Brain Images Make Inaccurate Science News Trustworthy
Research published in the April issue of the journal Cognition shows that the colorful brain images created by functional magnetic resonance imaging can give a perceived credibility to an otherwise flawed science news story.
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Mind
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (or fMRI)—the tool that creates a Technicolor map of our brains showing areas that are "lit up" where we experience anger, empathy or even morality—is either thought of as one of the greatest scientific advancements or nothing more than a high-tech phrenology—the theory that personality can be revealed by the positions of bumps in the skull.
Debates aside, the colorful brain images are a media fetish—and they have an impact on how we view news.
A study in the journal Cognition this month shows that the public views news stories as more scientifically sound when accompanied by a flashy brain image.
Researchers presented 156 subjects with news stories based on flawed science. Subjects rated the stories as more credible when accompanied by a colorful brain image as opposed to a bar graph, a colorful topographic map or no graphic at all.
The results remind us of a study done at Yale, where researchers found that gratuitous neuroscience jargon led nonexperts to believe that a story was more credible than the same story without the jargon.
So take note: When reading the news, may we never lose our skepticism.
60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
