In a new paper featured on the cover of Nature, Batten’s Gabrielle Adams, Benjamin Converse and co-authors explain why people systematically overlook subtractive improvements.

Leaders can encourage desired behavior by adding incentives or removing barriers. Designers can advance technology by introducing new features or eliminating extraneous parts. Writers can strengthen arguments by adding or deleting words. Yet, despite the promise of streamlined processes, simpler products and honed arguments, new research shows that people often fail to notice subtractive improvement opportunities because they are too quick to add.

An interdisciplinary team of researchers from the University of Virginia—Gabrielle Adams, from the Batten School; Benjamin Converse, from the Batten School and the Department of Psychology; former Batten School postdoctoral researcher Andrew Hales (now a faculty member at the University of Mississippi); and Leidy Klotz, from the School of Engineering and Applied Science—have been collaborating on a series of observational studies and experiments to document and explore this phenomenon. Their new paper, featured on the cover of the April 8 issue of the journal Nature, shows that while people tend to think of additive changes quickly and easily, generating ideas for subtractive changes requires more cognitive investment. By accepting the first ideas that come to mind, people often miss out on opportunities to improve the world by subtraction.

The authors suggest that a preference for additive ideas may be one reason that people struggle with overwhelming schedules, that institutions struggle with proliferating red tape and that the planet is approaching its resource limits. When people overlook subtraction, they may neglect “opportunities to make their lives more fulfilling, their institutions more effective, and their planet more livable.”

The paper, which also is the subject of a Nature video, may be viewed here. Please continue to visit this page as new articles covering the paper’s findings are added.

• The Academic Times, "People default to additive strategies when problem-solving, even if subtracting is more efficient"
• Ars Technica, "When asked to fix something, we don’t even think of removing parts"
• Behavioral Scientist, "Subtract: Why Getting to Less Can Mean Thinking More"
• CBC Radio, "When solving life's problems, people tend to add even when it's easier to subtract: study"
• Dagens Nyheter, "That's why it's so hard to be a minimalist"
• Daily Mail, "Less is more! People tend to add extra elements when asked to improve objects, ideas and situations - but removing them is actually more effective, study finds"
• Inverse, "You need to start using this psychology-based productivity hack"
• Science News, "People add by default even when subtraction makes more sense"
• Scientific American, "Our Brain Typically Overlooks This Brilliant Problem-Solving Strategy"
• Texas News Today, "It’s better to have less! Scientists say the human brain is having a hard time subtracting"
• ZME Science, "Our brain is hard-wired to make life more complicated rather than simple. Here’s a simple lifehack"