People Systematically Overlook Subtractive Changes¶
Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H., & Klotz, L. E. (2021). People Systematically Overlook Subtractive Changes. Nature, 592(7853), 258-261.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Additive Bias
- In cognitive problem-solving it is the original demonstration substrate: across building, grid, schedule, and itinerary tasks, subjects offered both additive and subtractive transformations systematically failed to consider subtractive ones even when those were better and explicitly permitted.
This sourceThe original controlled demonstration (Lego structures, digital grid, essays, recipes, travel itineraries, miniature-golf tasks) that people default to additive transformations and under-consider permitted subtractive ones; shows the effect degrades when subtraction is made salient by a cue.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The paper's own abstract states people systematically default to additive transformations and overlook subtractive ones, but names none of the building, grid, schedule or itinerary tasks.
“Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations.”
- In cognitive problem-solving it is the original demonstration substrate: across building, grid, schedule, and itinerary tasks, subjects offered both additive and subtractive transformations systematically failed to consider subtractive ones even when those were better and explicitly permitted.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:a08133a94adb · see in the full table