Neuro-scientific and Brain Research
into Communication

Develop your Competencies in Communicating with Stakeholders!

Introduction

Phrenology is a famous nineteenth-century pseudoscience that claimed you could judge a person’s mental abilities and personality by examining the bumps or indentations on their head (Gall, 1808). Whilst phrenology is now thoroughly discredited, Psychologists have argued that the current enthusiasm for brain imaging such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is “really no more than a form of electrical phrenology” (p.4).  The distinguished Professor of Psychology Warren Tryon has recently stated that:

…modern brain imaging studies do not offer any greater explanation than phrenology did. They associate brain structures with psychological and behavioural functions, but associations are not explanations. (Tyron, 2014)

Important Research

Two American researchers, David McCabe and Alan Castle were interested in the idea that brain images have a persuasive influence on the public perception of neuro-scientific studies (McCabe & Castle, 2008). So, they conducted three experiments to test if the image of the brain affects the perceived scientific quality of an article.

Experiment one involved 156 US undergraduates between the ages of 18-25. The student volunteers were given three fictional articles to read about neuroscience research. These were based on traditional news service articles and included no-image, a bar-graph, or a brain image depicting the critical results (p. 345).

After reading each article, participants were asked to rate their agreement with three statements about the quality of the article, if the title was descriptive of the work and most importantly, if the “scientific reasoning in the article made sense”. No difference was found for the “title question” nor between the “no-image” and “bar-graph” articles. However, the researchers found a significant difference in the articles accompanied by a brain image.

A second experiment with 128 US students was conducted to test if it was just the fact that the brain image looked ‘scientific’ that it scored higher. So, they devised an experiment where they could test if the more visually complex brain images (compared to bar graphs) influenced judgements of scientific reasoning. McCabe and Castle found that the texts with a brain image received higher ratings of scientific reasoning than those accompanied by a topographical map.  They, therefore, concluded that it was not simply the visual complexity of the brain images that influenced ratings of scientific reasoning (p. 347).

McCabe and Castle concluded that the use of brain images influenced ratings of the scientific merit of the reported research, compared to identical articles including no-image, a bar graph, or a topographical map. This supports the belief that there is something particularly persuasive about brain images concerning how they communicate credibility (p. 348).

Why this Matters?

Brain research is often popularised in the media. However, the media often oversells the results of such research. For example, it has been claimed that brain research shows that:

• People are in love with their iPhone
• Men and women are fundamentally different in how they communicate
• You can identify a criminal’s brain

All of this is untrue but provide a clickable and sensational headline.

From the McCabe and Castle (2008) paper, we have seen that images of brains have an especially persuasive influence on the public perception of scientific research. This is likely to extend to research related to behaviour, personality, and communication. There is a fascination with brain imaging research in the public and the media as always meets this need. However, we need to be careful not to be misled or deceived.

Modern brain scans such as fMRI, Computed tomography (CT), Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Electroencephalography (EEG) are amazing tools that have broad application in medicine, neuropsychology, and communication research. For example, fMRI is a non-invasive technique for measuring brain activity. It can produce colourful activation maps showing which parts of the brain are involved in a particular mental process. However, it only measures the secondary physiological correlates of neural activity; it is not a direct measure.

We as readers and consumers of scientific communication need to be aware of this likelihood as this awareness with most likely reduce the

Uncover the Truth

• Neuroscience has had amazing breakthroughs over the past twenty years. However, brain scans cannot be used to read people’s emotions or thoughts.
• When you see an image of a brain in a news story, blog, scientific paper or product research, be careful you are not overly influenced by the image rather than the science.
• The reductionist nature of brain research can over-simplify complex questions and ignore the complexities of human behaviour and communication.
• The idea that we use only 10 per cent of our brains is a myth, and brain scans show activity through the entire brain, even when resting.

AZTech has recently launched a new course featuring how to remove the main barriers to effective communication and latest neuro-scientific and brain research into communication.  This new course is called Communication Skills for Leaders in the Digital Age.  This course talks in details about the Neuro-scientific communication.  You can register online right now or request a paper registration form from us or just by calling us at +971 4 427 5400.

For more information click here. Bookings are essential as places are limited. To reserve your place, contact [email protected] or call +971 50 195 5668. 

Note this article is based on a Chapter from Tony Buon’s Book Communication Genius (2015).

References

Buon, T (2015) Communication Genius: 40 Insights from the Science of Communicating. Hatchett: UK.

Chenevix, R. (1830). Phrenology: Article of the Foreign Quarterly Review, 1 Jan. Treuttel, Würtz, and Richter.

McCabe, D.P & Castel, A.D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343–352.

Tryon, W.W. (2014). Brain Imaging as Modern Phrenology.  SciTech Connect.  Posted on August 7.

AZTech is a leading international provider of training courses, seminars, workshops, programs, conferences and in-house training.  These can be delivered either in classroom or virtual setup. We deliver a wide range of cutting-edge training that include Strategy, Management & Leadership, Finance & Accounting, Health & Safety, Human Resources, Project Management, Procurement and Contracts Management, Mechanical, Maintenance, & Electrical Engineering. AZTech Training is all about ensuring that our delegates get Quality Assured Training and this commitment to delivering the best possible learning experience is demonstrated by our continuous working relationship with the world’s leading professional governing and certifying bodies. Visit us at www.aztechtraining.com.

---