Neuroskeptic has written a great post evaluating the much-hyped 2008 study that showed people will more readily accept information if a neurosciency-explanation is attached - even if the neuroscience is irrelevant.
If this effect is real, it has big implications for those of us involved in science/health communication - when to use this advantage, and when to eschew it? (Especially when we're trying to explain neuroimaging studies. . ?) And what is the source of this bias - mass media's ongoing love affair with neuroscientific explanations and pretty brain pictures? Or something else entirely?
I am currently writing my undergraduate dissertation for Psychology, which is based on a study i have conducted which in turn was based upon the Weisberg paper. i have found significant results showing that the so-called "seductive allure" effect does not generalise to an advertising context. I find the whole area interesting and wonder if you have any further thoughts or other papers which may help me out. its due end of next week! lol. Glad to see others sharing an interest in these new findings.