The seductive allure of technical language and its effect on covid-19 vaccine beliefs and intentions

Previous research has demonstrated a ‘seductive allure’ of technical or reductive language such that bad (e.g., circular) explanations are judged better when irrelevant technical terms are included. We aimed to explore if such an effect was observable in relation to a covid-19 vaccinations and if this subsequently affected behavioural intentions to take up a covid-19 vaccine. Using a between subjects design we presented participants (N = 996) with one of four possible types of vignette that explained how covid-19 vaccination and herd immunity works. The explanations varied along two factors: (1) Quality, explanations were either good or bad (i.e., tautological); (2) Language, explanations either contained unnecessary technical language or did not. We measured participants’ evaluation of the explanations and intentions to vaccinate. We demonstrate a ‘seductive allure’ effect of technical language on bad vaccine explanations. However, an opposite ‘repellent disdain’ effect occurred for good explanations which were rated worse when they contained technical language. Moreover, we show that evaluations of explanations influence intentions to vaccinate. We suggest that misinformation that includes technical language could be more detrimental to vaccination rates. Importantly, however, clear explanatory public health information that omits technical language will be more effective in increasing intentions to vaccinate.

Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review

The use of neuroscience in the courtroom can be traced back to the early twentieth century. However, the use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal proceedings has increased significantly over the last two decades. This rapid increase has raised questions, among the media as well as the legal and scientific communities, regarding the effects that such evidence could have on legal decision makers. In this article, we first outline the history of neuroscientific evidence in courtrooms and then we provide a review of recent research investigating the effects of neuroscientific evidence on decision-making broadly, and on legal decisions specifically. In the latter case, we review studies that measure the effect of neuroscientific evidence (both imaging and nonimaging) on verdicts, sentencing recommendations, and beliefs of mock jurors and judges presented with a criminal case. Overall, the reviewed studies suggest mitigating effects of neuroscientific evidence on some legal decisions (e.g., the death penalty). Furthermore, factors such as mental disorder diagnoses and perceived dangerousness might moderate the mitigating effect of such evidence. Importantly, neuroscientific evidence that includes images of the brain does not appear to have an especially persuasive effect (compared with other neuroscientific evidence that does not include an image). Future directions for research are discussed, with a specific call for studies that vary defendant characteristics, the nature of the crime, and a juror’s perception of the defendant, in order to better understand the roles of moderating factors and cognitive mediators of persuasion.

Does expertise moderate the seductive allure of reductive explanations?

Non-experts are unduly attracted to explanations of scientific phenomena that contain irrelevant reductive language (e.g., explanations of biological phenomena that mention chemistry; Hopkins, Weisberg, & Taylor, 2016). To determine if expertise would reduce this reasoning error, the current study recruited individuals with graduate-level training in six scientific fields and in philosophy (N = 580) and asked them to judge explanations for phenomena from those fields. Like the novices in Hopkins et al. (2016), scientists' ratings of bad explanations were influenced by reductive information when viewing phenomena from outside their field of expertise, but they were less likely to show this bias when reasoning about their own field. Higher levels of educational attainment did improve detection of bad explanations. These results indicate that advanced training in science or logic can lead to more accurate reasoning about explanations, but does not mitigate the reductive allure effect.

The potential of neuroscience for health sciences education: towards convergence of evidence and resisting seductive allure

Since emergence of the field 'Educational Neuroscience' (EN) in the late nineties of the previous century, a debate has emerged about the potential this field holds to influence teaching and learning in the classroom. By now, most agree that the original claims promising direct translations to teaching and learning were too strong. I argue here that research questions in (health professions) education require multi-methodological approaches, including neuroscience, while carefully weighing what (combination of) approaches are most suitable given a research question. Only through a multi-methodological approach will convergence of evidence emerge, which is so desperately needed for improving teaching and learning in the classroom. However, both researchers and teachers should become aware of the so-called 'seductive allure' of EN; that is, the demonstrable physical location and apparent objectivity of the measurements can be interpreted as yielding more powerful evidence and warranting stronger conclusions than, e.g., behavioral experiments, where in fact oftentimes the reverse is the case. I conclude that our tendency as researchers to commit ourselves to one methodological approach and to addressing educational research questions from a single methodological perspective is limiting progress in educational science and in translation to education.