Neuroscience Explanations Really Do Satisfy (NERDS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience

The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations (SANE) is controversial. Irrelevant neuroscience information in the form of text or imagery has been found to improve ratings of quality of, and agreement with, scientific explanations, and to possibly affect jury decisions in court. On the other hand, several studies have yielded little to no effect. To establish the magnitude of this effect, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis on all studies that compared neuroscience to non-neuroscience information for impact on ratings or judgment, including mock juror decisions. This analysis used 60 experiments from 28 publications comprising 13,088 participants, and yielded a mild but highly significant effect of neuroscience information (Hedges’ g = .25, CI = [0.18, 0.31]). There was evidence of publication bias and heterogeneity (PI = [-0.22, 0.72], I2 = 87.2%). After removing outliers, we conducted planned subgroup analyses, which revealed that within-subjects studies, in which participants compare neuroscience to non-neuroscience, have significantly stronger effects than between-subjects designs, and studies using text yield a stronger average effect than those using brain images. We also serendipitously found that effect sizes were stronger in studies where participants evaluate satisfaction or metacomprehension, compared with jury verdicts or assessments of convincingness. Overall, the heterogeneity indicates there is more than one type of SANE effect, having more to do with stimuli used and outcomes assessed, than with participant characteristics, such as dualistic beliefs. Irrelevant neuroscience does appear to have a seductive allure, especially on self-appraised satisfaction and understanding, and when presented as text.