对减法变化的忽视:向更强的线索和社会规范的复制和扩展

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Adrien Alejandro Fillon, Fabien Girandola, Nathalie Bonnardel, Lionel Souchet
{"title":"对减法变化的忽视:向更强的线索和社会规范的复制和扩展","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":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":3.0000,\"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}","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

摘要

在报告新想法时,人们会系统性地忽略减法变化,而偏爱加法变化。在通过多产平台在法国成年人中进行的第一次预注册实验中(N = 477),我们重复了Adams等人的研究中的实验2、3和4。我们重复了对减法的忽视,因为参与者报告了1155个加法的想法,而只有297个减法的想法。提示参与者(“记住,你可以添加或删除东西”)增加了报告至少有一个减法想法的参与者的百分比(总体or = 2.52,改善条件,ϕ = 0.18,使其更糟,ϕ = 0.24)。在第二个测试线索框架如何影响忽视的实验中,参与者在阅读一个只有减法的线索(“记住你可以拿走东西”)时,比阅读一个先减法后加的线索时,报告了更多减法的想法。因此,研究结果为忽略减法变化假设提供了实证支持,并通过提示减轻了这一假设。我们还发现,规范影响新想法的报告(描述性OR = 7.49,禁令性OR = 6.86)。提示和禁令(但不是描述性的)规范都与不对称性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Overlooking of Subtractive Changes: Replication and Extension to Stronger Cues and Social Norms

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.

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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信