We are more likely to believe explanations when they include words that relate to neuroscience, the study of the brain, researchers said

If you want to win an argument, try spouting some neuroscience.

We are more likely to believe explanations when they include words that relate to neuroscience - the study of the brain.

Terms such as 'frontal lobes', 'fusiform gyrus' and 'extrastriate cortex' made arguments more convincing, researchers said.

But throwing in facts from maths, chemistry and physics did not have the same effect, suggesting there is something about neuroscience that we particularly trust.

In the study psychologists gave possible explanations for the results of research into face recognition and other psychological phenomena to a group of volunteers.

Tagging some neuroscience onto the end of the arguments led to them being rated more highly – even when the argument itself was poorer, found the team from Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

Further experiments showed this wasn't due to explanations being longer.

Nor was it simply a case of the volunteers being blinded by science.

Explanations involving chemistry, maths, physics and other forms of 'hard' science failed to impress.

The highly analytical volunteers were just as impressed by neuro-talk as those with less logical minds.

The researchers said it may be natural for lay people to believe that the brain holds the key to psychological phenomena.

Tagging some neuroscience onto the end of the arguments led to them being rated more highly – even when the argument itself was poorer, found the team from Villanova University (above) in Pennsylvania

But while blinding someone with neuroscience may help you win an argument, it is not without its dangers.

The Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience reports: 'Part of neuroscience's allure may be that it allows the neat, tidy attribution to one causal source: the brain.