The takeaway from this study is that adding more isn't always best

Publicly released:
International
Richard Ricciardi on Flickr
Richard Ricciardi on Flickr

When asked to improve objects, ideas and situations, people tend to add extra elements rather than removing elements, even though removing an element may represent a simpler, more elegant solution, according to US scientists. They asked 1,153 people to respond to a diverse array of problems, including solving a geometrical puzzle, stabilising a Lego structure, and improving a miniature golf course, and found that participants tended to favour additive solutions, and routinely overlooked subtractive options, even when the latter offered simpler and better solutions. Follow-up experiments suggested subtractive changes are harder for our brains to process, and so people default to the additive strategy. The authors conclude that this may be one reason why people struggle to mitigate problems such as overburdened schedules, institutional red tape and damaging impacts on the planet.

Media release

From: Springer Nature

People overlook subtractive improvements 

When asked to improve objects, ideas and situations, people tend to add extra elements rather than removing them, a Nature study reveals. As a result, additive solutions to problems may be accepted without considering potentially superior alternatives that involve subtracting elements. 

Improving objects and ideas — such as developing a technology or strengthening an argument — can be done either by adding novel features, or by subtracting to streamline the object or idea. However, to manage the fatigue of searching through all of the possible options, people tend to limit the number of ideas that they consider, often leading to suboptimal solutions.  

In experiments involving 1,153 participants, Gabrielle Adams, Benjamin Converse and colleagues looked at the way people responded to a diverse array of problems, including solving a geometrical puzzle, stabilizing a Lego structure and improving a miniature golf course. They found that the participants tended to favour additive solutions, and routinely overlooked subtractive options, even when the latter offered simpler and better solutions.

Follow-up experiments suggest that subtractive changes are cognitively less accessible to people, and so the default strategy becomes one of addition. The authors conclude that this may be one reason why people struggle to mitigate problems such as overburdened schedules, institutional red tape and damaging impacts on the planet.

Multimedia

Less is more: Why our brains struggle to subtract

Attachments

Note: Not all attachments are visible to the general public. Research URLs will go live after the embargo ends.

Research Springer Nature, Web page The URL will go live after the embargo ends
Journal/
conference:
Nature
Research:Paper
Organisation/s: University of Virginia, USA
Funder: No information provided.
Media Contact/s
Contact details are only visible to registered journalists.