2,852
edits
Additive Bias: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''' | '''Additive Bias is a type of [[Cognitive Biases|Cognitive Bias]] which occurs when are presented with a problem they tend to favor solutions that involve adding something new over solutions that involve the subtraction of some existing element.'''<ref>'''Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving.''' Tom Meyvis & Heeyoung Yoon. Nature 592, 189-190 (2021). doi: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00592-0</nowiki>. Accessed on 1 Jun 2023 via https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0</ref> | ||
One study on this tendency published in 2021 found that we don't necessarily struggle to process solutions that involve subtraction rather than addition, we just tend to find adding things more obvious in most cases. | One study on this tendency published in 2021 found that we don't necessarily struggle to process solutions that involve subtraction rather than addition, we just tend to find adding things more obvious in most cases. | ||
This effect seems to be amplified when problem-solvers are under a heightened cognitive load | This effect seems to be amplified when problem-solvers are under a heightened cognitive load and though folks in this study did see the value in subtractive solutions when prompted, they were less likely to immediately recognize shortcomings in additive solutions compared to shortcomings in subtractive ones. | ||
This could be part of why so many people and societies find themselves swimming in responsibilities, regulations, and overabundance that somehow only seems to make things worse. Rather than assessing all solutions in a balanced way, we may be biased toward adding more things—more resources, more rules, more habits and responsibilities—rather than the opposite; which in some cases would worsen the problems we're trying to solve. | This could be part of why so many people and societies find themselves swimming in responsibilities, regulations, and overabundance that somehow only seems to make things worse. Rather than assessing all solutions in a balanced way, we may be biased toward adding more things—more resources, more rules, more habits and responsibilities—rather than the opposite; which in some cases would worsen the problems we're trying to solve. | ||
One suggestion for why we might succumb to this bias, posited by one of the psychologists who reviewed this study, is that the sunk-cost fallacy (the inclination to keep investing in things we've already invested in rather than limiting our losses and walking away from something that's not working) may incentivize us to do so. | One suggestion for why we might succumb to this bias, posited by one of the psychologists who reviewed this study, is that the [[Sunk Cost Fallacy|sunk-cost fallacy]] (the inclination to keep investing in things we've already invested in rather than limiting our losses and walking away from something that's not working) may incentivize us to do so. | ||
If we've invested a lot of time and energy and money in a certain way of working, we may be less likely to dramatically change that approach even if another, simpler, less-cumbersome model is available. | If we've invested a lot of time and energy and money in a certain way of working, we may be less likely to dramatically change that approach even if another, simpler, less-cumbersome model is available. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Thus, it may be warranted to invest a bit of additional time and attention when we're in problem-solving mode, lest we overlook potentially better, less-cumbersome solutions. | Thus, it may be warranted to invest a bit of additional time and attention when we're in problem-solving mode, lest we overlook potentially better, less-cumbersome solutions. | ||
'''References''' | |||
<references /> | |||