Decomposing the Seduction: The Role of Individual Differences, Relevant Knowledge, and Education on the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations (SANE Effect)

Abstract

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.