Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving

A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient.
  1. Tom Meyvis

    1. Tom Meyvis is in the Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Heeyoung Yoon

    1. Heeyoung Yoon is in the Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

Consider the Lego structure depicted in Figure 1, in which a figurine is placed under a roof supported by a single pillar at one corner. How would you change this structure so that you could put a masonry brick on top of it without crushing the figurine, bearing in mind that each block added costs 10 cents? If you are like most participants in a study reported by Adams et al.1 in Nature, you would add pillars to better support the roof. But a simpler (and cheaper) solution would be to remove the existing pillar, and let the roof simply rest on the base. Across a series of similar experiments, the authors observe that people consistently consider changes that add components over those that subtract them — a tendency that has broad implications for everyday decision-making.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 592, 189-190 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00592-0

References

  1. Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H. & Klotz, L. E. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arkes, H. R. & Blumer, C. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Decision Processes 35, 124–140 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tully, S. M., Hershfield, H. E. & Meyvis, T. J. Consumer Res. 42, 59–75 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer, J. W. & Bromley, P. Sociol. Theory 31, 366–389 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Victor, P. Nature 468, 370–371 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Byrne, R. M. J. & McEleney, A. J. Exp. Psychol. 26, 1318–1331 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links