First, while behavioral scientists often change behavior by changing the context, neuroscientists trigger change by acting directly on the brain. Such strategies can address behaviors that are particularly difficult to changeand can change them in a lasting way. Second, examining what happens in the brain could help behavioral scientists disentangle robust from weak scientific evidence; this serves as ammo against both the replicability crisis and the neurobabble phenomenon.
A friend of mine was skeptical about whether behavioral scientists actually need to understand the brain. Such skepticism is not unwarranted. After all, even without much knowledge of the inner workings of the brain, behavioral scientists have had some success changing behavior.
The effects of many traditional behavioral interventions decline sharply over time. For example, a 2017 study examined 38 natural field experiments that were designed to reduce energy consumption. Once the treatment ended, energy savings persisted in only 35 to 55 percent of nudge campaigns. The researchers concluded that there is still much that we do not understand about habit formation and ways to induce changes in such.
Finally, understanding the basics of neuroscience is essential in the age of neurobabble, the phenomenon whereby neuroscientific explanations of behavior are more persuasive simply because they sound more technical and authoritative. Several studies have shown that adding irrelevant neuroscience information increases the perceived quality of psychological explanations.
讀完：March 4, 2018 at 06:53PM｜來源：URL