Decrease vs reduce, any difference?

Question

are they completely interchangeable or there are cases when youd use one over the other one? (did i even say it right re: one over the other one?)

Answer 1

i thoink so. but i guess decrease is used more.

STOP ASKING QUEESTIONSD LIKE THIS PEOPLE. YALL MAKE THE EASIEST WORDS SO HARD BY THINKING OO MUCH AND THEN AKING A QUESTION ABOUT IT.

I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT IF THERE WAS EVEN A DIFFERENCE IF I DINDT SEE THIS QUESTION

Answer 2

There are quite a lot of differences:

decrease = to cause sth to become less OR to become less

reduce = to cause sth to become less

Correct:  They decreased the pressure.

Correct:  The pressure decreased.

Correct:  They reduced the pressure.

Incorrect:  The pressure reduced.

decrease can be a noun and a verb

reduce can only be a verb

Correct:  There was a decrease in pressure.

Incorrect:  There was a reduce in pressure.

They are used in different idiomatic senses.

Correct: He was reduced to sleeping in the streets.

Incorrect:  He was decreased to sleeping in the streets.

And with many other words, while both are possible, one is much more likely (simply due to common usage):

Very likely:  reduced risk

Less likely:  decreased risk

Very likely:  They reduced the price from $50 to $10.

Unlikely:  They decreased the price from $50 to $10.

Very likely:  The workforce has been reduced by half.

Less likely:  The workforce has been decreased by half.

Very likely:  The company has decreased their involvement in children's books.

Unlikely:  The company has reduced their involvement in children's books.

There's bound to be plenty more... but the same is true for nearly every word in any language - even if the meaning/concept is almost exactly the same, the words and structures we use them in often vary.

Answer 3

Tough question.

My thoughts:

'Decrease' seems to be a lot more simple of a word than 'reduce' as far as the definitions offered in Merriam Webster. This is in part because 'reduce' has a scientific connotation that 'decrease' does not.

From what I can tell, both verbs can be used transitively (takes an object) or intransitively (doesn't take an object). A slight difference is that 'decrease' is the same in noun form as it is in verb form whereas 'reduce' has to be replaced with 'reduction' for a noun form.

My understanding of the difference in connotation and interchangeability is that 'decrease' can't be used in all of the senses that 'reduce' can be used for. 'Reduce' has a broader use, but the two can mean the same thing in some instances.

For example:

Matt was reduced to tears.

Matt was decreased to tears. WHAT?!?!

--- I think 'decrease' can only be used literally.

Matt's paycheck was reduced by ten percent.

Matt's paycheck decreased by ten percent.

--- The difference in these examples is interesting because 'decreased' doesn't beg the question 'why was Matt's paycheck decreased?' It seems more assertive. It just decreased and that's a fact of life. Naturally, I could add "was" into the sentence to embed the same curiosity that questions the agent (who cut the paycheck and why for less?), but it's not necessary as it is with 'reduced.' I don't know how well I explained that, but that's really how confusing my brain is when it comes to work choices. :P

'Decrease' simply has a more limited range of use. I would say that the two are interchangeable in the "lessen/diminish" sense of the words, but not likely in the other senses that 'reduce' offers.

Hope that helps. :) It's more just the way I'm interpreting the definitions according to M-W.

Lastly, AP style would require that you say: cases when you would use one instead of/in place of the other one. To say 'over' implies a spatial reference (over/under), though it can technically be used to denote a preference or rank.