Please wait a minute...
心理科学进展  2019, Vol. 27 Issue (12): 1988-1995    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01988
  研究方法 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
神经科学偏见效应:可重复性及其心理机制的探索
殷继兴1, 胡传鹏2,3
1 西北师范大学心理学院, 兰州 730070
2 Deutsches Resilienz Zentrum, 55131 Mainz, Germany
3 Neuroimaging Center, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, 55131 Mainz, Germany
Neuroscience bias: Reproducibility and exploration of psychological mechanisms
YIN Jixing1, HU Chuanpeng2,3
1 School of psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, 730070, China
2 Deutsches Resilienz Zentrum, 55131 Mainz, Germany
3 Neuroimaging Center, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, 55131 Mainz, Germany
全文: PDF(474 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 神经科学的发展对其他学科以及社会产生了重要的影响。虽然神经科学方法与行为研究方法都是探索人类心理与行为的有效手段并各有所长, 但神经科学的研究结果却可能引起人们过度的解读和信任。研究者发现, 当某一结论使用神经科学结果作为证据时, 比使用行为科学结果或者心理生理学指标作为证据时更加让人信服, 即使神经科学结果与该结论之间毫无关系, 这种现象被称为神经科学偏见(neuroscience bias)。通过系统回顾近年来关于神经科学偏见的研究, 我们发现:(1)虽然神经科学偏见存在可重复性的争论, 但该效应确实存在; (2)神经科学偏见的产生可能是因为个体倾向于还原论的解释(即使用低层次、简单的机制来解释更高层次上的现象)及心理本质主义的影响(即人们认为心理与行为的本质是神经活动)。神经科学偏见反映了公众对科学结果解读的偏见, 未来研究需要探讨这种偏见的心理机制, 从而引导科学结果的正确解读和运用。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
殷继兴
胡传鹏
关键词 神经科学偏见神经法学心理机制可重复性    
Abstract:Behavioral and neuroscientific methods have uniquely contributed to our understanding of human mind and behavior. The advance in neuroscience and its potential implications (e.g., in legal systems) have attracted attention from both academia and society. However, researchers found that, when providing statements supported by either neuroscientific or behavioral/psychophysiological results, even if these neuroscientific results were logically irrelevant to the statements, participants still considered statements with neuroscientific results as more trustworthy. This phenomenon was termed as neuroscience bias. By systematically reviewing empirical studies on neuroscience bias, we revealed that: (1) the reproducibility of neuroscience bias was debated, but the effect exists; (2) neuroscience bias could be attributed to people’s preference for the reductionism and psychological essentialism. Neuroscience bias is one of many biases people may have when interpreting scientific results; future studies should further explore the psychological mechanisms of these biases and thereby provide guidelines for correctly interpreting and using scientific results.
Key wordsneuroscience bias    neurolaw    psychological mechanisms    reproducibility
收稿日期: 2019-01-31      出版日期: 2019-10-21
ZTFLH:  B841  
通讯作者: 胡传鹏, E-mail: hcp4715@hotmail.com   
引用本文:   
殷继兴, 胡传鹏. (2019). 神经科学偏见效应:可重复性及其心理机制的探索. 心理科学进展, 27(12), 1988-1995.
YIN Jixing, HU Chuanpeng. (2019). Neuroscience bias: Reproducibility and exploration of psychological mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(12), 1988-1995.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01988      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/Y2019/V27/I12/1988
1 胡传鹏, 邓晓红, 周治金, 邓小刚. (2011). 神经法学: 年轻的认知神经科学与古老的法学联姻.科学通报, 56(36), 3041-3053.
2 胡传鹏, 王非, 过继成思, 宋梦迪, 隋洁, 彭凯平. (2016). 心理学研究中的可重复性问题:从危机到契机.心理科学进展, 24(9), 1504-1518
3 刘媛媛, 丁一, 彭凯平, 胡传鹏. (2019). 多项式加工树模型在社会心理学中的应用.心理科学, 42(2), 422-429.
4 Alimardani, A., & Chin, J. M. (2019). Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12152-018-09395-z.
5 Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different.Science, 177(4047), 393-396.
6 Appelbaum P. S., Scurich N., & Raad R. (2015). Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 134-144.
7 Aronson, J. D. (2010). The law's use of brain evidence.Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 93-108.
8 Baker D. A., Schweitzer N., Risko E. F., & Ware J. M. (2013). Visual attention and the neuroimage bias.PLOS one, 8(9), e74449.
9 Blakey, R. (2017). Does watching a play about the teenage brain affect attitudes toward young offenders?Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 964.
10 Chin, J. M. (2014). Psychological science's replicability crisis and what it means for science in the courtroom.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(3), 225-238.
11 Chin J., Growns B., & Mellor D. T. (2019. Improving expert evidence: The role of open science and transparency. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from 2019). Improving expert evidence: The role of open science and transparency. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3345225
12 Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA.Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 800-818.
13 Diekmann J., König C. J., & Alles J. (2015). The role of neuroscience information in choosing a personality test: Not as seductive as expected.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(2), 99-108.
14 Fernandez-Duque D., Evans J., Christian C., & Hodges S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(5), 926-944.
15 Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society.
16 Greene, E., & Cahill, B. S. (2012). Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(3), 280-296.
17 Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility.Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 938-948.
18 Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(1), 85-97.
19 Hardiman M., Rinne L., Gregory E., & Yarmolinskaya J. (2012). Neuroethics, neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: Where the brain sciences meet pedagogy.Neuroethics, 5(2), 135-143.
20 Hook, C. J., & Farah, M. J. (2013). Look again: Effects of brain images and mind-brain dualism on lay evaluations of research.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(9), 1397-1405.
21 Hopkins E. J., Weisberg D. S., & Taylor J. C. (2016). The seductive allure is a reductive allure: People prefer scientific explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive information.Cognition, 155, 67-76.
22 Horikawa T., Tamaki M., Miyawaki Y., & Kamitani Y. (2013). Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep. Science, 340(6132), 639-642.
23 Hu C.-P., Jiang X., Jeffrey R., & Zuo X.-N. (2018). Open Science as a Better Gatekeeper for Science and Society: A Perspective from Neurolaw.Science Bulletin, 63(23), 1529-1531.
24 Hütter, M., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). Applying processing trees in social psychology.European Review of Social Psychology, 27(1), 116-159.
25 Ikeda K., Kitagami S., Takahashi T., Hattori Y., & Ito Y. (2013). Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: The effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1357-1363.
26 Im S.-h., Cho J.-Y., Dubinsky J. M., & Varma S. (2018). Taking an educational psychology course improves neuroscience literacy but does not reduce belief in neuromyths.PLOS one, 13(2), e0192163.Im, S. h., Varma, K., & Varma, S.(5), 513-541
27 Janda L. H., England K., Lovejoy D., & Drury K. (1998). Attitudes toward psychology relative to other disciplines.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(2), 140-143.
28 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
29 Keehner M., Mayberry L., & Fischer M. H. (2011). Different clues from different views: The role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 422-428.
30 Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686-702.
31 Kim, N. S., & Keil, F. C. (2003). From symptoms to causes: Diversity effects in diagnostic reasoning.Memory & Cognition, 31(1), 155-165.
32 Krakauer J. W., Ghazanfar A. A., Gomez-Marin A., MacIver M. A., & Poeppel D., (2017). Neuroscience needs behavior: Correcting a reductionist bias.Neuron, 93(3), 480-490.
33 Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific.American Psychologist, 67(2), 111-129.
34 Lowenberg, K. (2010. fMRI lie detection fails its first hearing on reliability. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from 2010). fMRI lie detection fails its first hearing on reliability. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/06/01/fmri-lie-detection-fails-its-first-hearing-on-reliability/
35 Marshall J., Lilienfeld S. O., Mayberg H., & Clark S. E. (2017). The role of neurological and psychological explanations in legal judgments of psychopathic wrongdoers.The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(3), 412-436.
36 McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.Cognition, 107(1), 343-352.
37 McCabe D. P., Castel A. D., & Rhodes M. G. (2011). The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror Decision- Making.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4), 566-577.
38 Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure.American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469-1481.
39 Michael R. B., Newman E. J., Vuorre M., Cumming G., & Garry M. (2013). On the (non) persuasive power of a brain image.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 720-725.
40 Minahan, J., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2016). Individual differences in Need for Cognition influence the evaluation of circular scientific explanations.Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 113-117.
41 Miton, H., & Mercier, H. (2016). Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 633-636.
42 Monterosso J., Royzman E. B., & Schwartz B. (2005). Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability.Ethics & Behavior, 15(2), 139-158.
43 Munro, G. D., & Munro, C. A. (2014). “Soft” Versus “Hard” Psychological Science: Biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly held political identity.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 533-543.
44 Perrachione, T. K., & Perrachione, J. R. (2008). Brains and brands: Developing mutually informative research in neuroscience and marketing.Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4-5), 303-318.
45 Plunkett D., Lombrozo T., & Buchak L. (2014). Because the brain agrees: The impact of neuroscientific explanations for belief.Cognitive Science, 36(36), 1180-1185.
46 Redmond, E. C., & Griffith, C. J. (2004). Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control and responsibility.Appetite, 43(3), 309-313.
47 Rhodes R. E., Rodriguez F., & Shah P. (2014). Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1432-1440.
48 Roets, A., & van, H. A. (2011). The role of need for closure in essentialist entitativity beliefs and prejudice: An epistemic needs approach to racial categorization.British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 52-73.
49 Saks M. J., Schweitzer N., Aharoni E., & Kiehl K. A. (2014). The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials.Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(1), 105-131.
50 Sapolsky, Z. G. (2015). Neuroscience information's effect on causal explanations of psychological disorders and treatment recommendations (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Long Island University, New York, U.S.
51 Schauer, F. (2010). Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law: Contrary to the prevailing view, the suitability of brain- based lie-detection for courtroom or forensic use should be determined according to legal and not scientific standards.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 101-103.
52 Schweitzer N., Baker D. A., & Risko E. F. (2013). Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages.Cognition, 129(3), 501-511.
53 Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4), 592-607.
54 Schweitzer N. J., Saks M. J., Murphy E. R., Roskies A. L., Sinnott-Armstrong W., & Gaudet L. M. (2011). Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(3), 357-393.
55 Scurich, N., & Shniderman, A. (2014). The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations.PLOS one, 9(9), e107529.
56 Shariff A. F., Greene J. D., Karremans J. C., Luguri J. B., Clark C. J., Schooler J. W., .. Vohs K. D. (2014). Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution.Psychological Science, 25(8), 1563-1570.
57 Spranger, T. M. (Ed.) (2011). International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
58 Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature.Plos Biology, 15(3), e2000797.
59 Turnwald B. P., Goyer J. P., Boles D. Z., Silder A., Delp S. L., & Crum A. J. (2018). Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk.Nature Human Behaviour. 3, 48-56.
60 Webster, M. (1973). Psychological reductionism, methodological individualism, and large-scale problems.American Sociological Review, 38(2), 258-273.
61 Weisberg D. S., Keil F. C., Goodstein J., Rawson E., & Gray J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477.
62 Weisberg D. S., Taylor J. C., & Hopkins E. J. (2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations.Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 429-441.West, M. L., Lawson, V. Z., & Grose-Fifer, J.(2), 133-144.
63 Yzerbyt V., Rocher S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20-50). Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
[1] 衡书鹏,赵换方,孙丽君,周宗奎. 虚拟销售代理的拟人效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(5): 884-904.
[2] 刘传军,廖江群. 具身效应何处寻:解决可重复性危机的分析性途径[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(12): 2260-2271.
[3] 赵娜, 马敏, 辛自强.  生命意义感获取的心理机制及其影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(6): 1003-1011.
[4] 王财玉;雷雳. 网络购物情境下的羊群效应:内涵、影响因素与机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(2): 298-311.
[5] 余小霞;苑媛;辛自强. 文字与数字量尺的差异及心理机制:兼论量尺制作的方法学问题[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(2): 201-210.
[6] 胡传鹏;王非;过继成思;宋梦迪; 隋洁;彭凯平. 心理学研究中的可重复性问题:从危机到契机[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(9): 1504-1518.
[7] 张琪;尹天子;冉光明. 动态面孔表情优势效应的心理机制及神经基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(9): 1514-1522.
[8] 刘程浩;徐富明;王伟;李燕;史燕伟. 概率判断中的合取谬误[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(6): 967-978.
[9] 秦秋霞;于海涛; 乔亲才. 全球化时代跨界民族国家认同的心理机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(5): 745-754.
[10] 李爱梅;高结怡;彭元;夏萤;陈晓曦. 积极情感和消极情感适应的不对称性及其机制探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(4): 632-642.
[11] 李英武;于宙;韩笑;刘婷安胥. 一般心理能力(GMA)预测绩效:现状、机制及趋势[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(3): 448-459.
[12] 段锦云;张倩. 建言行为的认知影响因素、理论基础及发生机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(1): 115-126.
[13] 汪芬;黄宇霞. 正念的心理和脑机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19(11): 1635-1644.
[14] 黎建斌;聂衍刚. 核心自我评价研究的反思与展望[J]. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18(12): 1848-1857.
[15] 陈瑞君;秦启文. 乐观偏差研究概况[J]. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18(11): 1822-1827.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn