揭示加法偏差的联想机制:利用内隐联想测试深入了解人们对加法行动的偏好

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Journal of Creative Behavior Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1002/jocb.660
Maria Adriana Neroni, Nathan Crilly, Maria Antonella Brandimonte
{"title":"揭示加法偏差的联想机制:利用内隐联想测试深入了解人们对加法行动的偏好","authors":"Maria Adriana Neroni,&nbsp;Nathan Crilly,&nbsp;Maria Antonella Brandimonte","doi":"10.1002/jocb.660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>When faced with the need to transform an object, idea, or situation, people have a tendency to favor adding new components rather than removing existing ones. This is called the <i>additive bias</i>. Previous research, along with historical and anecdotal examples, shows that this bias may significantly reduce problem-solving abilities and have a detrimental impact on the innovation process. In this study, our objective was to develop a novel tool, the additive bias implicit association test (ad-IAT), to investigate the reasons underlying people's preference for additive actions. By using this tool, we empirically demonstrated that people displayed an inherent tendency to assign a positive valence to additive concepts and to perceive additive actions as safer and more functional than subtractive concepts. Importantly, we also found that implicit preference for addition resulted in participants favoring additive actions while neglecting subtractive alternatives when engaged in a problem-solving task. Collectively, our series of experiments substantiated the effectiveness of our ad-IAT in uncovering and quantifying the additive bias. This, in turn, provided a deeper comprehension of the underlying factors contributing to the bias and its impact on people's behavior.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unveiling the Associative Mechanisms Underlying the Additive Bias: Using an Implicit Association Test to Gain Insight into People's Preference for Additive Actions\",\"authors\":\"Maria Adriana Neroni,&nbsp;Nathan Crilly,&nbsp;Maria Antonella Brandimonte\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jocb.660\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>When faced with the need to transform an object, idea, or situation, people have a tendency to favor adding new components rather than removing existing ones. This is called the <i>additive bias</i>. Previous research, along with historical and anecdotal examples, shows that this bias may significantly reduce problem-solving abilities and have a detrimental impact on the innovation process. In this study, our objective was to develop a novel tool, the additive bias implicit association test (ad-IAT), to investigate the reasons underlying people's preference for additive actions. By using this tool, we empirically demonstrated that people displayed an inherent tendency to assign a positive valence to additive concepts and to perceive additive actions as safer and more functional than subtractive concepts. Importantly, we also found that implicit preference for addition resulted in participants favoring additive actions while neglecting subtractive alternatives when engaged in a problem-solving task. Collectively, our series of experiments substantiated the effectiveness of our ad-IAT in uncovering and quantifying the additive bias. This, in turn, provided a deeper comprehension of the underlying factors contributing to the bias and its impact on people's behavior.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Creative Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"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.660\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.660","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

摘要

当需要改造一个物体、想法或情况时,人们往往倾向于添加新的成分,而不是去除现有的成分。这就是所谓的添加偏差。以往的研究以及历史和轶事实例表明,这种偏见可能会大大降低解决问题的能力,并对创新过程产生不利影响。在本研究中,我们的目标是开发一种新工具--加法偏差内隐联想测试(ad-IAT),以调查人们偏好加法行为的原因。通过使用这一工具,我们通过经验证明,人们天生倾向于对加法概念赋予积极的价值,并认为加法行为比减法概念更安全、更实用。重要的是,我们还发现,在参与问题解决任务时,对加法的内隐偏好会导致参与者偏爱加法行动,而忽视减法行动。总之,我们的一系列实验证实了我们的 ad-IAT 在发现和量化加法偏差方面的有效性。这反过来又让我们更深入地了解了导致偏见的潜在因素及其对人们行为的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unveiling the Associative Mechanisms Underlying the Additive Bias: Using an Implicit Association Test to Gain Insight into People's Preference for Additive Actions

When faced with the need to transform an object, idea, or situation, people have a tendency to favor adding new components rather than removing existing ones. This is called the additive bias. Previous research, along with historical and anecdotal examples, shows that this bias may significantly reduce problem-solving abilities and have a detrimental impact on the innovation process. In this study, our objective was to develop a novel tool, the additive bias implicit association test (ad-IAT), to investigate the reasons underlying people's preference for additive actions. By using this tool, we empirically demonstrated that people displayed an inherent tendency to assign a positive valence to additive concepts and to perceive additive actions as safer and more functional than subtractive concepts. Importantly, we also found that implicit preference for addition resulted in participants favoring additive actions while neglecting subtractive alternatives when engaged in a problem-solving task. Collectively, our series of experiments substantiated the effectiveness of our ad-IAT in uncovering and quantifying the additive bias. This, in turn, provided a deeper comprehension of the underlying factors contributing to the bias and its impact on people's behavior.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Issue Information Effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Creativity from Life History Theory Novelty Seeking Differences in Temporal Dynamics for Novelty and Appropriateness Processing of Creative Information: An ERP Investigation Collectivism–Individualism Makes the Relationships Between Digital Games Use and Creativity Different The Silver Lining of Workaholism: Its Impact on Employees' Creativity and Presenteeism Explained
×
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