The idea of fMRI’s “seductive allure” is supported by two widely cited studies. Upon closer analysis of these studies, and in light of more recent research, we find little empirical support for the claim that brain images are inordinately influential.
BrammerM. (2003). Statistical analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data: Current state and recent developments. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 12, 373–374. doi:10.1191/0962280203sm344ed
3.
CheckE. (2005). Ethicists urge caution over emotive power of brain scans. Nature, 435, 254–255. doi:10.1038/435254a
4.
CrawfordM. B. (2008). The limits of neuro-talk. The New Atlantis, 19, 65–78.
5.
FodorJ. (1999, September30). Diary: Why the brain?London Review of Books, 21, 68–69.
6.
GerardE.PetersonB. S. (2003). Developmental processes and brain imaging studies in Tourette’s syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55, 13–22. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999 (02)00581-0
7.
GordonE. (2001). Integrative psychophysiology. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 95–108. doi:10.1016/S0167- 8760(01)00160-X
8.
GruberD.DickersonJ. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662512454072
9.
HookC. J.FarahM. J. (2012). Look again: Effects of neuroimages and mind-brain dualism on lay evaluations of research. Manuscript submitted for publication.
10.
IllesJ.De VriesR.ChoM. K.Schraedley-DesmondP. (2006). ELSI priorities for brain imaging. American Journal of Bioethics, 6, W24–W31. doi:10.1080/15265160500506274
11.
KeehnerM.MayberryL.FischerM. (2011). Different clues from different views: The role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 422–428. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7
12.
MarksJ. H. (2010). A neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national security. AJOB Neuroscience, 1, 4–12. doi:10.1080/ 21507741003699256
13.
McCabeD. P.CastelA. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343–352. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017
14.
MerckelbachH.DevillyG. J.RassinE. (2002). Alters in dissociative identity disorder: Metaphors or genuine entities?Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 481–497. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00115-5
15.
MichaelR. B.NewmanE. J.VuorreM.CummingG.GarryM. (2012). On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Manuscript submitted for publication.
16.
MillerG. A. (2010). Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 716–743.
RatcliffR. (1998). The role of mathematical psychology in experimental psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50, 129–130.
20.
RoskiesA. L. (2010). Neuroimaging and inferential distance: The perils of pictures. In HansonS. J.BunzlM. (Eds.), Foundational issues in human brain mapping (pp. 195–215). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
SarterM.BerntsonG. G.CacioppoJ. T. (1996). Brain imaging and cognitive neuroscience: Toward strong inference in attributing function to structure. American Psychologist, 51, 13–21. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.1.13
22.
UttalW. R. (2011). Mind and brain: A critical appraisal of cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
WeisbergD. S. (2008). Caveat lector: The presentation of neuroscience information in the popular media. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 6, 51–56.
24.
WeisbergD. S.KeilF. C.GoodsteinJ.RawsonE.GrayJ. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20040
