The Overlooking of Subtractive Changes: Replication and Extension to Stronger Cues and Social Norms

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Journal of Creative Behavior Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1002/jocb.1535
Adrien Alejandro Fillon, Fabien Girandola, Nathalie Bonnardel, Lionel Souchet
{"title":"The Overlooking of Subtractive Changes: Replication and Extension to Stronger Cues and Social Norms","authors":"Adrien Alejandro Fillon,&nbsp;Fabien Girandola,&nbsp;Nathalie Bonnardel,&nbsp;Lionel Souchet","doi":"10.1002/jocb.1535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>People systematically overlook subtractive changes and favor additive ones when reporting new ideas. In a first preregistered experiment conducted via the Prolific platform among French adults (<i>N</i> = 477), we replicated experiments 2, 3, and 4 in Adams et al.'s study. We replicated the overlooking of subtraction, as participants reported 1155 additive ideas and only 297 subtractive ideas. Cueing participants (“Remember that you can add things or take them away”) increased the percentage of participants who reported at least one subtractive idea (overall OR = 2.52, improvement condition, <i>ϕ</i> = 0.18, make it worse condition, <i>ϕ</i> = 0.24). In a second experiment conducted to test how the framing of the cue influences the overlook, participants reported more subtractive ideas when they read a subtract-only cue (“remember that you can take things away”), than with a subtract-then-add cue. Results therefore provided empirical support for the overlooking of subtractive changes hypothesis, mitigated by a cue. We also found that norms affected the report of new ideas (descriptive OR = 7.49, injunctive OR = 6.86). Cues and injunctive (but not descriptive) norms were both related to the asymmetry.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.1535","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People systematically overlook subtractive changes and favor additive ones when reporting new ideas. In a first preregistered experiment conducted via the Prolific platform among French adults (N = 477), we replicated experiments 2, 3, and 4 in Adams et al.'s study. We replicated the overlooking of subtraction, as participants reported 1155 additive ideas and only 297 subtractive ideas. Cueing participants (“Remember that you can add things or take them away”) increased the percentage of participants who reported at least one subtractive idea (overall OR = 2.52, improvement condition, ϕ = 0.18, make it worse condition, ϕ = 0.24). In a second experiment conducted to test how the framing of the cue influences the overlook, participants reported more subtractive ideas when they read a subtract-only cue (“remember that you can take things away”), than with a subtract-then-add cue. Results therefore provided empirical support for the overlooking of subtractive changes hypothesis, mitigated by a cue. We also found that norms affected the report of new ideas (descriptive OR = 7.49, injunctive OR = 6.86). Cues and injunctive (but not descriptive) norms were both related to the asymmetry.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Creative Behavior
Journal of Creative Behavior Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Creative Behavior is our quarterly academic journal citing the most current research in creative thinking. For nearly four decades JCB has been the benchmark scientific periodical in the field. It provides up to date cutting-edge ideas about creativity in education, psychology, business, arts and more.
期刊最新文献
The Products of the Process: Toward Exploring and Expanding the Benefits of Being Creative Fostering Creativity Through Game-Based Approaches: A Scoping Review The ACT-ON Ideas Framework: A Contingency Perspective on Creative Self-Regulation From Creative Performance Pressure to Deviance: Understanding the Role of Moral Disengagement and Supervisor Bottom Line Mentality Two's Company: How Academic Diversity in Dyads Enhances Divergent Thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1