Neuroscience bias: Reproducibility and exploration of psychological mechanisms

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01988

Abstract

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 words: neuroscience bias, neurolaw, psychological mechanisms, reproducibility

CLC Number:

B841

YIN Jixing, HU Chuanpeng. Neuroscience bias: Reproducibility and exploration of psychological mechanisms[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(12): 1988-1995.

Figures/Tables 1

References 66

[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 .
[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
[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 .
[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.
[27]	Im, S. h., Varma, K., & Varma, S . ( 2017). Extending the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations effect to popular articles about educational topics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87( 4), 518-534.
[28]	Jacoby, L. L . ( 1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30( 5), 513-541
[29]	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.
[30]	Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[31]	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.
[32]	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.
[33]	Kim, N. S., & Keil, F. C . ( 2003). From symptoms to causes: Diversity effects in diagnostic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 31( 1), 155-165.
[34]	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.
[35]	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.
[36]	Lowenberg, K. (2010. fMRI lie detection fails its first hearing on reliability. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from
[37]	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.
[38]	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.
[39]	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.
[40]	Medin, D.L . ( 1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44( 12), 1469-1481.
[41]	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.
[42]	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.
[43]	Miton, H., & Mercier, H., (2016). Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19( 11), 633-636.
[44]	Monterosso, J., Royzman, E. B., & Schwartz, B . ( 2005). Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics & Behavior, 15( 2), 139-158.
[45]	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.
[46]	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.
[47]	Plunkett, D., Lombrozo, T., & Buchak, L . ( 2014). Because the brain agrees: The impact of neuroscientific explanations for belief. Cognitive Science, 36(36), 1180-1185.
[48]	Redmond, E. C., & Griffith, C. J . ( 2004). Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control and responsibility. Appetite, 43( 3), 309-313.
[49]	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.
[50]	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.
[51]	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.
[52]	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.
[53]	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.
[54]	Schweitzer, N., Baker, D. A., & Risko, E. F . ( 2013). Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages. Cognition, 129( 3), 501-511.
[55]	Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J . ( 2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29( 4), 592-607.
[56]	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.
[57]	Scurich, N., & Shniderman, A. (2014). The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations. PLOS one, 9( 9), e107529.
[58]	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.
[59]	Spranger, T. M . (Ed.) ( 2011). International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[60]	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.
[61]	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.
[62]	Webster, M. (1973). Psychological reductionism, methodological individualism, and large-scale problems. American Sociological Review, 38( 2), 258-273.
[63]	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.
[64]	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.
[65]	West, M. L., Lawson, V. Z., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2014). The effect of electrophysiological neuroscientific deception detection evidence on juror judgments in a criminal trial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36 (2), 133-144.
[66]	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.

原创性研究	支持与否	重复研究	支持与否
McCabe & Castel, 2008, Cognition	√	Rhodes et al., 2014, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn	√
Gurley & Marcus, 2008, Behav Sci Law	√	Fernandez-Duque et al., 2015, J Cogn Neurosci	√
Weisberg et al., 2008, J Cogn Neurosci	√	Weisberg et al., 2015, Judgm Decis Mak	√
McCabe et al., 2011, Behav Sci Law	√	Schweitzer & Saks, 2011, Behav Sci Law	×
Keehner et al., 2011, Psychon Bull Rev	√	Gruber & Dickerson, 2012, Public Underst Sci	×
Greene & Chill, 2012, Behav Sci Law	√	Michael et al., 2013, Psychon Bull Rev	×
Ikeda et al, 2013, Psychon Bull Rev	√	Schweitzer et al., 2013, Cognition	×
Munro & Munro, 2014, Basic Appl Soc Psych	√	West et al., 2014, Basic Appl Soc Psych	×
Scurich & Shniderman, 2014, PloS one	√	Appelbaum et al., 2015, Psychol Public Policy Law	×
Plunkett et al., 2014, Cogsci	√	Marshall et al, 2017, J Forens Psychiatry Psychol	×
Shariff & Greene et al, 2014, Psychol Sci	√	Im, Cho et al, 2018, PloS one	×
Sapolsky, 2015, Unpublished doctorial dissertation	√
Diekmann et al., 2015, Int J Sel Assess	√
Hopkins et al., 2016, Cognition	√
Minahan & Siedlecki, 2016, Pers Individ Dif	√
Im et al., 2017, Br J Educ Psychol	√
Macdonald et al., 2017, Front Psychol	√
Blakey, 2017, Front Psychol	√
Schweitzer et al, 2011, Psychol Public Policy Law	×
Baker et al, 2013, PLoS One	×
Hook & Farah, 2013, J Cogn Neurosci	×
Saks et al, 2014, J Empir Leg Stud	×

原创性研究	支持与否	重复研究	支持与否
McCabe & Castel, 2008, Cognition	√	Rhodes et al., 2014, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn	√
Gurley & Marcus, 2008, Behav Sci Law	√	Fernandez-Duque et al., 2015, J Cogn Neurosci	√
Weisberg et al., 2008, J Cogn Neurosci	√	Weisberg et al., 2015, Judgm Decis Mak	√
McCabe et al., 2011, Behav Sci Law	√	Schweitzer & Saks, 2011, Behav Sci Law	×
Keehner et al., 2011, Psychon Bull Rev	√	Gruber & Dickerson, 2012, Public Underst Sci	×
Greene & Chill, 2012, Behav Sci Law	√	Michael et al., 2013, Psychon Bull Rev	×
Ikeda et al, 2013, Psychon Bull Rev	√	Schweitzer et al., 2013, Cognition	×
Munro & Munro, 2014, Basic Appl Soc Psych	√	West et al., 2014, Basic Appl Soc Psych	×
Scurich & Shniderman, 2014, PloS one	√	Appelbaum et al., 2015, Psychol Public Policy Law	×
Plunkett et al., 2014, Cogsci	√	Marshall et al, 2017, J Forens Psychiatry Psychol	×
Shariff & Greene et al, 2014, Psychol Sci	√	Im, Cho et al, 2018, PloS one	×
Sapolsky, 2015, Unpublished doctorial dissertation	√
Diekmann et al., 2015, Int J Sel Assess	√
Hopkins et al., 2016, Cognition	√
Minahan & Siedlecki, 2016, Pers Individ Dif	√
Im et al., 2017, Br J Educ Psychol	√
Macdonald et al., 2017, Front Psychol	√
Blakey, 2017, Front Psychol	√
Schweitzer et al, 2011, Psychol Public Policy Law	×
Baker et al, 2013, PLoS One	×
Hook & Farah, 2013, J Cogn Neurosci	×
Saks et al, 2014, J Empir Leg Stud	×