fandaal

This study appears to be a neat demonstration of Nisbett and Wilson’s hypothesis. Participants clearly
offered confabulatory explanations for choices they had not in fact made. The strength of this study lies in
the fact that one can more clearly discern the real from the confabulatory in these introspective reports. Moreover,
Johansson, Hall, Sikstrom, Tarning, and Lind (this issue) reveal that real and confabulatory reports differ
very little in terms of content. This finding is particularly telling. It implies that our justifications for ‘real’
choices may be based on the same processes that generate justifications for confabulatory choices.

интроспекция не работает.