Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Misconceptions by Educators and the General Public

Abstract

Neuromyths are commonly held misconceptions about the brain believed by both the general public and educators. While much research has investigated the prevalence of myths about the typically developing brain, less attention has been devoted to the pervasiveness of neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders, which have the potential to exacerbate stigma. This preregistered study investigated to what extent neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders (namely dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and syndrome) are endorsed by two groups: the general public and those working in education. In an online survey, 366 members of the general public and 203 individuals working in education rated similar numbers of myths to be true, but more about neurodevelopmental disorders than general neuromyths. As the frequency of access to brain information emerged as a protective factor against endorsing myths in both populations, we argue that this problem may be addressed via provision of neuroeducational resources.

Where do neuromyths come from? Sources and strength of psychological misconceptions.

“…Given the number of education textbooks that contain neuromyths (Wininger et al, 2019), it is not surprising that belief in neuromyths is so widespread among educators or the educated (Gini et al, 2021). However, our participants were much more likely to attribute neuromyths to instructors than to textbooks.…”

“…We chose this format to prevent participants from being more likely to indicate strong belief in a myth if they had already indicated that they believed the statement to be true in a prior response (i.e., if we asked participants if they believed the myth, then asked them how strongly they believed it, the first question may have influenced their response on the second question). Distinguishing between strong incorrect beliefs and weak incorrect beliefs allows for measurement of both metacognitive monitoring accuracy and content knowledge (Dutke & Barenberg, 2015), and similar formats have been used in previous studies of accuracy and confidence (Dutke & Barenberg, 2015; Gini et al, 2021; Menz et al, 2020). True statements were included to prevent participants from guessing the purpose of the study.…”

British teachers' knowledge and awareness of Tourette syndrome in children attending mainstream school

“…Teachers with an additional SENCO qualification also reported a lack coverage of TS during their course, irrespective of when that training took place. Instead, the SENCO programme took a transdiagnostic approach to the management of SEN with a generic focus on logistical arrangements with external agencies relating to any SEN, rather than a holistic approach on each disorder that may present within schools (Gini, Knowland, Thomas, et al., 2021). Given stress and anxiety exacerbate TS, it is crucial that better understanding and recognition occur for all manifestations of the condition, to enable children with TS to access appropriate help and support, including more direct management of stressors.…”

Contexts of educational neuroscience

“…Recent evidence suggests that awareness campaigns around neuromyths and provision of neuroeducational resources might improve endorsements of neuromyths (Gini et al, 2021). However, neuromyths are sometimes kept alive by the enthusiasm of policy-makers and stakeholders to produce quick xes that shape policy and funding in education, as well as the drive for practitioners to use evidenceinformed practice.…”

“…an understanding of EN as well as training in research designs informed by neuroscience and genetics would counteract misconceptions but also instill the skepticism that is needed to evaluate novel educational programmes as well as tools for teachers to provide evaluations of educational programmes (Fischer et al, 2010;McMahon et al, 2019;Gini et al, 2021).…”