Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now?

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the...

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is...

Schemas

Schemas

A schema is a mental construct consisting of a cluster or collection of related concepts (Bartlett, 1932). There are many different types of schemata, and they all have one thing in common: schemata are a method of organizing information that allows the brain to work more efficiently. When a schema is activated, the brain makes immediate assumptions about the person or object being observed.

Confirmation Biases

Confirmation Biases

The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Ostracism threatens certainty: a single-laboratory meta-analysis.

The Journal of social psychology·2025

Same author

Openness to Being Gossiped About: Understanding Gossip from the Target's Perspective.

Self and identity : the journal of the International Society for Self and Identity·2025

Same author

One-tailed tests: Let's do this (responsibly).

Psychological methods·2023

Same author

The value of mere completion.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2023

Same author

The "Equal-Opportunity Jerk" Defense: Rudeness Can Obfuscate Gender Bias.

Psychological science·2022

Same author

Mixing Misery and Gin: The Effect of Alcohol Administration on Ostracism Response.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2021

Same journal

Daily briefing: 'Cyborg' cockroaches breathe underwater with printed suit.

Nature·2026

Same journal

China boosts prestigious grants for young scientists - will it ease competition?

Nature·2026

Same journal

Incoming US science academy chief vows to 'double down' on research.

Nature·2026

Same journal

Author Correction: Synthesis of enantioenriched atropisomers by biocatalytic deracemization.

Nature·2026

Same journal

Electrodeposited self-assembled molecules for perovskite photovoltaics.

Nature·2026

Same journal

Neutrino's nursery found: the 'Shadow Blaster'.

Nature·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 9, 2025

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia

Published on: September 7, 2018

People systematically overlook subtractive changes.

Gabrielle S Adams¹, Benjamin A Converse^2,3, Andrew H Hales⁴

¹Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. gsa4a@virginia.edu.

|April 8, 2021

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

People often overlook subtracting elements to improve situations, defaulting instead to adding them. This cognitive bias hinders finding optimal solutions for complex problems like overwork and environmental damage.

More Related Videos

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm

Published on: December 24, 2015

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 9, 2025

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia

A Method for Investigating Change Blindness in Pigeons Columba Livia

Published on: September 7, 2018

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm

Published on: December 24, 2015

Area of Science:

Cognitive Psychology
Decision Making
Problem Solving

Background:

Improving objects, ideas, or situations often involves a mental search for potential changes.
People typically limit their search to manage cognitive load, potentially missing superior alternatives.
Existing research suggests a tendency to focus on adding components rather than subtracting them.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate whether people equally consider subtractive and additive transformations when seeking improvements.
To determine if individuals systematically overlook subtractive changes in problem-solving scenarios.
To identify factors influencing the default search for additive versus subtractive solutions.

Main Methods:

Conducted eight experiments examining participants' consideration of additive versus subtractive changes.
Manipulated task cues to consider subtraction, opportunities to recognize additive search limitations, and cognitive load.
Assessed the likelihood of identifying advantageous subtractive transformations under different experimental conditions.

Main Results:

Participants systematically defaulted to searching for additive transformations, overlooking subtractive ones.
The likelihood of identifying beneficial subtractive changes decreased when subtraction was not explicitly cued.
Higher cognitive load and fewer opportunities to recognize additive strategy shortcomings further reduced consideration of subtractive changes.

Conclusions:

The tendency to favor additive over subtractive solutions is a cognitive default.
This bias can lead to suboptimal outcomes in various real-world challenges, including personal, institutional, and environmental issues.
Understanding this bias is crucial for developing strategies to encourage more balanced solution-seeking.