Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors

Autores
Tabullo, Ángel Javier
Año de publicación
2026
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Fil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina; Argentina
Background: Neuromyths—misconceptions arising from misinterpretations of neuroscientific findings—are widely endorsed by educators and students, including those in psychology. Their persistence has been linked to contextual, cognitive, and personality-related factors, but evidence is mixed, especially among psychology students. This study examined predictors of neuromyth endorsement in Argentine psychology undergraduates. Objective: To identify contextual (neuroscience training, interest), personality (Need for Cognition; NFC), and cognitive (Cognitive Reflection Test; CRT) predictors of neuromyth beliefs. Methods: A convenience sample of 320 psychology students (82.5% women; M_age = 27.39 years) completed online measures assessing neuromyth endorsement, general brain knowledge, NFC, CRT, and self-reported neuroscience training and interest. Spearman correlations and hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine associations and predictive effects. Results: Participants endorsed 41.22% of neuromyths on average, with learning styles (76.25%) and sensory-rich environments benefits (74.37%) being the most accepted. CRT scores negatively predicted neuromyth endorsement (β = 0.175, p < .001), whereas the NFC “enjoyment of thinking” factor positively predicted endorsement (β = 0.145, p = .024). Age also showed a positive effect (β = 0.175, p = .002). Neuroscience interest, courses taken, and general brain knowledge did not predict neuromyth acceptance, although they were positively associated with neuroscience knowledge. Conclusions: Analytical thinking emerged as the strongest protective factor against neuromyths, while enjoyment of thinking unexpectedly predicted higher endorsement, possibly reflecting exposure to low-quality sources of information and/or Dunning-Kruger effects. Factual neuroscience knowledge and training did not decrease neuromyth endorsement, underscoring the importance of fostering critical thinking skills within psychology education.
Fuente
Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 43, 2026
Materia
NEUROCIENCIA
NEUROMITOS
PSICOLOGIA
ANALISIS
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Repositorio
Repositorio Institucional (UCA)
Institución
Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina
OAI Identificador
oai:ucacris:123456789/21927
Acceder
id RIUCA_434eaae41cb7aa5e9f7e007edd73cdfc
oai_identifier_str oai:ucacris:123456789/21927
network_acronym_str RIUCA
repository_id_str 2585
network_name_str Repositorio Institucional (UCA)
spelling Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictorsTabullo, Ángel JavierNEUROCIENCIANEUROMITOSPSICOLOGIAANALISISFil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina; ArgentinaBackground: Neuromyths—misconceptions arising from misinterpretations of neuroscientific findings—are widely endorsed by educators and students, including those in psychology. Their persistence has been linked to contextual, cognitive, and personality-related factors, but evidence is mixed, especially among psychology students. This study examined predictors of neuromyth endorsement in Argentine psychology undergraduates. Objective: To identify contextual (neuroscience training, interest), personality (Need for Cognition; NFC), and cognitive (Cognitive Reflection Test; CRT) predictors of neuromyth beliefs. Methods: A convenience sample of 320 psychology students (82.5% women; M_age = 27.39 years) completed online measures assessing neuromyth endorsement, general brain knowledge, NFC, CRT, and self-reported neuroscience training and interest. Spearman correlations and hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine associations and predictive effects. Results: Participants endorsed 41.22% of neuromyths on average, with learning styles (76.25%) and sensory-rich environments benefits (74.37%) being the most accepted. CRT scores negatively predicted neuromyth endorsement (β = 0.175, p < .001), whereas the NFC “enjoyment of thinking” factor positively predicted endorsement (β = 0.145, p = .024). Age also showed a positive effect (β = 0.175, p = .002). Neuroscience interest, courses taken, and general brain knowledge did not predict neuromyth acceptance, although they were positively associated with neuroscience knowledge. Conclusions: Analytical thinking emerged as the strongest protective factor against neuromyths, while enjoyment of thinking unexpectedly predicted higher endorsement, possibly reflecting exposure to low-quality sources of information and/or Dunning-Kruger effects. Factual neuroscience knowledge and training did not decrease neuromyth endorsement, underscoring the importance of fostering critical thinking skills within psychology education.Elsevier2026info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttps://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/219272211-9493https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2026.100284Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 43, 2026reponame:Repositorio Institucional (UCA)instname:Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentinaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/2026-09-28T11:10:43Zoai:ucacris:123456789/21927instacron:UCAInstitucionalhttps://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/Universidad privadaNo correspondehttps://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/oaiclaudia_fernandez@uca.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:25852026-09-28 11:10:44.207Repositorio Institucional (UCA) - Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
title Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
spellingShingle Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
Tabullo, Ángel Javier
NEUROCIENCIA
NEUROMITOS
PSICOLOGIA
ANALISIS
title_short Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
title_full Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
title_fullStr Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
title_full_unstemmed Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
title_sort Why do psychology students believe in neuromyths? A study of personality, contextual and cognitive predictors
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Tabullo, Ángel Javier
author Tabullo, Ángel Javier
author_facet Tabullo, Ángel Javier
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv NEUROCIENCIA
NEUROMITOS
PSICOLOGIA
ANALISIS
topic NEUROCIENCIA
NEUROMITOS
PSICOLOGIA
ANALISIS
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Fil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina; Argentina
Background: Neuromyths—misconceptions arising from misinterpretations of neuroscientific findings—are widely endorsed by educators and students, including those in psychology. Their persistence has been linked to contextual, cognitive, and personality-related factors, but evidence is mixed, especially among psychology students. This study examined predictors of neuromyth endorsement in Argentine psychology undergraduates. Objective: To identify contextual (neuroscience training, interest), personality (Need for Cognition; NFC), and cognitive (Cognitive Reflection Test; CRT) predictors of neuromyth beliefs. Methods: A convenience sample of 320 psychology students (82.5% women; M_age = 27.39 years) completed online measures assessing neuromyth endorsement, general brain knowledge, NFC, CRT, and self-reported neuroscience training and interest. Spearman correlations and hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine associations and predictive effects. Results: Participants endorsed 41.22% of neuromyths on average, with learning styles (76.25%) and sensory-rich environments benefits (74.37%) being the most accepted. CRT scores negatively predicted neuromyth endorsement (β = 0.175, p < .001), whereas the NFC “enjoyment of thinking” factor positively predicted endorsement (β = 0.145, p = .024). Age also showed a positive effect (β = 0.175, p = .002). Neuroscience interest, courses taken, and general brain knowledge did not predict neuromyth acceptance, although they were positively associated with neuroscience knowledge. Conclusions: Analytical thinking emerged as the strongest protective factor against neuromyths, while enjoyment of thinking unexpectedly predicted higher endorsement, possibly reflecting exposure to low-quality sources of information and/or Dunning-Kruger effects. Factual neuroscience knowledge and training did not decrease neuromyth endorsement, underscoring the importance of fostering critical thinking skills within psychology education.
description Fil: Tabullo, Ángel Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
publishDate 2026
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2026
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/21927
2211-9493
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2026.100284
url https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/21927
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2026.100284
identifier_str_mv 2211-9493
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 43, 2026
reponame:Repositorio Institucional (UCA)
instname:Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina
reponame_str Repositorio Institucional (UCA)
collection Repositorio Institucional (UCA)
instname_str Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Institucional (UCA) - Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv claudia_fernandez@uca.edu.ar
_version_ 1877586771615678464
score 13.265058

Publicaciones similares