issue of communicating neuroscience research. The authors identified a number of challenges for neuroscientists seeking to present their often complex findings in an accessible way. Among their specific recommendations was the need for more empirical research on the communication of neuroscience to the general public. One emerging issue in this field is the 'dazzle effect' of brain images in scientific reports. It seems that merely including a picture of a brain increases the perceived credibility of research findings in the eyes of non-experts2. We explored this phenomenon to establish exactly what properties of brain images make them so seductive3. Our findings suggest that the more concrete and 'brain-like' the image is, the more credibility it has. Specifically, brain images that appeared highly three-dimensional and object-like (as rated by novices in a separate study) were more likely to convince naive readers that an accompanying written report contained sound scientific reasoning. By contrast, more abstract, schematic neuroscience formats resulted in lower credibility ratings for accompanying texts. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 print issues and online access $189.00 per year only $15.75 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support REFERENCES * Illes, J. et al. Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research. _Nature Rev. Neurosci._ 11, 61–69 (2010). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * McCabe, D. P. & Castel, A. D. Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. _Cognition_, 107, 343–352 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Keehner, M., Mayberry, L. & Fischer, M. H. Different clues from different views: the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. _Psychonomic Bull. Rev._ (in press). * Roskies, A. L. Neuroimaging and inferential distance. _Neuroethics_ 1,19–30 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Tversky, B. in _Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought_ (ed. Gattis, M.) 79–112 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001). Google Scholar  * Schwarz, N. Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decisionmaking. _J. Consum. Psychol._ 14, 332–348 (2004). Article  Google Scholar  * Schwarz, N., Sanna, L.J., Skurnik, I. & Yoon, C. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of putting people straight: implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. _Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol._ 39, 127–161 (2007). Google Scholar  * Trout, J.D. Seduction without cause: uncovering explanatory neurophilia. _Trends Cogn. Sci._ 12, 281–282 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Reber, R. & Schwarz, N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. _Conscious Cogn._ 8, 338–342 (1999). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Stewart, B. M., Cipolla, J. M. & Best, L. A. in _Readings in Education and Technology: proceedings of ICICTE 2008_ (ed. Fernstrom, K.) 30–41 (University of the Fraser Valley Press, British Columbia, 2008). Google Scholar  * Fischer, M. H. Do irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? _Appl. Cogn. Psychol._ 14, 151–162 (2000). Article  Google Scholar  * Smallman, H. S. & St John, M. in _Ergonomics in Design_, 13, 2–13 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Farah, M. J. A picture is worth a thousand dollars. _J. Cogn. Neurosci._ 21, 623–624 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Morein-Zamir, S. & Sahakian, B. J. Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscientists. _Trends Cogn. Sci._ 14, 49–51 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Madeleine Keehner is at the School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK., Madeleine Keehner & Martin H. Fischer Authors * Madeleine Keehner View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Martin H. Fischer View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Madeleine Keehner. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Keehner, M., Fischer, M. Naive realism in public perceptions of neuroimages. _Nat Rev Neurosci_ 12, 118–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773-c1 Download citation * Published: 12 January 2011 * Issue Date: February 2011 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773-c1 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Access through your institution Buy or subscribe The Perspectives article by Illes _et al_. (Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research, _Nature Reviews Neuroscience_


11, 61–69 (2010))1 discussed the thorny but important issue of communicating neuroscience research. The authors identified a number of challenges for neuroscientists seeking to present their


often complex findings in an accessible way. Among their specific recommendations was the need for more empirical research on the communication of neuroscience to the general public. One


emerging issue in this field is the 'dazzle effect' of brain images in scientific reports. It seems that merely including a picture of a brain increases the perceived credibility


of research findings in the eyes of non-experts2. We explored this phenomenon to establish exactly what properties of brain images make them so seductive3. Our findings suggest that the more


concrete and 'brain-like' the image is, the more credibility it has. Specifically, brain images that appeared highly three-dimensional and object-like (as rated by novices in a


separate study) were more likely to convince naive readers that an accompanying written report contained sound scientific reasoning. By contrast, more abstract, schematic neuroscience


formats resulted in lower credibility ratings for accompanying texts. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution


Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 print issues and online access $189.00 per year only $15.75 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full


article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs *


Contact customer support REFERENCES * Illes, J. et al. Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research. _Nature Rev. Neurosci._ 11, 61–69 (2010). Article  CAS  Google Scholar


  * McCabe, D. P. & Castel, A. D. Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. _Cognition_, 107, 343–352 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  *


Keehner, M., Mayberry, L. & Fischer, M. H. Different clues from different views: the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. _Psychonomic Bull. Rev._ (in


press). * Roskies, A. L. Neuroimaging and inferential distance. _Neuroethics_ 1,19–30 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Tversky, B. in _Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought_ (ed. Gattis,


M.) 79–112 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001). Google Scholar  * Schwarz, N. Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decisionmaking. _J. Consum. Psychol._ 14, 332–348 (2004). Article 


Google Scholar  * Schwarz, N., Sanna, L.J., Skurnik, I. & Yoon, C. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of putting people straight: implications for debiasing and public


information campaigns. _Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol._ 39, 127–161 (2007). Google Scholar  * Trout, J.D. Seduction without cause: uncovering explanatory neurophilia. _Trends Cogn. Sci._ 12,


281–282 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Reber, R. & Schwarz, N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. _Conscious Cogn._ 8, 338–342 (1999). Article  CAS  Google


Scholar  * Stewart, B. M., Cipolla, J. M. & Best, L. A. in _Readings in Education and Technology: proceedings of ICICTE 2008_ (ed. Fernstrom, K.) 30–41 (University of the Fraser Valley


Press, British Columbia, 2008). Google Scholar  * Fischer, M. H. Do irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? _Appl. Cogn. Psychol._ 14, 151–162 (2000). Article  Google


Scholar  * Smallman, H. S. & St John, M. in _Ergonomics in Design_, 13, 2–13 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Farah, M. J. A picture is worth a thousand dollars. _J. Cogn. Neurosci._


21, 623–624 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Morein-Zamir, S. & Sahakian, B. J. Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscientists. _Trends Cogn. Sci._ 14, 49–51


(2010). Article  Google Scholar  Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Madeleine Keehner is at the School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN,


UK., Madeleine Keehner & Martin H. Fischer Authors * Madeleine Keehner View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Martin H. Fischer View


author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Madeleine Keehner. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions


ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Keehner, M., Fischer, M. Naive realism in public perceptions of neuroimages. _Nat Rev Neurosci_ 12, 118–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773-c1


Download citation * Published: 12 January 2011 * Issue Date: February 2011 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773-c1 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able


to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing


initiative