Extraneous neuroscience information improves ratings of scientific explanations, and affects mock juror decisions in many studies, but others have yielded little to no effect. To establish the magnitude of this effect, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis using 60 experiments from 28 publications. We found a mild but highly significant effect, with substantial heterogeneity. Planned subgroup analyses revealed that within-subjects studies, where people can compare the same material with and without neuroscience, and those using text, have stronger effects than between-subjects designs, and studies using brain image stimuli. We serendipitously found that effect sizes were stronger on outcomes of evaluating satisfaction or metacomprehension, compared with jury verdicts or assessments of convincingness. In conclusion, there is more than one type of neuroscience explanations effect. Irrelevant neuroscience does have a seductive allure, especially on self-appraised satisfaction and understanding, and when presented as text.
AllenCHVoldKFelsenGBlumenthal-BarbyJSAharoniE (2019) Reconciling the opposing effects of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing judgments. PLoS ONE14(1): e0210584.
2.
AonoDYaffeGKoberH (2019) Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: A review. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications4(1): 40.
3.
AppelbaumPSScurichNRaadR (2015) Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law21(2): 134–144.
4.
ArielyDBernsGS (2010) Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience11(4): 284–292.
5.
AspinwallLGBrownTRTaberyJ (2012) The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths?Science337(6096): 846–849.
6.
BakerDASchweitzerNJRiskoEFWareJM (2013) Visual attention and the neuroimage bias. PLoS ONE8(9): e74449.
7.
BakerDAWareJMSchweitzerNJRiskoEF (2017) Making sense of research on the neuroimage bias. Public Understanding of Science26(2): 251–258.
8.
BerentIPlattM (2021) The true “me”—Mind or body?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology93: 104100.
9.
BorensteinM (2019) Common Mistakes in Meta-Analysis and How to Avoid Them. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
10.
BorensteinMHedgesLVHigginsJPTRothsteinHR (2009) Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
BourdaaMKonsmanJPSécailCVenturiniTVeyrat-MassonIGononF (2015) Does television reflect the evolution of scientific knowledge? The case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder coverage on French television. Public Understanding of Science24(2): 200–209.
12.
BulutNSGürsoySCYorgunerNBulutGCSayarK (2022) The seductive allure effect extends from neuroscientific to psychoanalytic explanations among Turkish medical students: Preliminary implications of biased scientific reasoning within the context of medical and psychiatric training. Thinking & Reasoning28(4): 625–644.
13.
CapestanyBH (2018) The use of neuroscience for mitigation during sentencing in non-capital cases. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering78((9-B(E)): 1–173.
14.
ChambersC (2014) The effect of brain scan images on mock jurors in criminal trials. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering75((5-B)(E)): 1–89.
15.
DiekmannJKönigCJAllesJ (2015) The role of neuroscience information in choosing a personality test: Not as seductive as expected. International Journal of Selection and Assessment23(2): 99–108.
16.
Dumas-MalletESmithABoraudTGononF (2017) Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers. PLoS ONE12(2): e0172650.
17.
FarahMJHookCJ (2013) The seductive allure of “seductive allure.”Perspectives on Psychological Science8(1): 88–90.
18.
Fernandez-DuqueDEvansJChristianCHodgesSD (2015) Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience27(5): 926–944.
19.
GreeneECahillBS (2012) Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law30(3): 280–296.
20.
GruberDDickersonJA (2012) Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science21(8): 938–948.
21.
GurleyJRMarcusDK (2008) The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law26(1): 85–97.
22.
HarrerMCuijpersPFurukawaTEbertDD (2021) Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. Boca Raton, FL; London: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
23.
HookCJFarahMJ (2013) Look again: Effects of brain images and mind–brain dualism on lay evaluations of research. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience25(9): 1397–1405.
24.
HopkinsEJWeisbergDSTaylorJCV (2016) The seductive allure is a reductive allure: People prefer scientific explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive information. Cognition155: 67–76.
25.
HopkinsEJWeisbergDSTaylorJCV (2019) Does expertise moderate the seductive allure of reductive explanations?Acta Psychologica198: 102890.
26.
IkedaKKitagamiSTakahashiTHattoriYItoY (2013) Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: The effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review20(6): 1357–1363.
27.
ImSVarmaKVarmaS (2017) Extending the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations effect to popular articles about educational topics. British Journal of Educational Psychology87(4): 518–534.
28.
IngalhalikarMSmithAParkerDSatterthwaiteTDElliottMARuparel, et al. (2014) Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(2): 823–828.
29.
LaDukeCLocklairBHeilbrunK (2018) Neuroscientific, neuropsychological, and psychological evidence comparably impact legal decision making: Implications for experts and legal practitioners. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice18(2): 114–142.
30.
MarshallJLilienfeldSOMaybergHClarkSE (2017) The role of neurological and psychological explanations in legal judgments of psychopathic wrongdoers. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology28(3): 412–436.
31.
McCabeDPCastelAD (2008) Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition107(1): 343–352.
32.
McCabeDPCastelADRhodesMG (2011) The influence of FMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law29(4): 566–577.
33.
MichaelRBNewmanEJVuorreMCummingGGarryM (2013) On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review20(4): 720–725.
34.
MinahanJSiedleckiKL (2016) Individual differences in need for cognition influence the evaluation of circular scientific explanations. Personality and Individual Differences99: 113–117.
35.
MowleENEdensJFClarkJWSörmanK (2016) Effects of mental health and neuroscience evidence on juror perceptions of a criminal defendant: The moderating role of political orientation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law34(6): 726–741.
36.
MunroGDMunroCA (2014) “Soft” versus “hard” psychological science: Biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly held political identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology36(6): 533–543.
37.
O’ConnorCJoffeH (2013a) How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of personhood? A review of the evidence. Public Understanding of Science22(3): 254–268.
38.
O’ConnorCJoffeH (2013b) Media representations of early human development: Protecting, feeding and loving the developing brain. Social Science & Medicine97: 297–306.
39.
O’ConnorCJoffeH (2014) Gender on the brain: A case study of science communication in the new media environment. PLoS ONE9(10): e110830.
40.
O’ConnorCJoffeH (2015) How the public engages with brain optimization: The media-mind relationship. Science Technology & Human Values40(5): 712–743.
41.
O’ConnorCJoffeH (2016) Making brain waves in society. The Psychologist29(5): 358–361.
42.
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science349(6251): aac4716.
43.
PerriconeABaskin-SommersAAhnW (2022) The effect of neuroscientific evidence on sentencing depends on how one conceives of reasons for incarceration. PLoS ONE17(11): e0276237.
44.
PhalenHJSalernoJMSchweitzerNJ (2021) Can neuroimaging prove pain and suffering? The influence of pain assessment techniques on legal judgments of physical versus emotional pain. Law and Human Behavior45(5): 393–412.
45.
RacineEBar-IlanOIllesJ (2005) FMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience6(2): 159–164.
46.
RacineESattlerSEscandeA (2017) Free will and the brain disease model of addiction: The not so seductive allure of neuroscience and its modest impact on the attribution of free will to people with an addiction. Frontiers in Psychology8: 1850.
47.
RacineEWaldmanSRosenbergJIllesJ (2010) Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Medicine71(4): 725–733.
48.
RhodesRERodriguezFShahP (2014) Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition40(5): 1432–1440.
49.
SaksMJSchweitzerNJAharoniEKiehlKA (2014) The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies11(1): 105–131.
50.
SalernoJMBottomsBL (2009) Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law27(2): 273–296.
51.
SandoboeGBerentI (2021) The seductive allure of the brain: Dualism and lay perceptions of neuroscience. Cognitive Neuropsychology38(3): 205–230.
52.
SapolskyZG (2017) Neuroscience information’s effect on causal explanations of psychological disorders and treatment recommendations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering77((7-B)(E)): 1–175.
53.
SchweitzerNJSaksMJ (2011) Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law29(4): 592–607.
54.
SchweitzerNJBakerDARiskoEF (2013) Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages. Cognition129(3): 501–511.
55.
SchweitzerNJSaksMJMurphyERRoskiesALSinnott-ArmstrongWGaudetLM (2011) Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law17(3): 357–393.
56.
ScurichNShnidermanA (2014) The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations. PLoS ONE9(9): e107529.
57.
SuurmondRVan RheeHHakT (2017) Introduction, comparison, and validation of meta-essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods8(4): 537–553.
58.
Van ElkM (2019) Socio-cognitive biases are associated to belief in neuromyths and cognitive enhancement: A pre-registered study. Personality and Individual Differences147: 28–32.
59.
WeisbergDS (2008) Caveat lector: The presentation of neuroscience information in the popular media. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice6(1): 51–56.
60.
WeisbergDSHopkinsEJTaylorJCV (2018) People’s explanatory preferences for scientific phenomena. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications3(1): 44.
61.
WeisbergDSKeilFCGoodsteinJRawsonEGrayJR (2008) The Seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience20(3): 470–477.
62.
WeisbergDSTaylorJCVHopkinsEJ (2015) Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgment and Decision Making10(5): 429–441.
63.
WestMLLawsonVZGrose-FiferJ (2014) The effect of electrophysiological neuroscientific deception detection evidence on juror judgments in a criminal trial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology36(2): 133–144.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
