The results of an experiment of preferential biases for texts that include neuroscientific jargon are presented. Such preferential bias has been reported even when the presented jargon is meaningless. In a variation of the well-known Weisberg et al. experiment, a group of undergraduate students (N1⁄4150; females 48%, males 52%, other 0%; M age 1⁄4 22.4 year, SD 1⁄4 2.6) chose between two possible explanations for a psycho- logical phenomenon: a correct explanation or a circular restatement of facts. Unrelated neuroscientific terms were added to one of the explanations. Participants were asked to choose the correct explanation. There was a statistically significant preference for the explanation without neuroscientific terms. These findings differ from Weisberg et al.’s experiment and a number of others. The implications of this discrepancy are discussed.
|Numero di pagine||11|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2016|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes