Theme 6B

Question 1

Possible negative impacts of the plasticity message

Answer 1

Unrealistic expectations:
•Everyone can become a genius, as long as you try hard enough
> innate ability is constraining!

Increased individual responsibility (e.g. O’Connor et al., 2012):
•Becoming smart(er) and successful (yourself or your child) is your own responsibility
•If you don’t succeed at something, it’s because you didn’t try hard enough

Question 2

RRI: Mindset neurofeedback intervention

Inclusion
Reflecivity
Anticipation
Responsiveness

Answer 2

• Inclusion: Active and early involvement of diverse stakeholders from start to finish
• Reflexivity: where are we, is it desirable
• Anticipation: of different perceptions or future developments
• Responsiveness: willingness to flexibly adapt course of action

Question 3

RRI model for mindset neurofeedback intervention

Answer 3

RRI & neurofeedback: How to do it?

•Inclusion: Focus groups / Interviews with: teenagers, parents, teachers, researchers

Perspectives regarding:
•Vision of the brain: importance & flexibility •Anticipation & Reflexivity: desirability, ethical issues, potential risks/negative impacts

Responsiveness: we include these perspectives in the intervention design, content & communication plan

Question 4

Perspectives on importance of the brain & brain flexibility

Answer 4

Mismatch researchers / stakeholders
•Researcher#4: “I think the brain is who we are.”
•Researcher#6: “In my opinion the brain is everything.”
•Parent#2: “I think there is much more than just the brain; you feel a lot with your body, but consciousness comes from the brain.”

Realistic image of brain flexibility
•Teacher#6: “I think the brain is malleable but only up to a certain limit” “within your own capacity you can improve and train your brain”
•Parent#1: “The brain is partly flexible but it also has a “hard core” which is fixed from a young age on”

Question 5

Perspectives on desirability and potential negative impacts regarding neurofeedback as intervention method in schools

Answer 5

Reductionist method
•Parent#4: “A person, teacher will have more influence on the behavior of a child than the confrontation with brainwaves on a screen.”

The aim to increase school results
•Teacher#5: “I think a school is more than a grade factory, you have to help students shape themselves in this important moment in their lives (..)”

The risk of neurofeedback developing into a test, or leading to labels
•Parent#4: “As a means to reach consciousness; there is nothing wrong with that (…) But the moment this information leads to determining something (…) it could lead to stigmatization and medicalization”

Question 6

Responsiveness & conclusion

Predicted negative impacts may be OK
> ..

Stakeholders anticipate negative impacts we did not predict
>..

Responsiveness: how will we include these perspectives?
>…

RRI?

Answer 6

Predicted negative impacts may be OK
•Unrealistic expectations about potential / brain flexibility

Stakeholders anticipate negative impacts we did not predict
•Reductionist method
•The aim to increase school results
•The risk of neurofeedback developing into a test

Responsiveness: how will we include these perspectives?
•Meaningful connection of “brain waves” to learning process and person
•More clearly focus on developing resilience and wellbeing in children
• Anticipate on (commercial) misuse (e.g. patent to control applications)

RRI: Potential to make our intervention research more meaningful and responsible