Consider the article : Baker, D. A., Ware, J. M., Schweitzer, N. J., & Risko, E. F. (2015). Making sense of research on the neuroimage bias. Public Understanding of Science , 1-8.
What do the authors mean by “neuroimage bias?”
Neuroimaging bias are images that are used in the courtroom in order to support claims about the behaviour of an individual and it has an impact on the persons’ punishment, freedom and public safety. The image needs to be interpreted on the courtroom so that everyone will understand what it reveals of the persons’ mental state.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to the authors, why might there be a neuroimage bias? (That is, what are the origins of the bias?)
Neuroimages bias can be exploited so that it would benefit one party and harm the other. The images may be perceived as more indexical than merited. This happens if one party is not capable of interpreting the image due to lack of knowledge.
Consider the article: Ikeda, K., Kitagami, S., Takahashi, T., Hattori, Y., & Ito, Y. (2013). Neuroscientific information bias in meta comprehension: The effect of brain images on meta comprehension judgment of neuroscience research. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20 , 1357-1363.
What is their main research question?
The main research question is the investigation of how brain images affect metacomprehension judgements and actual comprehensions.
Based on previous research, is it always the case that images facilitate comprehension? (Cite specific evidence supporting your answer.)
Yes, images affect comprehension judgements. According to Baker, Ware and Schweitzer (2015), neuroimages presented to an individual as a snapshot has a lot of persuasive power to lay persons. The above finding also supports (MoreinZamir & Sahakin, 2010) who found out that neuroscientific information like the ones that are portrayed by brain images capture peoples’ interests. However, the lay persons should interpret the information as conveyed by the brain image.
In what ways did their Experiment 2 differ from their Experiment 1?
The only difference is that the second experiment was a comparison of reading text accompanying brain images and bar graphs accompanied by reading text whereas the first one involved brain images accompanied by reading text and reading text only.
What were the main results of both experiments?
The results of both the experiment showed that metacomprehension judgement by the participants who saw the brain images were higher than the ones who had viewed bar graphs and or saw the text only. Text accompanied by images was also more credible compared to the text that accompanied the bargraph. Therefore, the format of neuroscientific information affects the credibility of the information plus the metacomprehension judgement about the text.
Consider the article : 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 , 720-725.
What studies were the authors able to replicate and what studies were they unable to replicate? Briefly describe the studies that they attempted to replicate.
They were unable to replicate the studies done by (McCabe & Castel, 2008) and (Keehner, Mayberry, & Fischer, 2011). They attempted to replicate various studies in popular and scholarly press on brain research and neuroscientific evidences. One study that they were able to replicate was by Weisberg et al. (2008).
How do the authors explain the discrepancy in their replication efforts? (That is, why were they able to replicate one study but not the other?)
The authors explained that the discrepancy in their replication efforts were due to the language analogue for example some researchers varied the quality of their explanation while others did not, and also some researchers had a comparison of information that were not featured in neuroscience language and yet others were seen to add a brain image to an article that already had in it integrated with the language of neuroscience.
Having read these three papers, what question(s)/comments do you have? (Your response can be based on one or all of the studies.)
Having read these three papers, I think that the brain image metacomprehension by participants is determined by their level of knowledge on the topic
Misconceptions About Psychology
Consider the article: Hughes, S., Lyddy, F., Kaplan, R., Nichols, A. L., Miller, H., Saad, C. G., ... & Lynch, A. J. (2015). Highly prevalent but not always persistent undergraduate and graduate student’s misconceptions about Psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 42 , 34-42.
What variables moderate (i.e., affect) the likelihood of people rejecting psychology misconceptions?
The level of education, effortful and complex thinking
Questions/comments for authors?
I agree with the author that more research on the role that misconception has in the world since it is used as a guide in world biases especially so in the area of neuroscience.
Consider the article Taylor, A. K., & Kowalski, P. (2004). Naïve psychological science: The prevalence, strength, and sources of misconceptions. The Psychological Record, 54 , 15-25.
Describe the procedure of their study.
The researchers of the study accessed misconceptions which were considered to be not ambiguous and had been included and covered in the course content. They also were able to assess the belief and strength that each response had. They were also able to assess the sources that students got their information. They used conceptual change literature to direct their hypothesis.
Are the origins of most of the students’ misconceptions learned from the media? Support your response with specific evidence from the article.
Most of the misconceptions by the students was not learned through the media because Tylor and Kowalski argues that the comparison of confidence ratings in environments where that have been planned in relative to the source of information indicated that confidence were significantly lower when information was known to be from sources that belong to media. It shows that the participants were already in doubt as regarding the source of information and whether I could be trusted.
One of the conclusions by the authors is: “These data suggest that taking an introductory psychology class can meaningfully reduce the number of misconceptions.” However, I am making the argument that their data doesn’t provide definitive evidence to support their claim. Assume that I’m not simply being a jerk/meanie/mean-spirited, on what basis do you think I am making my claim?
When an individual has misconceptions in his mind, there is the distortion of information. In such cases it will result to enhancing the false belief (Otero, 1998; Vosniadou, 2001).
References
Baker, D. A., Ware, J. M., Schweitzer, N. J., & Risko, E. F. (2015). Making sense of research on the neuroimage bias. Public Understanding of Science , 0963662515604975.
Hughes, S., Lyddy, F., Kaplan, R., Nichols, A. L., Miller, H., Saad, C. G., ... & Lynch, A. J. (2015). Highly prevalent but not always persistent: Undergraduate and graduate student’s misconceptions about psychology. Teaching of Psychology , 42 (1), 34-42.
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.
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.
Morein-Zamir, S., & Sahakian, B. J. (2010). Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Science , 14, 49–51.
Taylor, A. K., & Kowalski, P. (2004). Naive psychological science: The prevalence, strength, and sources of misconceptions. The Psychological Record , 54 (1), 15.
