April 7, 2008

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

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American