Look Again: Effects of Brain Images and Mind-Brain Dualism on Lay Evaluations of Research

Brain scans have frequently been credited with uniquely seductive and persuasive qualities, leading to claims that fMRI research receives a disproportionate share of public attention and funding. It has been suggested that functional brain images are fascinating because they contradict dualist beliefs regarding the relationship between the body and the mind. Although previous research has indicated that brain images can increase judgments of an articleʼs scientific reasoning, the hypotheses that brain scans make research appear more interesting, surprising, or worthy of funding have not been tested. Neither has the relation between the allure of brain imaging and dualism. In the following three studies, laypersons rated both fictional research descriptions and real science news articles accompanied by brain scans, bar charts, or photographs. Across 988 participants, we found little evidence of neuroimagingʼs seductive allure or of its relation to self-professed dualistic beliefs. These results, taken together with other recent null findings, suggest that brain images are less powerful than has been argued

The Seductive Allure of Seductive Allure

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

Neuroscience for Educators: What Are They Seeking, and What Are They Finding?

What can neuroscience offer to educators? Much of the debate has focused on whether basic research on the brain can translate into direct applications within the classroom. Accompanying ethical concern has centered on whether neuroeducation has made empty promises to educators. Relatively little investigation has been made into educators’ expectations regarding neuroscience research and how they might find it professionally useful. In order to address this question, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 educators who were repeat attendees of the Learning & the Brain conferences. Responses suggest that ‘brain based’ pedagogical strategies are not all that is sought; indeed, respondents were more often drawn to the conference out of curiosity about the brain than a desire to gain new teaching methods. Of those who reported that research had influenced their classroom practice, most did not distinguish between neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Responses indicated that learning about neuroscience can help educators maintain patience, optimism and professionalism with their students, increase their credibility with colleagues and parents, and renew their sense of professional purpose. While not necessarily representative of the entire population, these themes indicate that current research in neuroscience can have real relevance to educators’ work. Future ethical discussions of neuroeducation should take into account this broader range of motivations and benefits

Trust and the Poverty Trap

Myopia for the future, especially in relation to economic decisions, has long been associated with low socioeconomic status (SES). Indeed, the use of the word “myopic” to describe the poor in this context dates back over a hundred years in economics [1]. Although we all tend to discount future rewards to some degree, for example preferring $100 today to a slightly larger sum in the future, higher levels of discounting are associated with lower levels of SES. As Jachimowics and colleagues [2] point out, the reasons for temporal discounting and its association with SES continue to be debated among psychologists, sociologists and economists. The authors advance our understanding of this association by demonstrating the influence of community trust on the discounting-SES relation. Their discovery, that low SES predisposes to high discounting mainly in circumstances of low community trust, illuminates the causes of steeper discounting among the poor, and importantly, highlights a potentially modifiable causal factor

Prescription Stimulants\u27 Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-Analysis

The use of prescription stimulants to enhance healthy cognition has significant social, ethical, and public health implications. The large number of enhancement users across various ages and occupations emphasizes the importance of examining these drugs\u27 efficacy in a nonclinical sample. The present meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the magnitude of the effects of methylphenidate and amphetamine on cognitive functions central to academic and occupational functioning, including inhibitory control, working memory, short-term episodic memory, and delayed episodic memory. In addition, we examined the evidence for publication bias. Forty-eight studies (total of 1,409 participants) were included in the analyses. We found evidence for small but significant stimulant enhancement effects on inhibitory control and short-term episodic memory. Small effects on working memory reached significance, based on one of our two analytical approaches. Effects on delayed episodic memory were medium in size. However, because the effects on long-term and working memory were qualified by evidence for publication bias, we conclude that the effect of amphetamine and methylphenidate on the examined facets of healthy cognition is probably modest overall. In some situations, a small advantage may be valuable, although it is also possible that healthy users resort to stimulants to enhance their energy and motivation more than their cognition

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Executive Function Performance Among Children

The relation between childhood socioeconomic status (SES) and executive function (EF) has recently attracted attention within psychology, following reports of substantial SES disparities in children’s EF. Adding to the importance of this relation, EF has been proposed as a mediator of socioeconomic disparities in lifelong achievement and health. However, evidence about the relationship between childhood SES and EF is mixed, and there has been no systematic attempt to evaluate this relationship across studies. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the literature for studies in which samples of children varying in SES were evaluated on EF, including studies with and without primary hypotheses about SES. The analysis included 8,760 children between the ages of 2 and 18 gathered from 25 independent samples. Analyses showed a small but statistically significant correlation between SES and EF across all studies (r random = .16, 95% CI [.12, .21]) without correcting for attenuation due to range restriction or measurement unreliability. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies, and a number of factors, including the amount of SES variability in the sample and the number of EF measures used, emerged as moderators. Using only the 15 studies with meaningful SES variability in the sample, the average correlation between SES and EF was small-to-medium in size (r random = .22, 95% CI [.17, .27]). Using only the 6 studies with multiple measures of EF, the relationship was medium in size (r random = .28, 95% CI [.18-.37]). In sum, this meta-analysis supports the presence of SES disparities in EF and suggests that they are between small and medium in size, depending on the methods used to measure them