Correcting Neuromyths: A Comparison of Different Types of Refutations

Abstract

Research suggests that educators and students often hold erroneous beliefs about learning and brain function, referred to as neuromyths. The prevalence of these neuromyths may be problematic, leading people to spend resources on ineffective study methods and propagate misinformation. Therefore, we examined whether erroneous beliefs in neuromyths could be corrected using various forms of refutations. Across two experiments, participants viewed true and false statements (neuromyths) about learning and brain function and indicated whether the statements were true or false. Participants then received one of three types of corrections (refutation-only, refutation-explanation, refutation-explanation and image) or no correction (control). One week and 1 month later, participants again indicated their beliefs in the true statements and the neuromyths. Results showed that all three refutations were effective for correcting erroneous beliefs in neuromyths, and this corrective effect was present after 1 week and 1 month. These findings suggest that beliefs in neuromyths can be corrected and possibly lead to long-lasting knowledge revision.