In the now classic
experiment, psychologists Richard Nisbet and Timothy Wilson from the University of Michikan laid out various things in front of people, such as socks socks, and asked them to choose one. Participants consistently chose things on their right. But when they were asked to explain their choice, they did not mention the location of the thing, and called a higher-quality fabric texture or a brighter color as the reasons for their choice, even if absolutely identical pairs of socks lay before them. People demonstrated
confabulation . Not knowing the real factors that determined their choice, they did not associate it with the reasons that determined the choice, but simply came up with a plausible explanation of how the chosen thing turned out to be better.
This behavior is not limited to situations in experiments. In everyday life, we often convincingly explain our choice, even if we do not know some of the factors that influenced it. When we offer an explanation of the choice, we present plausible arguments in its favor. Suppose the commission selected two candidates for a vacancy and assesses them after careful consideration of their resume and conduct for an interview. Most of the commission members lean toward John, choosing between him and Aria.
Explaining their preferences, commission members say that John has more experience than Aria, and that he behaved more confidently in the interview. In fact, both candidates may have enough experience related to a vacancy, and they both can demonstrate the same confidence. The preference of members of the commission was associated with prejudice to women. Since they did not know about this prejudice, they lacked information related to the factors that determined their choice. They explain their choice, citing the arguments generally accepted in the context of hiring employees. In this case, the members of the commission were subject to confabulation.
Confabulation comes from the Latin word fabula, “history”, which can mean both a description of a historical event and a fairy tale. Under the influence of confabulation, we tell a fictional story, believing that it is real. Since we do not understand that it is invented, this is fundamentally different from the lie: we have no intention to deceive the interlocutor. During confabulation, there is a discrepancy between what we are going to do (to tell a true story) and what we are doing as a result (we are telling a fictional story). We are subject to confabulation when we are asked to explain our choice, because we are not always aware of the factors responsible for it. However, answering the question of why we made such a choice, we offer an explanation. It may sound convincing, but it is not based on relevant facts, because it does not take into account some of the factors that influenced the choice.
It seems obvious that we should try to avoid confabulation. It comes from ignorance and helps spread misinformation about ourselves (we chose socks based on their color) and the world around us (Aria was less confident in interviewing than John). However, no matter how counterintuitive it may seem, confabulation has its advantages. From my point of view, succumbing to confabulation, and not recognizing our ignorance, we construct an improved image of ourselves; you include diverse information about ourselves in a coherent story; we share information about ourselves with others.
Consider these effects in more detail. The presence of an explanation of our choice, unlike the recognition of our own ignorance, improves our self-image and image in the eyes of others. Despite the real ignorance of the factors influencing our choice, we present ourselves as actors who know why they make a choice, and make their choice for compelling reasons. If the subjects in the study Nisbet and Wilson would not explain their choice of socks, they would give the impression of people who made a random choice, or illegible consumers. If the members of the commission had not explained their preferences for John to Aria, their choice would not have been so authoritative.
Further, by offering an explanation, we can include in our system of beliefs, preferences, and values, helping us to realize ourselves as an individual, an example of behavior, whose reasons for us are not clear enough. Certain choices are built into the pattern of preferences and become part of a complex statement explaining the reasons for our behavior in the past and shaping our behavior in the future. If the subjects in the said study ascribe to themselves preference for brighter socks or softer pajamas, it can be used to interpret their past behavior or predict their behavior as consumers in the future.
Finally, in the process of confabulation, we share information about ourselves, and our choice can be the subject of conversation and discussion. We will receive external feedback on issues related to our choice, and will be able to review the reasons we used to explain our behavior. If members of the commission declare that they preferred John because of their greater work experience, then the fact of his superiority in this parameter can be disputed. You can look at John’s resume again, and perhaps change your preference.
Although our choice is often influenced by external stimuli and unconscious impulses, we usually consider ourselves to be competent and mostly logically consistent individuals, whose actions and opinions are supported by compelling reasons. This sensation is partly illusory, but it supports us in striving to achieve our goals in critical situations. When we overestimate our capabilities, we become more productive, resilient, better plan and more effectively solve problems. When we consider that our choice was made on a reasonable basis, and we integrate it into a coherent sequence of behavior, the
likelihood of achieving the goal increases .
The effect of explaining certain choices on our sense of self is enhanced when the choice is self-determined — for example, as the choice of a party in voting in elections or the choice of a life partner. We also often explain such choices not without confabulation. When we articulate the reasons for the choice made from the category of self-determined, it can serve as a starting point for discussion and reflection, which can potentially lead to changes in personality and self-improvement.
Here it can be argued that the explanation of the choice based on a more solid basis, for example, more accurate (“I chose this pair of socks because of the influence of their position relative to me, which I had no idea about at the moment of choice”) would be better confabulation (“I chose these socks because they are brighter”), and would save us from false ideas. But even when an accurate explanation is available to us, it is unlikely to play the same role in the self-improvement and integration of new behaviors as an explanation under the influence of confabulation. Explaining customer behavior based on an unconscious desire to prefer things on the right does not add to our image of rationality and competence. Confabulation compromises our perception of reality and ourselves, but as a tool to support the personality, it often turns out to be a better option than a reasonable or even absolutely accurate explanation.