Inspired by the Nisbett and Wilson paper, Petter Johansson and colleagues investigated subjects' insight into their own preferences using a new technique.
Subjects saw two photographs of people and were asked which they found more attractive.
The causal theories provided after an action will often serve only to justify the person's behaviour in order to relieve cognitive dissonance.
That is, a person may not have noticed the real reasons for their behavior, even when trying to provide explanations.
On the basis of these studies and existing attribution research, they concluded that reports on mental processes are confabulated.
They wrote that subjects had, "little or no introspective access to higher order cognitive processes".
Many subjects confabulated explanations of their preference.
Instead, it is best thought of as a process whereby people use the contents of consciousness to construct a personal narrative that may or may not correspond to their nonconscious states.
A 1977 paper by psychologists Richard Nisbett and Timothy D.
These philosophers suggest that some concepts, including "belief" or "pain" will turn out to be quite different from what is commonly expected as science advances.
The faulty guesses that people make to try and explain their thought processes have been called "causal theories".
He may not admit this to himself, instead claiming his prejudice is because he believes that homosexuality is unnatural.