Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.

Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Campus Box 1876, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1876, USA.
Cognition (Impact Factor: 3.16). 05/2008; 107(1):343-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Brain images are believed to have a particularly persuasive influence on the public perception of research on cognition. Three experiments are reported showing that presenting brain images with articles summarizing cognitive neuroscience research resulted in higher ratings of scientific reasoning for arguments made in those articles, as compared to articles accompanied by bar graphs, a topographical map of brain activation, or no image. These data lend support to the notion that part of the fascination, and the credibility, of brain imaging research lies in the persuasive power of the actual brain images themselves. We argue that brain images are influential because they provide a physical basis for abstract cognitive processes, appealing to people's affinity for reductionistic explanations of cognitive phenomena.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies have suggested that when reading texts, lower achievers are more sensitive than their stronger counterparts to surface-level cues, such as graphic illustrations, and that even when uninformative, such concrete supplements tend to raise the text's subjective comprehensibility. We examined how being led astray by uninformative concrete supplements in expository texts affects achievement. We focused on the mediating role of metacognitive processes by partialling out the role of cognitive ability, as indicated by SAT scores, in accounting for the found differences between higher and lower achievers. Undergraduate students studied expository texts in their base versions or in concrete versions, including uninformative supplements, in a within-participant design. The procedure had three phases: Studying, open-book test taking, and reanswering questions of one's choice. Overall, judgements of comprehension (JCOMPs) were higher after participants studied the concrete than the base versions, and the participants benefited from the open-book test and the reanswering opportunity. An in-depth examination of time investment, JCOMP, confidence in test answers, choice of questions to reanswer, and test scores indicated that those whose metacognitive processes were more effective and goal driven achieved higher scores. The effectiveness of metacognitive processes during learning and test taking constitutes an important factor differentiating between higher and lower achievers when studying texts that include potentially misleading cues.
    British Journal of Educational Psychology 06/2014; 84(2):329-48. · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Visualisations and graphics are fundamental to studying complex subject matter. However, beyond acknowledging this value, scientists and science-policy programmes rarely consider how visualisations can enable discovery, create engaging and robust reporting, or support online resources. Producing accessible and unbiased visualisations from complicated, uncertain data requires expertise and knowledge from science, policy, computing, and design. However, visualisation is rarely found in our scientific training, organisations, or collaborations. As new policy programmes develop [e.g., the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)], we need information visualisation to permeate increasingly both the work of scientists and science policy. The alternative is increased potential for missed discoveries, miscommunications, and, at worst, creating a bias towards the research that is easiest to display.
    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 02/2014; · 15.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 01/2014; 8:452. · 2.91 Impact Factor


Available from