Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40835716›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

People overlook subtractive solutions to mental health problems.

Tom J Barry, Nadia Adelina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The psychology of health.Communications psychology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tom J BarryBath Anxiety and Mood (BAM) Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK. tb2249@bath.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1042-3827
Nadia AdelinaBath Anxiety and Mood (BAM) Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8808-2439

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To solve problems, people tend to add new components to them rather than subtract from them. Across eight experimental and naturalistic studies, we examined if more additive (to start something new or do more) than subtractive advice (to stop or do less) is given when humans and artificial intelligence give mental health advice. Compared to subtractive advice, additive advice was recommended more frequently and was rated as more effective and feasible. Several moderators of this effect are explored: Older people are more additive than younger people, who we are advising (e.g., strangers/friends) matters, as does the type of pre-existing mental health-affecting activities (e.g., gambling versus avoiding exercise). People overlook subtractive advice when advising others and instead tell them to do more. Future research must explore the contribution of this additive advice bias to people's sense of being overwhelmed.

Identifiers

PMID40835716
PMCPMC12368146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.