Preferential Biases for Texts That Include Neuroscientific Jargon

Abstract

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 (N = 150; females 48%, males 52%, other 0%; M age = 22.4 year, SD = 2.6) chose between two possible explanations for a psychological 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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.