Niro Sivanathan: The counterintuitive way to be more persuasive | TED

Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Krystian Aparta

翻译人员: Gentle Yang 校对人员: Ethan Huang

假设你正在购物。

你一直在寻找一套豪华餐具组

以添加到你的厨房装备中。

Imagine you're on a shopping trip.

果不其然，

本地的百货公司宣布，

You've been looking for a luxury-line dinnerware set

你一直在寻找的那套餐具正在打折，

to add to your kitchen collection.

所以你赶紧去商店找到了 正在打折的24件套。

As it turns out,

your local department store has announced a sale

on the very set you've been looking for,

八个餐盘，全部品质优良；

so you rush to the store to find a 24-piece set on sale.

八个汤碗和沙拉碗，全部品质优良；

以及八个甜点盘，全部品质优良。

Eight dinner plates, all in good condition;

现在，思索片刻，

eight soup and salad bowls, all in good condition;

你愿意为这套餐具付多少钱。

and eight dessert plates, all in good condition.

现在我们想象另一种情况。

Now, consider for a moment

你冲到商店里后 没有看到 24 件套的豪华餐具，

how much you would be willing to pay for this dinnerware set.

你发现了一套 40 件套的餐具正在打折。

Now imagine an alternate scenario.

Not having seen this 24-piece luxury set,

八个餐盘，全都品质优良；

八个汤碗和沙拉碗，全都品质优良；

you rush to the store to find a 40-piece dinnerware set on sale.

八个甜点盘，全都品质优良；

八个杯子中的两个坏了；

Eight dinner plates, all in good condition;

eight soup and salad bowls, all in good condition;

八个茶托中的七个坏了。

eight dessert plates, all in good condition;

现在思考一下，

eight cups, two of them are broken;

为买这套 40 件套餐具， 你愿意花多少钱。

eight saucers, seven of them are broken.

这是来自芝加哥大学奚恺元 （Christopher Hsee）的

Now consider for a moment

how much you would be willing to pay for this 40-piece dinnerware set.

一个巧妙实验的前提。

也是个我在课堂上问过 数百名学生的问题。

This is the premise of a clever experiment by Christopher Hsee

他们的回复是什么？

from the University of Chicago.

平均来讲， 当买 24 件套的豪华套装时，

It's also the question that I've asked hundreds of students in my classroom.

他们愿意花 390 英镑；

What were their responses?

On average, when afforded the 24-piece luxury set,

当买 40 件套餐具时，

平均来讲， 他们愿意花惊人低的 192 英镑

they were willing to spend 390 pounds for the set.

When afforded the 40-piece dinnerware set,

以购买这套餐具。

严格来说， 这是一组不合理的数字。

on average, they were willing to spend a whopping 192 pounds

你会发现 40 件套餐具

for this dinnerware set.

包括24件套餐具中的所有元素，

Strictly speaking, these are an irrational set of numbers.

并再加上六个杯子和一个茶托。

You'll notice the 40-piece dinnerware set

你不仅不愿意花 24 件套的价格，

includes all elements you would get in the 24-piece set,

而且只愿意花 24 件套的大约一半。

plus six cups and one saucer.

And not only are you not willing to spend what you will for the 24-piece set,

你在这里所看到的，

you're only willing to spend roughly half of what you will for that 24-piece set.

正是所谓的稀释效应。

如果你接受破碎的物品的话，

其会冲淡 我们对整套物品的整体感知价值。

What you're witnessing here

is what's referred to as the dilution effect.

事实证明， 这种在付款时的认知怪癖

The broken items, if you will,

dilute our overall perceived value of that entire set.

对我们说话时被倾听的能力

Turns out this cognitive quirk at the checkout counter

有着重要的影响。

无论你是反对失败的策略，

has important implications

for our ability to be heard and listened to when we speak up.

反对朋友间的共同观点，

Whether you are speaking up against a failing strategy,

还是对权力说出真相，

speaking against the grain of a shared opinion among friends

这都需要勇气。

通常，提出的观点既合理，

or speaking truth to power,

也为其他人所认同。

this takes courage.

但不幸的是，我们经常

Often, the points that are raised

看到人们直言不讳，

are both legitimate but also shared by others.

却未能以他们希望的方式影响他人。

But sadly, and far too often,

换句话说，

we see people speak up but fail to influence others

他们的表达是有道理的，

但他们的方式被证明是错的。

in the way that they had hoped for.

如果我们能够理解这种认知偏见，

Put another way,

their message was sound,

这将对我们如何精心设计

but their delivery proved faulty.

和塑造我们的信息有着重大意义，

If we could understand this cognitive bias,

从而产生我们所有人都希望的影响 ——

it holds important implications

成为更具影响力的沟通者。

for how we could craft and mold our messages

让我们不提购物中心的事情了，

to have the impact we all desire ...

而进入一个我们几乎每天 都会自然而然在实践的背景中：

to be more influential as a communicator.

Let's exit the aisles of the shopping center

评价他人。

and enter a context in which we practice almost automatically every day:

让我来介绍两个人。

每周课外学习 31 小时的蒂姆。

the judgment of others.

Let me introduce you to two individuals.

还有与蒂姆一样， 每周也课外学习 31 小时的汤姆。

Tim studies 31 hours a week outside of class.

他还有一个哥哥和两个姐姐，

他常去看望他的祖父母，

Tom, like Tim, also spends 31 hours outside of class studying.

他曾相过亲，

并且每两个月打一次台球。

He has a brother and two sisters,

当参与者被要求评估

he visits his grandparents,

he once went on a blind date,

这些人的认知能力，

plays pool every two months.

或更重要的， 他们的学业成绩时，

When participants are asked to evaluate

人们平均认为，

蒂姆的绩点显著高于汤姆。

the cognitive aptitude of these individuals,

or more importantly, their scholastic achievement,

但为什么会这样呢？

on average, people rate Tim

毕竟他们两人每周 都有 31 小时的课外学习。

to have a significantly higher GPA than that of Tom.

事实证明，在这种情况下，

But why?

当我们看到这样的信息时，

After all, both of them spend 31 hours a week outside of class.

我们的大脑会利用两类信息：

Turns out in these contexts,

诊断信息和非诊断信息。

when we're presented such information,

our minds utilize two categories of information:

诊断信息是

与正在进行的评估价值相关的信息。

diagnostic and nondiagnostic.

非诊断性信息是指与那些评估

Diagnostic information is information of relevance

不相关或微不足道的信息。

to the valuation that is being made.

当这两类信息混合在一起时，

Nondiagnostic is information that is irrelevant or inconsequential

就会发生稀释。

汤姆有一个兄弟和两个姐妹，

to that valuation.

And when both categories of information are mixed,

或者每两个月玩一次台球，

dilution occurs.

正是这些事实稀释了诊断信息，

The very fact that Tom has a brother and two sisters

或者更重要的是，

or plays pool every two months

稀释了诊断信息的价值和权重，

dilutes the diagnostic information,

即他每周课外学习 31 小时。

or more importantly,

dilutes the value and weight of that diagnostic information,

对此最有力的心理学解释是平均值法。

namely that he studies 31 hours a week outside of class.

在这个模型中，我们接收信息，

The most robust psychological explanation for this is one of averaging.

并给其一个加权分数；

我们的大脑不会将这些信息 简单相加，

In this model, we take in information,

and those information are afforded a weighted score.

而是将这些信息平均化。

所以当你引入不相关 或者甚至是薄弱的论点时，

And our minds do not add those pieces of information,

but rather average those pieces of information.

这些较弱的论点， 如果你不介意我这么说的话，

将会拉低你整个论点的权重。

So when you introduce irrelevant or even weak arguments,

几年前，

those weak arguments, if you will,

在八月的某个晚上， 我抵达费城

reduce the weight of your overall argument.

参加一个会议。

刚从一架横跨大西洋的航班上下来，

A few years ago,

我入住酒店房间后，翘起双脚，

I landed in Philadelphia one August evening

决定看会儿电视来倒时差。

for a conference.

Having just gotten off a transatlantic flight,

这时一则广告引起了我的注意。

I checked into my hotel room, put my feet up

and decided to distract my jet lag with some TV.

这是一则药品广告。

如果你是少数还没有有幸 观看过这些广告的人，

An ad caught my attention.

The ad was an ad for a pharmaceutical drug.

这些广告的典型结构是，

Now if you're the select few who've not had the pleasure of witnessing these ads,

你可能会看到一对幸福的夫妇 在他们的花园里神气活现地走来走去，

陶醉于他们在安眠药的帮助下

the typical architecture of these ads

is you might see a happy couple prancing through their garden,

睡了一整晚的喜悦中。

由于FDA有规定，

reveling in the joy that they got a full night's sleep

因此这一分钟广告的最后几秒钟

需要专门说明该药物的副作用。

with the aid of the sleep drug.

Because of FDA regulations,

通常你都会听到一段 突然说出

the last few seconds of this one-minute ad needs to be devoted to the side effects

“副作用包括心脏病发作、中风，

of that drug.

诸如此类，”的急促旁白，

And what you'll typically hear is a hurried voice-over that blurts out

最后会以“足部瘙痒”之类的症状结束。

"Side effects include heart attack, stroke,

（笑声）

猜猜“足部瘙痒”对 人们对“心脏病发作”

blah, blah, blah,"

和“中风”的风险评估 有什么影响？

and will end with something like "itchy feet."

答案是其稀释了风险评估。

(Laughter)

想象一下，另一个广告上写着：

Guess what "itchy feet" does to people's risk assessment

“这种药物可以治愈你的睡眠障碍，

of "heart attack" and "stroke"?

而副作用是心脏病发作和中风。”

It dilutes it.

Imagine for a moment an alternate commercial

那还是算了吧。

that says "This drug cures your sleep problems,

这样你会突然想说， “我不介意熬夜了。”

side effects are heart attack and stroke."

（笑声）

事实证明，睡眠很重要，

Stop.

Now all of a sudden you're thinking, "I don't mind staying up all night."

但醒来也很重要。

（笑声）

(Laughter)

来看一个我们的研究案例。

Turns out going to sleep is important,

but so is waking up.

我的博士生赫曼特（Hemant） 在之后两年里的那个研究项目，

(Laughter)

Let me give you a sample from our research.

基本上要归功于我看到的这则广告。

So this ad that I witnessed essentially triggered a research project

在其中的一项研究中，

我们向参与者展示了一则刊登在

with my PhD student, Hemant, over the next two years.

杂志上的平面广告。

And in one of these studies,

[放松身心。]

可以看到最后一行

we presented participants an actual print ad

是关于这种药物的副作用。

that appeared in a magazine.

[Soothing rest for mind and body.]

对于一半的参与者，

我们展示了整个广告，

You'll notice the last line is devoted to the side effects

包括主要副作用和次要副作用；

of this drug.

For half of the participants,

we showed the ad in its entirety,

而对于另一半的参与者，

我们展示了同一个广告， 但做了一个小改动：

which included both major side effects as well as minor side effects.

我们只是从这大量的文字中 抽走了四个单词，

To the other half of the participants,

we showed the same ad with one small modification:

具体来说， 我们取走了其次要的副作用。

we extracted just four words out of the sea of text.

然后两组参与者 都对该药物进行了评价。

Specifically, we extracted the minor side effects.

我们发现，

同时看到主要副作用 和次要副作用的个体

And then both sets of participants rated that drug.

对该药物的总体严重程度的评价，

What we find is that individuals who were exposed

明显低于仅看到主要副作用的个体。

to both the major side effects as well as the minor side effects

而且他们对服用这种药物

rated the drug's overall severity to be significantly lower

也表现出更大的兴趣。

than those who were only exposed to the major side effects.

在后续的一项研究中，

我们甚至发现， 与仅有主要副作用的药物相比，

Furthermore, they also showed greater attraction

个体愿意花更多的钱

towards consuming this drug.

购买他们接触到的既有主要副作用

In a follow-up study,

we even find that individuals are willing to pay more

又有次要副作用的药物。

to buy the drug which they were exposed to

因此，药品广告通过

that had both major side effects as well as minor side effects,

列出主要副作用和次要副作用，

compared to just major side effects alone.

自相矛盾地稀释了 研究参与者和潜在消费者

So it turns out pharmaceutical ads,

by listing both major side effects as well as minor side effects,

对该药物的总体风险评估。

paradoxically dilute participants' and potential consumers'

除了购物出行，

评估他人的学术能力

overall risk assessment of that drug.

Going beyond shopping expeditions,

以及评估环境中的风险之外，

going beyond the evaluation of the scholastic aptitude of others,

这项研究还告诉我们，

在以影响力为目的的沟通情境中，

and beyond evaluating risk in our environment,

质量胜过数量。

what this body of research tells us

is that in the world of communicating for the purposes of influence,

通过增加论据数量，

并不会强化你的论点，

quality trumps quantity.

反而是主动削弱了它。

By increasing the number of arguments,

换句话说，

你不能只靠增加论据的数量

you do not strengthen your case,

来提高论点的质量。

but rather you actively weaken it.

Put another way,

下次在会议上发言、

you cannot increase the quality of an argument

by simply increasing the quantity of your argument.

支持一项非常热衷的政府立法，

The next time you want to speak up in a meeting,

或者只是想帮朋友 多一个角度看世界时，

speak in favor of a government legislation that you're deeply passionate about,

最值得注意的是，

你传递信息的方式 与信息内容同等重要。

or simply want to help a friend see the world through a different lens,

it is important to note

记得只专注于那些强有力的论点，

that the delivery of your message is every bit as important as its content.

因为你的论点在接受者的脑中 不会叠加起来，

Stick to your strong arguments,

它们而是会被平均掉。

谢谢。

（掌声）

because your arguments don't add up in the minds of the receiver,

they average out.

Thank you.

(Applause)