RESUMEN
Improving objects, ideas or situations-whether a designer seeks to advance technology, a writer seeks to strengthen an argument or a manager seeks to encourage desired behaviour-requires a mental search for possible changes1-3. We investigated whether people are as likely to consider changes that subtract components from an object, idea or situation as they are to consider changes that add new components. People typically consider a limited number of promising ideas in order to manage the cognitive burden of searching through all possible ideas, but this can lead them to accept adequate solutions without considering potentially superior alternatives4-10. Here we show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations. Across eight experiments, participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (versus did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (versus several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (versus lower) cognitive load. Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
Asunto(s)
Conducta de Elección , Modelos Psicológicos , Solución de Problemas , Adulto , Señales (Psicología) , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Análisis y Desempeño de TareasRESUMEN
As efforts to control climate change gain momentum, so too does the possibility that some global actor(s) will deploy one or more forms of climate engineering. Climate engineering refers to large-scale and deliberate activities intended to change either the carbon-balance or energy-balance of the planet. Climate engineering approaches are untested, involve deep uncertainty, and have far-reaching consequences. Nevertheless, many scientists expect that, relative to conventional mitigation approaches, some climate-engineering approaches will prove less expensive and will require less coordination. They will also have more potential for unilateral deployment. Decisions to pursue climate engineering involve several psychosocial dimensions related to attitude and preference formation, decision making under uncertainty, interpersonal coordination, and health and well-being. Even the prospect of climate engineering could affect norms, goals, and beliefs. The field of psychological science should prepare to help society responsibly consider climate engineering alongside more conventional climate-change responses. This article lays out some initial questions and issues a call to action. It aims to provide common ground for a conversation between climatologists, policymakers, psychological scientists, and members of the public on the important behavioral touchpoints of climate engineering. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).