ArticleiScience2025
The innovation bias: Implicit preferences for innovative and historical solutions over contemporary ones.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovative products and services promise to improve our lives in many ways. Novel, unfamiliar approaches, however, also come with increased uncertainty regarding their feasibility and quality. In four preregistered experiments, we investigated implicit biases toward such innovative approaches. We tracked hand movements while participants chose between options of different levels of innovativeness. Choices either compared historic versus contemporary options (past comparison; e.g., carriage vs. car) or they compared contemporary versus innovative options (future comparison; e.g., car vs. self-driving car). While for past comparisons, movement trajectories were systematically torn toward the more historic option, the opposite effect was observed for future comparisons. This pattern of results replicated across all four studies. People, thus, seem to implicitly favor innovative and historic approaches over established ones. We conclude that moderate incongruity from an established approach, either through innovation or through a return to the past, evokes particular interest and attraction toward non-standard alternatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.