People systematically overlook subtractive changes

tags

Cognitive Bias

Notes

people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations.

NOTER_PAGE: (1 . 0.3607085346215781)

may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules, institutional red tape and damaging effects on the planet.

NOTER_PAGE: (1 . 0.45974235104669886)

inspired by the apparent need for subtractive counsel across fields.

NOTER_PAGE: (1 . 0.8276972624798712)

we focused our subsequent research on potential differences at the idea-generation phase because this phase necessarily precedes explicit choice. We investigated whether people default to an additive search strategy, making them less likely to consider subtraction in the first place.

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.6111111111111112)

additive changes may be incrementally easier to process. Any component that can be subtracted must first be understood as part of the artefact before it can be considered as ‘not’ part of the artefact

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.7616747181964574)

additive changes may come to be viewed more positively than subtractive changes. Numerical concepts of ‘more’ and ‘higher’ may map to evaluative concepts of ‘positive’ and ‘better’

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.8003220611916264)

people might be reluctant to subtract because of attentional and evaluative processes that favour the status quo

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.8534621578099839)

may, probabilistically, offer more good opportunities to add than to subtract

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.8969404186795491)

additional research is needed to understand culture as a candidate moderator

NOTER_PAGE: (4 . 0.2721417069243156)