Confabulation: Any idea why you just did that?

In his book titled The Happiness Hypothesis University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt defines “Confabulation” – that’s how people readily fabricate reasons to explain their own behavior. That might seem confusing and you might think “Why fabricate? Don’t we know why we do behave in a certain way?” Well, the answer is NO, if we consider the results of tens of psychology studies.

In other words sometimes, and that can even be a lot of the times, we behave in certain ways without being aware of the real reason for our behavior. At the unconscious level some motivation, previous experience, or current physical stimulant (eg., smell, temperature) could trigger a thought or a behavior without our awareness.

My favorite example is one of many “priming” studies done by Dr. John Bargh and his students at Yale University. In priming studies researchers would expose participants to a stimulus such as some words, a smell, a pictures and then see if this influences or primes a subsequent thought. reaction or behavior of the person. 

Here’s what happens in my favorite priming study: Just by manipulating the temperature of a drink – coffee vs. coke – their participants were asked  to hold “before” the experiment, the researchers influenced the participants’ subsequent evaluation of a job applicant! People who were asked to hold a cup of cold coke were more likely to evaluate the applicant negatively, compared to people who were asked to hold a cup of hot coffee. The latter group, in turn was more likely to suggest hiring the applicant. The explanation possibly being, a cold sensation triggers a cooler, distant approach, while a warm sensation prompts a warmer approach to the person.

When asked afterwards, the participants were not even aware of the connection between holding a drink (or the temperature of the drink) and their evaluations of the job applicant. So functions the “unconscious/automatic processes”…We end up having thoughts, making evaluations and decisions, or acting in certain ways as a result of things that we are not even aware of!

And the confabulation part comes in when we are asked to explain the reason behind our behaviors. Since we are not aware of the “real” reason, we end up “fabricating” a plausible explanation for our behavior and we do sincerely believe this “made-up” explanation is the cause of our behavior! The participants in this study might explain their evaluations by factors that “made sense” at that moment: “He seemed competent”; “He was a good communicator” vs. “He seemed distant and not confident” even though in both conditions the “applicant” was exactly the same person and behaved exactly the same way.

Now what does that mean for you? If you’ve been following this blog, you know that my favorite suggestion for any kind of solution or improvement is BECOMING AWARE. And that requires self-reflection on the underlying reasons for your thoughts, feelings, reactions and behaviors. If you don’t do that, it is highly likely that you miss some of those reasons that were the actual triggers for your reactions.

"I am able to control only that of which I am aware. That of which I am unaware controls me. “  ~ John Whitmore

You might wonder “Well, you’ve just said some of these triggers are outside our awareness – how can I become aware then??” To be honest, you’ll probably never be able to become aware all of the factors but you have the choice to become more “inquisitive”, especially when it comes to important judgments and decisions.

• Could it be that the negative reaction you’ve been having towards your colleague is because he reminds you of someone who always annoys you?
• Could the negative gut feeling you get each time you want to express disagreement in the meetings be due to the painting on the boardroom that emphasizes harmony and consensus?
• Or could the recent drop in your productivity be explained by the new elevator music that activates memories of vacation?

These might sound trivial but they are not different than the effects that researchers find study after study.  So… be open to the idea that your thoughts and behaviors are shaped by factors that you are not always aware of – by now that is a well-established scientific fact!

Maximizing vs. Satisficing? How happy are you with your decisions?

"Choose well, your choice is brief, yet endless." ~ Goethe

• Do you channel surf when you watch TV, even while attempting to watch one program?
• When you are in the car listening to the radio, do you often check other stations to see if something better is playing even if you’re relatively satisfied with what you’re listening to?
• No matter how satisfied with you are with your job, do you think it is only right for you to be on the lookout for better opportunities?
• Do you find that writing – even just a letter to a friend – is difficult because it’s so hard to word things just right?
• Do you find renting videos, or shopping for clothes or gifts difficult because you’re always struggling to pick the best one?
• Whenever you’re faced with a choice, do you try to imagine what all the other possibilities are, even ones that aren’t possible at the moment?

Well, if you said yes to most of the above questions you’re probably a “maximizer” - that is, you have goal orientation that is driven by the question “Is this the best?”. But if you think more in terms of “Is this alternative acceptable?” you are more of a “satisficer”.

Of course, like for any other psychological categorization, these represent general tendencies and could show variation depending on factors such as the type of decision (eg., health – related vs. grocery shopping) and the time available to make a decision.

Maximizing is the better strategy especially for important decisions - maximizers plan more carefully in solving problems, and their high standards may drive them to greater achievement.  However, maximization can come at a significant cost to well-being. If you are a maximizer you probably experience some negative post-decision consequences of being a maximizer.

Research shows that maximization is negatively related to happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, and positively associated depression, perfectionism, and regret. This means picking the best option does not come with being happy or satified with the decision.

This is a red flag especially when the number of options increase. Most of us enjoy flexibility and having options – we think the more the better, right? Well, research shows: rather not! According to Dr. Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College, as more options are added three problems arise:

1. It becomes difficult to gather adequate information for all available options.
2. As options expand, people’s standards for what is an acceptable outcome rise.
3. People may come to believe that any unacceptable result is their fault, because with so many options, they should be able to find a satisfactory one.

But these problems do not trouble everyone equally. Maximizers tend to “suffer” more compared to satisficiers. Think about a purchasing decision.  If there were only two software programs it would be relatively easier to pick one, but let’s say the IT manager is trying to decide among five products. Let's look at two scenarios:

A “satisficer” manager would be content with using “good enough” information as basis for making a choice. Based on this information, her goal would be to pick the one which is “acceptable” for the needs of the company. Post-decision she wouldn’t keep on questioning her decision thinking “Have I collected all information?” or “Is this really the best software for the company, or could one of the others have been better?”

A maximizer, on the other hand would try to make sure he has a lot of information about each product – which would probably take longer to gather and evaluate. His decision making will be guided by “Which one is the best?”. After he makes his decision he is likely to seek standards or ratings to compare his decision against. 

The irony is that despite doing their best in weighing the options, maximizers can’t let go once they've made a choice. In a way you could also say that maximizers spend too much time in the deliberative mindset. Rather, they show a susceptibility to regret as indicated by the following statements:

• Whenever I make a choice, I’m curious about what would have happened if I had chosen differently.
• Whenever I make a choice, I try to get information about how the other alternatives turned out.
• If I make a choice and it turns out well, I still feel like something of a failure if I find out that another choice would have turned out better.

Maximizers also have higher expectations from their chosen option and they expect a higher rate of return given the huge investment they’ve made in weighing the alternatives before deciding. This tendency sets them up for frequent disappointment.

So, if you

• have a general tendency to take a lot of time in weighing different options;
• find it difficult to enjoy the choices you’ve made because you can’t stop thinking what would have happened if you had picked the other alternative;
• tend to compare yourself frequently with others – especially those who are better off;
• experience regret often;
• can’t make sense why the boost of happiness you got from making that “best” decision wares off so easily (despite all that effort you’ve put in!)

then, you need to make some changes in the way you make decisions. That is, if you would like to still make good decisions, but be more satisfied and happy with them and experience less regret.

Here's a few things that will help you to make the shift:

• Become aware how much time and energy you’re putting into making different decisions
• Each time you’re faced with a decision (and that includes ordering food in a restaurant!) allocate a certain amount of time for decision making and stick with that.
• Question your goal to pick “the best option” when faced with decisions – ask yourself: Is it really that important and necessary, or is it enough to pick “a good enough /acceptable” option?
• Get others to question you when you are striving to pick the best option.
• As you shift towards making “satisficing” decisions, make a quick post-decision analysis. How long did it take? How good do you feel about the decision? And how satisfying were the results? The aim here is to see you can still make good decisions by being a “satisficer”.  

Again, like any other habit it will take time to change this one but it is likely to have positive outcomes.  That's also why I suggest practicing it even with minor decisions such as ordering food or renting a movie. And you’ll still have the flexibility to take all the time you need when you are faced with important decisions.  Happy deciding!

References:

Schwartz, B. (2000). Self determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79 – 88.

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178-1197.

  

There's nothing wrong with creating "worst-case" scenarios - as long as you don't attach negative feelings to those scenarios.

When I first heard this statement during a leadership seminar, I somehow knew it was very important and would have far-reaching implications. At that time I preferred to ponder on it later and just noted it down. And since then I’ve realized so many different contexts that it is relevant for…

Think about different situations where you need to make decisions… To accept or decline a deal/an offer; to give honest feedback or not; to hire or fire someone; to escalate or de-escalate conflict; to set up your business or not; to ask for business or not; to quit your job or not… The list is long – pick your own favorite example before you read on.

Because we live in a world with a lot of uncertainty – either because we cannot gather all necessary information; or even if did, don’t have the capacity to process it all; or simply because we cannot see the future – our decision-making is never perfect.

One of the ways to simplify this process is to think in terms of best-case, most-probable and worst-case scenarios. So actually, it’s not that there’s nothing wrong with creating “worst-case” scenarios, it is actually necessary to consider them while making decisions!

Especially in certain industries or functions it is unthinkable not to consider those worst-case scenarios. Think about the credit department in banks – how could you not think of the worst case scenario before you approve a loan? Or imagine a lawyer working on an M & A deal – how could he afford to overlook the worst-case scenario? (Actually, professionals working in areas that need a constant/systematic focus on the worst-case scenarios are at a risk of carrying the same outlook into other areas, such as personal life, where such a focus is not always adaptive – more on this in a future post)

So there is really nothing wrong with working with worst-case scenarios per se. Although hopefully your decision-making is not systematically biased using only those types of scenarios. But what about those negative feelings that we attach to those “worst-case” scenarios? Even though one can think of a number of them such as, anxiety, guilt, sadness, disappointment what it really boils down to is: Fear!

Fear of: failure, rejection, losing a person, losing control, losing self-confidence, losing face, getting hurt, wasting time, not being able to handle whatever happens, not being accepted as we are…

And what happens when you feel fear? Although its impact shows variation among people, in general fear tends to block action and moving forward. It is more likely to keep people in the status quo, whatever feels safer. People become less likely to act on their decisions and gut-feelings even when they think there’s much to gain if they were to act.

Thus, instead of going active to confront a conflict, “fearing” the worst case scenario people avoid talking about the conflict or the person who’s on the other side of that conflict. Or instead of asking for business, “fearing” the rejection, they pass on an important opportunity.

Then the whole rationalization mechanism kicks in to justify their approach to avoid the resulting dissonance – the dissonance from not acting in the direction which could have also ended up in a “better than the worst-case scenario” result.

Another tendency that makes attaching negative feelings to worst-case scenarios even more problematic is that we are actually not good at affective forecasting. In other words, when we imagine how good or bad we would feel following a future event we tend to over – or under-estimate the intensity of our future emotions.

This happens because we tend to rely too much on our current emotions or some similar events that stand out in our memory due to their extreme/intense emotional significance as anchors. The consequence? Inaccurate predictions about how bad we would feel if the worst-case scenarios were to come true!

What’s a better strategy then? Well, the answer is in the title! We need to keep worst-case scenarios free of feelings as much as possible.  And how do we do that, you ask?

1. First, start with best-case or most-probable scenarios to create a positive vision which leads to positive emotions including hope, sense of accomplishment, relief, confidence, pride etc.. When people feel good, their thinking becomes more creative, integrative, flexible, and open to information (Isen, 1987)
2. Then become aware of your emotions as you think of the worst case-scenario. And get clear as much as possible what they are – name them! And ask yourself what’s behind them. When negative emotions remain as generalized unexplained anxiety or fear, it is much more difficult to do something about them. 

Here’s an example:

Issue: Confronting a colleague in a conflict

• Best-case scenario: We’ll talk about the issue, express our disagreements, show respect, stay calm, clear the air, find a compromise satisfying for both. (Possible positive feelings: Hope, relief, accomplishment, confidence)
• Worst-case scenario: Losing my control, getting emotional, straining the relationship, not getting what I want, losing face
• Feelings: What am I feeling (specific!) right now when I think of the worst-case scenario? : Anxiety for not knowing what will happen, fear of losing the relationship, fear of losing control and face. Most of the time once you name and acknowledge the emotions, you already start feeling much more calm about the worst-case scenario! As a further step you can ask yourself how realistic that worst-case scenario is. 
• Observer's perspective: Now that you have expressed the emotions – look at the scenario from a detached perspective, from an observer’s perspective. That is the perspective that would help with effective decision making. Now you can evaluate the scenario much better as you weigh its pro’s and con’s and hence, how “bad” it really is and finally how is probable it is. The data you have is not “confounded” by the negative emotions anymore.

Again, trying to make worst-case scenarios emotion-free doesn’t mean that we should suppress or ignore our negative emotions. On the contrary, emotions are  very valuable in decision making, they are signposts that signal what we are not sometimes able to pick up at the conscious cognitive level. Reflecting on them gives us a wealth of information about our needs, motivations, un-explored assumptions. This is why I suggest that you name the specific negative emotions you are experiencing when you think of the worst-case scenario. What I am arguing is that they shouldn’t be an obstacle in effective decision-making as they become an ingrained but unexplained part of the worst-case scenarios.

Getting used to “detaching” the negative emotions from the worst-case scenarios might and probably will take sometime and effort. This is true especially if you are someone who is not comfortable with working with your emotions; or if you believe that you never rely on them in your decision-making anyway. In that case, you would gain even more by reflecting on the emotional level of decision making because it means that so far your emotions have been influencing your decisions without your control!

"I am able to control only that of which I am aware. That of which I am unaware controls me. “  ~ John Whitmore


References:
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes and social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 203-253. 

I thought I’ve already made up my mind! Stuck in a deliberative mindset?

I get frustrated with my occasional indecisiveness when it comes to some important decisions! At times I would even say I am a firm advocate of the “Assertive Right #4: You have the right to change your mind” from the assertive rights listed by Manuel J. Smith in his brilliant book on assertiveness “When I say no, I feel guilty”. 

Recently I’ve had an A-ha moment that has helped me to make better sense of my indecisiveness. I’ve realized that at times I just get stuck in a “deliberative mindset” and fail to move into a “implemental mindset”.

These two mindsets* were coined by Dr. Peter Gollwitzer, a leading researcher in the area of goal pursuit – followers of this blog would recognize the name from the post on implementation intentions. According to Dr. Gollwitzer, there are unique mindsets associated with how people go about pursuing goals.

Deliberative mindset refers to a cognitive orientation in which people evaluate and select a goal/alternative from many alternate goals/options that could be pursued at a given point in time. Say, when you’re trying to decide if you should stay with your current position or put yourself forward for that senior-level promotion.

This mindset leads people to consider relevant information in a careful and balanced manner. What are the advantages and disadvantages of my current position and those of the new position? Things to consider: more responsibility, more involvement in strategic decision, more visibility in the organization, better pay, new team, longer hours,  etc…

The desire to be accurate (unbiased) is stronger when in a deliberative mindset and people spend sometime in this mindset as they weigh pro’s and con’s of each option. Research also shows this might decrease the positive illusions we normally entertain about ourselves – such as, our ability to control uncontrollable events; being better than others; or our vulnerability to risks.

In contrast, in implemental mindset, people are concerned with the specific planning on how to implement the chosen goal. Let’s say you’ve decided forego the promotion option and to stay in your current position. The focus is now on the thoughts and actions necessary to achieve the outcome that you’ve decided to pursue (How can I make the best out of my current position?; How can I increase my visibility in the current position?; What are some ways I can improve at what I am doing to make it more fulfilling?)

Different to the deliberative mindset, implemental mindset is associated with an information search biased toward the chosen option, due to a focus on planning and action (e.g., great things about my current team; flexibility in managing projects; time I’ll have for other things). The determination to achieve chosen outcomes may foster a belief in one’s ability to realize these outcomes and thoughts that reflect the desire to feel good about the decision (This position allows me to make a bigger difference in the organization; I can be more successful with my current team;  etc..)

Now, “normally” the decision-making process starts with being in a deliberative mind-set; then making a decision after careful deliberation; and then moving to a implemental mindset where now it’s all about believing in the decision you’ve made and moving forward with it. But what happens when you’re stuck in a deliberative mindset? You relapse back to considering the alternatives again and again! So you find yourself considering the advantages of the promotion and seeing it as an alternative again?

What happens then?

• You spend time and energy that would be better spent on pursuing your chosen option, on deliberating between the two options.
• You start questioning the “goodness” of your previous decision and this reflects on your commitment to your goal – this is especially detrimental if the other option is not viable anymore (e.g., someone else is already promoted to the other position)
• Even if you end up with the same decision again, the subjective feeling of being convinced of it decreases (i.e., during the second or third round of deliberation you might come up with additional con’s to it) that could influence your motivation
• If it is a recurring pattern, this might decrease your confidence in your ability to make good decisions.

How to go about it?

• Spend enough time in the deliberative mindset at the beginning, comparing different options
• Document the decision process by writing down the pro’s and con’s of different options - I know people who do that on an excel sheet.
• Once you decide write down the rationale behind your final decision in a narrative/paragraph form than in bullet form. Doing so would help with sense-making if you were to revisit your decision.
• If you find yourself “relapsing” back to the deliberative mindset, refer to your notes and remind yourself there is no value in reconsidering the different options again - unless there is new information. Refocus on your chosen goal and think of mentally switching a dial that reads: Activate implemental mindset!

This might mean some training for people who in general experience indecisiveness. But like other cognitive structures or process you can modify this tendency. If you’re in that group, practice it even with minor decisions (e.g., which restaurant to go, which food to order, etc.,).

What if you generally don’t have propensity towards indecisiveness but find yourself getting stuck in the deliberative mindset with some decisions? This might be a sign of not being able to let go off the other alternatives and deserves some exploration.

• Could there be some hidden benefits and costs you haven’t considered?
• Have you taken the emotional pro’s and con’s in your deliberations in addition to the more rational/factual ones?
• Did you take a “What should I want/do?” or “What do I really want?” perspective? 

At work or in private life, professionals have to make a lot of decisions - taking more responsibility and being more reflective about the decision-making process could only lead to better decisions.

* Mindset refers to a cognitive orientation characterized by certain ways of processing information or solving tasks. While one mindset can facilitate solving a particular task, let’s say choosing the best option among many others; it can hamper solving other tasks, such as persisting on the already chosen alternative.

Self-handicapping: Are you sabotaging yourself to avoid evaluation or failure?

I was watching an old episode of Grey’s Anatomy – my only TV addiction – where a lawyer who’s about to take the Bar exam in a few days for the fifth time is brought in for severe burns in her hand. She says that before she took some practice tests, she wanted some tea so she put on a pot of water, set the timer and after 30 minutes the smoke alarm went off. When taking the pot off the stove she held on to it too long leading to severe burns. She explains that she should have known better and that whenever she is studying for the Bar that she can't focus on anything with all the stuff that she has to know. She complains how bad it is with what happened to her hand with the exam coming up. With all the complaining you would think she would be happy about the news when the doctor says they can get her fixed up and she'll be fine and can take the test, but instead one can clearly see the shock on her face… Well, in the end it becomes clear that she couldn’t stand taking the risk of failing yet another Bar exam:

“Can you imagine failing the Bar five times? It's absurd and pathetic. I can't sit for two and a half days to prove again to everyone how pathetic I am.”

This is a perfect example of the lengths people would go – although this one is quite extreme – to sabotage themselves prior to an important and potentially self-defining challenge. The name for this tendency in social psychology literature: self-handicapping. It is said to occur when

"people actively try to “arrange the circumstances of their behavior so as to protect their conceptions of themselves as competent, intelligent persons.” (Jones & Berglas, 1978, p.200)

Other examples:

• the athlete getting drunk the night before the game;
• the student who stays up too late studying so that the exhaustion impedes test performance;
• the employee who “gets” sick or sleep-deprived before important presentations;
• the expat/the immigrant who keeps on postponing taking that language course that would surely increase his chances of getting a promotion/job

Research has established that self-handicapping is motivated by uncertainty about one's ability or, more generally, anticipated threats to self-esteem. It is quite an ironic strategy when you think about it. The individual is so concerned about protecting self-esteem that they set themselves up for poor performance! The catch: they now have a good excuse for why they failed and it is not about their intelligence, talent or competence.

Here is what makes it an even more ironic and risky approach: Self-handicapping only offers a strategic advantage "in those settings where the attributional implications of performance are more important than the success of the performance itself" (Jones & Berglas, 1978; p. 201). Meaning, if the “why you failed” is more important than “you failed”. The outcome doesn’t change (you still underperform) but the explanation for failure doesn’t reflect on your intelligence, talent or competence.

Now, it works if that’s what is important or what you care about. But it is rarely the case that the outcomes does not matter! In other words, many times when we self-handicap to avoid self-evaluative feedback, the success of the performance really does matter.  The lawyer from Grey’s Anatomy won’t be able to avoid the failure even if she has the excuse of the “burned hand”. Yes, maybe it decreases the impact of the failure on her self-esteem because people will say “Oh, but she had a burned hand”, but really, she will know what really happened. And if she succeeds despite the burned hand – even a better outcome than passing the test without a burned hand!*

However, once the person uses self-handicapping over and over again, people stop being sympathetic about his excuses. Actually, self-handicapping is also self-deception focused strategy. It is not only targeting to protect your self-image in front of others, but you are also trying to deceive yourself into thinking “if you didn’t have that excuse you could have pulled it off successfully!” So you’re postponing putting yourself out there and give it all to see if you can actually pull it off. In other words, it is a reflection of the fear of not being able to make it if you were to give it your best.

How about you? Have you been tempted to literally create an excuse that would prevent you from being at your best? How did you rationalize your following suboptimal performance?  And of course, what would be a better strategy to deal with being evaluated or fear of failure?

Here’re a few ideas:

1. Awareness, awareness, awareness! I think this is my default advice for any kind of coping and adopting a better strategy. Be more mindful of your thinking and behavioral patterns.
2. Reframe the upcoming test/project/presentation also as a learning goal, rather than only as performance goal. Even if you fail – what can you learn from it?
3. The above strategy requires having a growth mindset, that is believing that with effort, focus and perseverance people can improve their performance and qualities. If you don’t have growth mindset (you can test it here), adopting it would open up great perspectives for you!
4. Make a it a choice! Weigh the costs and benefits of self-handicapping and then actively choose to (if you will) or not to do it. So, at least take the self-deception out own the equation. 

 *  Research shows that high self-esteem people self-handicap to enhance success, whereas low self-esteem people self-handicap to protect against the self-esteem threatening implications of failure.  

References:

Jones, E.E, & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of under achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.

Dweck, Carol. (2006). The New Psychology of Success.