Cited by Lee Sonogan
Abstract by Gabrielle S. Adams,Benjamin A. Converse,Andrew H. Hales &Leidy E. Klotz
Improving objects, ideas or situations—whether a designer seeks to advance technology, a writer seeks to strengthen an argument or a manager seeks to encourage desired behaviour—requires a mental search for possible changes1,2,3. We investigated whether people are as likely to consider changes that subtract components from an object, idea or situation as they are to consider changes that add new components. People typically consider a limited number of promising ideas in order to manage the cognitive burden of searching through all possible ideas, but this can lead them to accept adequate solutions without considering potentially superior alternatives4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations. Across eight experiments, participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (versus did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (versus several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (versus lower) cognitive load. Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
Publication: nature.com (Peer-Reviewed Journal)
Pub Date: 07 April 2021 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y#citeas (Plenty more sections, figures and references in the article)