Main content

Home

Menu

Loading wiki pages...

View
Wiki Version:
**Study description** Previous work has found that people feel significantly more satisfied with explanations of psychological phenomena when those explanations contain neuroscience information — even when this information is entirely irrelevant to the logic of the explanations. This *seductive allure effect* was first demonstrated by Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray (2008), and has since been replicated several times in independent labs (e.g., Fernandez-Duque, Evans, Christian, and Hodges, 2014; Rhodes, Rodriguez, and Shah, 2014). [Hopkins et al. (2016)][1] found that this effect is actually due to a more general preference for explanations that contain information from a more reductive field of science (e.g., an explanation for a biological phenomenon that references chemistry). The current study investigates the impact of expert training in science or logic on this reductive allure effect. ---------- **Procedure** A detailed outline is available in the "Study design" document in the Files section. Participants will rate the quality of 12 explanations for scientific phenomena (2 each from physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and social science), half of which are good explanations and half which are bad (non-explanatory). Participants will either read explanations that are drawn from the same discipline as the phenomenon or explanations that reference a more fundamental discipline. Two items (one that the participant rated positively and one that the participant rated negatively) will be re-presented and participants will be asked to justify their responses to these items. They will then complete a modified Cognitive Reflection Test, a set of logical syllogisms, the NSF science literacy scale, and an attitudes towards science questionnaire, in random order. Finally, they will provide demographic information about themselves. Participants had or were working on advanced degrees in physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, or philosophy. [1]: https://osf.io/3y7v9/
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
Accept
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.
Accept
×

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.