ArticleAJOB neuroscience
Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations.
Article in AJOB neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Risk and Benefit Sensitivity for Cognitive Treatments.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2025Article
- Public Views on Whether the Use of Pharmaceutical Neuroenhancements Should Be Allowed.Neurology · 2024Article
- "In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement.Neuroethics · 2024Article
- A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- A Cross-Sectional Study of Attitudes toward Willingness to Use Enhancement Technologies: Implications for Technology Regulation and Ethics.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2022Article
- Effort-Reward Imbalance at Work and Prescription Drug Misuse-Prospective Evidence from Germany.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Acceptability of Neuroscientific Interventions in Education.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Context-Dependent Risk & Benefit Sensitivity Mediate Judgments About Cognitive Enhancement.AJOB neuroscienceArticle
- The Ethics of Getting Ahead When All Heads Are Enhanced.AJOB neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People vary widely in their acceptance of the use of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE). We tested the hypothesis that the acceptability of CE is malleable, by varying the context in which CE use takes place, by framing the use of CE with positive and negative metaphors, and by distinguishing between self and other CE use. 2,519 US-based participants completed 2 surveys using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. First, participants responded to vignettes describing a fictional character, which varied by framing metaphor (Pandora's box that releases brain performance vs. key that unlocks brain potential), role/setting (student/educational vs. employee/professional), and activity type (blue vs. white collar). Second, participants viewed personalized vignettes describing their own situations. Across both surveys, participants generally found CE use more acceptable for employees than students, while the effects of framing metaphors were unreliable and smaller than previously reported. People were more accepting of CE use by others than by themselves. Participants also found CE use more acceptable if more peers used CE, the environment was less competitive, and authority figures encouraged CE use. Our findings suggest that opinions about CE are indeed malleable, and concerns that peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, and competition might affect CE use are not unfounded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33196348What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.