En
Register Log in
  1. Main
  2. Conference
  3. Coaching psychology: methodology, theory, practice
  4. Neurocoaching on the Verge of Pseudoscience: A Cri...

Neurocoaching on the Verge of Pseudoscience: A Critical Review of the Russian-Language Information Field

Proceeding
DOI: 10.31483/r-127457
Open Access
Published in:
All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference «Coaching psychology: methodology, theory, practice»
Author:
Aleksei I. Ezhikov 1
Work direction:
Psychological security in the digital environment of an educational institution
Pages:
58-61
Received: 29 March 2025

Rating:
Article accesses:
387
Published in:
Информрегистр РИНЦ
1 Assotsiatsiia kognitivno-povedencheskoi psikhoterapii
For citation:
Ezhikov A. I. (2025). Neurocoaching on the Verge of Pseudoscience: A Critical Review of the Russian-Language Information Field. Coaching psychology: methodology, theory, practice, 58-61. Чебоксары: PH "Sreda". https://doi.org/10.31483/r-127457

Abstract

This article presents a critical analysis of marketing strategies and ethical aspects of neurological coaching (neurocoaching) promotion within the Russian-speaking information space. Based on an examination of training organizations' materials, the study identifies key issues in marketing communications, including the use of pseudoscientific terminology, exploitation of the "seductive allure" of neuroscience, and unsubstantiated promises of results. The research reveals significant gaps between neuroscientific evidence and claims made in neurocoaching promotional materials. Recommendations are proposed for the ethical promotion of neuroscience-informed coaching practices that adhere to scientific accuracy and transparency standards. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on evidence-based approaches in coaching and highlight the need for greater scientific rigor in the application of neuroscientific concepts to coaching practices.

References

  1. 1. Информация о публикации аналитического продукта «Золотая Сотня «2025» [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://s.coachrating.ru/gr2025-summary (дата обращения: 25.03.2025).
  2. 2. Button K.S. [et al.]. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience // Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2013. Vol. 14 (5). P. 365–376.
  3. 3. Grant A.M. Coaching the brain: Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense? // The Coaching Psychologist. 2015. Vol. 11 (1). P. 31–37.
  4. 4. Howard-Jones P.A. Neuroscience and education: myths and messages // Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2014. Vol. 15 (12). P. 817–824.
  5. 5. Lindebaum D., Jordan P.J. A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies // Journal of Organizational Behavior. – 2014. Vol. 35 (7). P. 898–908.
  6. 6. McCabe D.P., Castel A.D. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning // Cognition. 2008. Vol. 107 (1). P. 343–352.
  7. 7. McKay S.M., Smith S. (2021). Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and Limitations // Positive Psychology Coaching in the Workplace / eds. W.-A. Smith [et al.]. Cham: Springer, 2021. P. 399–416.
  8. 8. O’Connor C. [et al.]. Neuroscience in the public sphere // Neuron. 2012. Vol. 74 (2). P. 220–226.
  9. 9. Scurich N., Shniderman A. The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations // PLoS One. 2014. Vol. 9 (9). Art. e107529.
  10. 10. Takesian A.E., Hensch T.K. Balancing plasticity/stability across brain development // Progress in Brain Research. 2013. Vol. 207. P. 3–34. DOI 10.1016/B978-0-444-63327-9.00001-1. EDN SOLWUT
  11. 11. Weisberg D.S. [et al.]. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. // Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008. Vol. 20 (3). P. 470–477.

Comments(0)

When adding a comment stipulate:
  • the relevance of the published material;
  • general estimation (originality and relevance of the topic, completeness, depth, comprehensiveness of topic disclosure, consistency, coherence, evidence, structural ordering, nature and the accuracy of the examples, illustrative material, the credibility of the conclusions;
  • disadvantages, shortcomings;
  • questions and wishes to author.