THE CONFABULATING MIND

Introduction

As we have seen, we don't always manage to think things through as if we were perfectly rational creatures with immense memories, so our thoughts and decisions often rely on heuristics which, in turn, may be generated by influences that we are only vaguely aware of. Our actions are, therefore, the outcome of wherever our thoughts have been buffeted by those influences. Decisions can end up being made depending on what associations comes to mind most quickly, what something looks like or sounds like, how important the decision is, what a pop/film/football star does, and so on. This can be particularly relevant when a person, group or company is attempting to persuade us to do something.

How to make people an offer they can't refuse

There are many techniques of persuasion that rely on us not considering things in any great depth. One theory to explain what goes on is the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion put forward by Petty and Cacioppo (1984). They argued that there are two routes to persuasion: a carefully considered one, a central route, and a peripheral route where persuasion takes place depending on such things as how you are feeling, whether a celebrity had endorsed a product, or the wording of an ad. For example, a product that is 90% fat free would be considered more persuasive than one that advertised itself as 10% fat. One emphasizes the lack of fat and the other its presence (Levin & Gaeth, 1988; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Similarly, hearing that you have a 2% chance of developing breast cancer over the next five years sounds more frightening than being told that you have a 98% chance of not developing it. Statements such as ‘up to 50% off!’ includes zero but zero is not what is being emphasized. In the past, a scantily clad model draped over a car has been shown to influence people’s (well, mainly men's) estimate of how fast the car was. When you have the time and the motivation to elaborate on what you are being told about a product, then you would be going down the central route.

A common feature of some forms of persuasion is stating something that doesn't actually mean anything in the hope that the reader is not paying enough attention to notice, such as the ‘Persil washes whiter' ad from 1955. The statement doesn't say what it washes whiter than. This kind of ad uses a ‘hanging comparative" where whatever it seems to be comparing itself to is not mentioned.

'IBM makes storage easier, cheaper and greener.

IBM promises tools for better storage and improved energy consumption’

Easier than what? Cheaper than what? Improved compared to what?

Another example comes from the Feedback section in New Scientist from 2004 where a reader submitted this ad: ‘Pears Herbal Care Aloe Vera, Honeysuckle and Vitamin E Shampoo maintains the health and shine of normal hair for less than the more expensive brands'. Presumably, it also does so for more than the less expensive brands, or for the same as brands that are the same price. In cases such as these, and they are ubiquitous, the advertisers are trying to influence your behaviour through the shallow peripheral route (mainly Type 1) in the hope that you won't use the deeper central processing route (Type 2) or you would realize they are meaningless. These are not exactly subtle messages but their impact on our choices can be.

Mistaking implications for assertions

Before the Battle of Pteria in 547BCE, the Lydian king Croesus sought the advice of the oracle at Delphi. The oracle is reported to have replied that, ‘if King Croesus crosses the Halys River, a great empire will be destroyed'. Croesus mistook the implication for an assertion that he would destroy the Persian empire but it was his own great empire that was destroyed. Pragmatic implications are 'statements that lead a person to believe something that is neither explicitly stated nor necessarily implied' (Searleman & Carter, 1988, p. 265). The reason such techniques of persuasion work is because we are very good at making inferences and assumptions. This is sensible since we spend much of our time filling in the gaps in the partial information that come through our senses. If someone at a dinner table asks, ‘Is there any salt?’ the answer 'Yes' is not the appropriate response (see Chapter 1). The pragmatic implication is that the person is asking for someone to pass the salt. In situations such as the one King Croesus found himself in, one can mistake implications for assertions and there are cases where it is important to distinguish between them such as a courtroom testimony. Harris, Teske, and Ginn (1975) presented people with two versions of statements from a five-minute mock trial testimony. In one version, participants heard: 'that absent-minded Herman lost his walkie-talkie too' and 'I walked away without taking any money’. In another, these were changed to: 'that absent-minded Herman didn't have his walkie-talkie either,’ and 'I was able to walk away without taking any money.’ In the second case, the statement that the speaker was able to walk away only pragmatically implies that he did in fact walk away. There were 18 versions of such statements and participants were asked 36 true or false questions. Participants were divided into two groups: one group was given instructions similar to the ones given in a real courtroom; another group were given specific instructions to distinguish between assertions and implications. However, there were no significant differences between the groups when asked the true/false questions suggesting that they were unable to distinguish between a pragmatic implication and an assertion.

Searleman and Carter (1988) performed an experiment using taped commercials about fictitious products. They looked at the pragmatic implications based on juxtaposition: ‘Get a goodnight's sleep. Buy Dreamon Sleeping Pills.’ The juxtaposition implies that the pills will help you sleep but it doesn't actually say that. Another is based on hedge words such as ‘Ty-One-On pain reliever may help get rid of these morning after headaches' where ‘may’ indicates a weak assertion but a strong implication (p. 266). Participants were presented with either versions involving a pragmatic implication and ones involving an assertion: ‘Ty-One-On pills will cure morning after headaches.' After a five-minute delay, there was no significant difference between True responses for implied versus asserted statements, although there was a significant difference for the ones that were tested immediately. Versions using hanging comparatives were the least successful at misleading participants. However, these results were for participants taking part in an experiment and who were being tested subsequently. When ads appear on billboards. Facebook, TV, radio, etc., we don't expect to be tested on them and hence are even more likely to mistake implications for assertions.