The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations Deena Skolnick Weisberg, Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson, and Jeremy R. Gray Abstract & Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to gener- vs. with neuroscience) design. Crucially, the neuroscience in- ate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific formation was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an confirmed by the expert subjects. Subjects in all three groups explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. people’s abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of But subjects in the two nonexpert groups additionally judged this explanation. We tested this hypothesis by giving naı¨ve that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience infor- adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience ex- mation were more satisfying than explanations without. The perts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good nonexperts’ judgments of bad explanations, masking other- explanation vs. bad explanation) Â 2 (without neuroscience wise salient problems in these explanations. & INTRODUCTION (Lombrozo & Carey, 2006; Kelemen, 1999). People also Although it is hardly mysterious that members of the tend to rate longer explanations as more similar to ex- public should find psychological research fascinating, perts’ explanations (Kikas, 2003), fail to recognize circu- this fascination seems particularly acute for findings that larity (Rips, 2002), and are quite unaware of the limits were obtained using a neuropsychological measure. In- of their own abilities to explain a variety of phenomena deed, one can hardly open a newspaper’s science sec- (Rozenblit & Keil, 2002). In general, people often believe tion without seeing a report on a neuroscience discovery explanations because they find them intuitively satisfying, or on a new application of neuroscience findings to eco- not because they are accurate (Trout, 2002). nomics, politics, or law. Research on nonneural cogni- In line with this body of research, we propose that tive psychology does not seem to pique the public’s people often find neuroscience information alluring be- interest in the same way, even though the two fields are cause it interferes with their abilities to judge the quality concerned with similar questions. of the psychological explanations that contain this infor- The current study investigates one possible reason why mation. The presence of neuroscience information may members of the public find cognitive neuroscience so be seen as a strong marker of a good explanation, re- particularly alluring. To do so, we rely on one of the gardless of the actual status of that information within functions of neuroscience information in the field of psy- the explanation. That is, something about seeing neu- chology: providing explanations. Because articles in both roscience information may encourage people to believe the popular press and scientific journals often focus on they have received a scientific explanation when they how neuroscientific findings can help to explain human have not. People may therefore uncritically accept any behavior, people’s fascination with cognitive neuroscience explanation containing neuroscience information, even can be redescribed as people’s fascination with explana- in cases when the neuroscience information is irrelevant tions involving a neuropsychological component. to the logic of the explanation. However, previous research has shown that people To test this hypothesis, we examined people’s judg- have difficulty reasoning about explanations (for reviews, ments of explanations that either do or do not contain see Keil, 2006; Lombrozo, 2006). For instance, people can neuroscience information, but that otherwise do not dif- be swayed by teleological explanations when these are not fer in content or logic. All three studies reported here warranted, as in cases where a nonteleological process, used a 2 (explanation type: good vs. bad) Â 2(neurosci- such as natural selection or erosion, is actually implicated ence: without vs. with) design. This allowed us to see both people’s baseline abilities to distinguish good psy- chological explanations from bad psychological explana- Yale University tions as well as any influence of neuroscience information D 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:3, pp. 470–477 on this ability. If logically irrelevant neuroscience infor- circular restatements of the phenomenon, hence, not mation affects people’s judgments of explanations, this explanatory (see Table 1 for a sample item). would suggest that people’s fascination with neuropsy- For the With Neuroscience conditions, we added neu- chological explanations may stem from an inability or roscience information to the good and bad explanations unwillingness to critically consider the role that neurosci- from the Without Neuroscience conditions. The added ence information plays in these explanations. neuroscience information had three important features: (1) It always specified that the area of activation seen in the study was an area already known to be involved in tasks of this type, circumventing the interpretation that EXPERIMENT 1 the neuroscience information added value to the expla- Methods nation by localizing the phenomenon. (2) It was always Subjects identical or nearly identical in the good explanation and the bad explanation for a given phenomenon. Any There were 81 participants in the study (42 women, general effect of neuroscience information on judgment 37 men, 2 unreported; mean age = 20.1 years, SD = should thus be seen equally for good explanations and 4.2 years, range = 18–48 years, based on 71 reported bad explanations. Additionally, any differences that may ages). We randomly assigned 40 subjects to the With- occur between the good explanation and bad explana- out Neuroscience condition and 41 to the With Neuro- tion conditions would be highly unlikely to be due to science condition. Subjects thus saw explanations that any details of the neuroscience information itself. (3) either always did or always did not contain neuroscience Most importantly, in no case did the neuroscience information. We used this between-subjects design to information alter the underlying logic of the explanation prevent subjects from directly comparing explanations itself. This allowed us to test the effect of neuroscience that did and did not contain neuroscience, providing a information on the task of evaluating explanations, stronger test of our hypothesis. independent of any value added by such information.1 Before the study began, three experienced cognitive neuroscientists confirmed that the neuroscience infor- Materials mation did not add value to the explanations. We wrote descriptions of 18 psychological phenomena (e.g., mutual exclusivity, attentional blink) that were meant Procedure to be accessible to a reader untrained in psychology or neuroscience. For each of these items, we created two Subjects were told that they would be rating explana- types of explanations, good and bad, neither of which tions of scientific phenomena, that the studies they contained neuroscience. The good explanations in most would read about were considered solid, replicable re- cases were the genuine explanations that the researchers search, and that the explanations they would read were gave for each phenomenon. The bad explanations were not necessarily the real explanations for the phenomena. Table 1. Sample Item Good Explanation Bad Explanation Without Neuroscience The researchers claim that this ‘‘curse’’ happens The researchers claim that this ‘‘curse’’ happens because subjects have trouble switching their because subjects make more mistakes when point of view to consider what someone else they have to judge the knowledge of others. might know, mistakenly projecting their own People are much better at judging what they knowledge onto others. themselves know. With Neuroscience Brain scans indicate that this ‘‘curse’’ happens Brain scans indicate that this ‘‘curse’’ happens because of the frontal lobe brain circuitry because of the frontal lobe brain circuitry known to be involved in self-knowledge. known to be involved in self-knowledge. Subjects have trouble switching their point of Subjects make more mistakes when they have view to consider what someone else might to judge the knowledge of others. People are know, mistakenly projecting their own much better at judging what they themselves knowledge onto others. know. Researchers created a list of facts that about 50% of people knew. Subjects in this experiment read the list of facts and had to say which ones they knew. They then had to judge what percentage of other people would know those facts. Researchers found that the subjects responded differently about other people’s knowledge of a fact when the subjects themselves knew that fact. If the subjects did know a fact, they said that an inaccurately large percentage of others would know it, too. For example, if a subject already knew that Hartford was the capital of Connecticut, that subject might say that 80% of people would know this, even though the correct answer is 50%. The researchers call this finding ‘‘the curse of knowledge.’’ The neuroscience information