Preferential Biases for Texts That Include Neuroscientific Jargon.

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Neuroscience
• Scientific Communication

Background:

• Previous studies indicated a bias favoring texts with neuroscientific jargon, even when the jargon was irrelevant or meaningless.
• This phenomenon, often termed the 'neuroscience効果' (neuroscience effect), suggests an unwarranted deference to brain-based explanations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate undergraduate students' preferences for explanations of psychological phenomena when presented with or without irrelevant neuroscientific jargon.
• To replicate and contrast findings with the established Weisberg et al. experiment regarding the influence of neuroscientific terminology on perceived validity.

Main Methods:

• A modified Weisberg et al. experiment was conducted with 150 undergraduate students.
• Participants evaluated two explanations for a psychological phenomenon: one accurate, one a circular restatement of facts.
• Irrelevant neuroscientific terms were added to one explanation to test for preferential bias.

Main Results:

• A statistically significant preference was observed for the explanation that did NOT include neuroscientific terms.
• This result contrasts with previous findings that reported a bias towards explanations containing neuroscientific jargon.
• The inclusion of meaningless neuroscientific terms did not enhance the perceived credibility of the explanation.

Conclusions:

• The current study's findings diverge from established research on the 'neuroscience effect'.
• The results suggest that the mere presence of neuroscientific jargon does not automatically confer credibility and may even be perceived negatively.
• Further research is needed to understand the factors contributing to this discrepancy and the nuanced perception of scientific language.