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

Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Krystian Aparta

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Imagine you're on a shopping trip.

想像一下，你出外購物。

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

你在尋找一組奢侈的餐具組，

to add to your kitchen collection.

想充實你的廚房收藏。

As it turns out,

結果發現，

your local department store has announced a sale

當地的百貨公司宣佈要做特賣，

on the very set you've been looking for,

特賣產品正是你在找的餐具組，

所以你趕去店裡，

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

去找特價的二十四件餐具組。

Eight dinner plates, all in good condition;

八個正餐用的盤子狀況都很好；

eight soup and salad bowls, all in good condition;

八個裝湯和沙拉的碗狀況都很好；

and eight dessert plates, all in good condition.

八個甜點用的盤子狀況都很好。

Now, consider for a moment

現在，思考一下，

你願意花多少錢買這組餐具組？

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

Now imagine an alternate scenario.

現在，想像另一個情境。

Not having seen this 24-piece luxury set,

沒有看到這組二十四件奢侈餐具組，

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

你趕到店裡時，發現特價的 是一組四十件餐具組。

Eight dinner plates, all in good condition;

八個正餐用的盤子狀況都很好；

eight soup and salad bowls, all in good condition;

八個裝湯和沙拉的碗狀況都很好；

eight dessert plates, all in good condition;

八個甜點用的盤子狀況都很好。

eight cups, two of them are broken;

八個杯子，

其中兩個破了；

eight saucers, seven of them are broken.

八個淺碟，其中七個破了。

Now consider for a moment

現在，思考一下，

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

你願意花多少錢買 這組四十件餐具組？

This is the premise of a clever experiment by Christopher Hsee

芝加哥大學的奚愷元 做了個聰明的實驗，

而這是該實驗的前提假設。

from the University of Chicago.

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

我也會在我的教室中拿這個問題 來問我的數百名學生。

What were their responses?

他們的回應是什麼？

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

平均而言，若提供他們的是 二十四件奢侈餐具組，

they were willing to spend 390 pounds for the set.

他們願意花三百九十英磅 來買那組餐具。

When afforded the 40-piece dinnerware set,

若提供他們的是四十件奢侈餐具組，

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

平均而言，他們願意花

低得驚人的一百九十二英磅

for this dinnerware set.

來買那組餐具。

Strictly speaking, these are an irrational set of numbers.

嚴格來說，

這些數字很不合理。

可以發現，四十件餐具組

You'll notice the 40-piece dinnerware set

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

其實內有二十四件 餐具組的所有東西，

plus six cups and one saucer.

外加六個杯子和一個淺碟。

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

你不僅不肯用你願意花在 二十四件餐具組的錢來買它，

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

你甚至只肯用

你願意花在二十四件餐具組的 錢的一半左右來買它。

What you're witnessing here

各位在這裡所看到的，

is what's referred to as the dilution effect.

是所謂的稀釋效應。

The broken items, if you will,

可說是壞掉的物品，

dilute our overall perceived value of that entire set.

會稀釋我們對於整組餐具 所感受到的整體價值。

Turns out this cognitive quirk at the checkout counter

結果發現，這種結帳檯的認知怪癖

has important implications

有著重要的意涵，

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

和我們發言時能夠 被聽見的能力有關係。

Whether you are speaking up against a failing strategy,

不論你是因反對失敗的策略而發聲、

speaking against the grain of a shared opinion among friends

反對朋友之間共同的意見，

or speaking truth to power,

或者對掌權的人說出真相，

this takes courage.

都需要勇氣。

Often, the points that are raised

通常，提出的論點

are both legitimate but also shared by others.

既具有正當性，也被別人認同，

But sadly, and far too often,

但，可惜的是，通常，

we see people speak up but fail to influence others

我們會看到有人發聲，

卻沒有像原先預期的那樣 對其他人產生影響。

in the way that they had hoped for.

Put another way,

換言之，

their message was sound,

他們的訊息很好，

but their delivery proved faulty.

但事實證明傳遞訊息的方式有缺陷。

If we could understand this cognitive bias,

如果我們能了解這種認知偏見，

it holds important implications

它有著重要的意涵，

for how we could craft and mold our messages

會牽涉到我們如何 製作塑造我們的訊息，

to have the impact we all desire ...

以產生我們渴望的影響……

to be more influential as a communicator.

成為更有影響力的溝通者。

Let's exit the aisles of the shopping center

咱們離開購物中心的走道，

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

進入到我們

幾乎天天會自動練習的情境當中：

評斷他人。

the judgment of others.

Let me introduce you to two individuals.

讓我介紹兩個人給大家。

Tim studies 31 hours a week outside of class.

提姆每週在課餘會花 三十一個小時來讀書。

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

湯姆也和提姆一樣，

課餘會花三十一個小時來讀書。

He has a brother and two sisters,

他有一個兄弟和兩個姐妹，

he visits his grandparents,

他會拜訪他的祖父母，

he once went on a blind date,

他曾經去過一次安排的相親，

plays pool every two months.

每兩個月玩一次撞球。

When participants are asked to evaluate

當受試者被要求去評估

the cognitive aptitude of these individuals,

這兩個人的認知天賦時，

or more importantly, their scholastic achievement,

或者，更重要的，他們的學校成就，

on average, people rate Tim

平均而言，大家認為提姆的

to have a significantly higher GPA than that of Tom.

GPA 會明顯高於湯姆。

But why?

但，為什麼？

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

畢竟，他們兩人都在課餘 花了三十一小時讀書。

Turns out in these contexts,

結果發現，在這類情境中，

when we're presented such information,

當我們得到這類資訊，

我們的大腦會利用兩類資訊：

our minds utilize two categories of information:

diagnostic and nondiagnostic.

診斷

和非診斷。

Diagnostic information is information of relevance

診斷資訊指的是和所做之評估

to the valuation that is being made.

相關的資訊。

Nondiagnostic is information that is irrelevant or inconsequential

非診斷資訊則是和該評估

無關或不重要的資訊。

to that valuation.

And when both categories of information are mixed,

當兩類的資訊混在一起時，

dilution occurs.

稀釋就會發生。

The very fact that Tom has a brother and two sisters

湯姆有一個兄弟和兩個姐妹這一點，

or plays pool every two months

或者每兩個月會玩一次撞球這一點，

dilutes the diagnostic information,

會將診斷資訊稀釋，

or more importantly,

或者，更重要的，會稀釋

dilutes the value and weight of that diagnostic information,

那些診斷資訊的價值和重要性，

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

也就是他在課餘會花 三十一小時讀書這一點。

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

心理學上對這個現象最穩健的 解釋就是用平均來解釋。

在這個模型中，我們取得資訊，

In this model, we take in information,

and those information are afforded a weighted score.

那些資訊被賦予一個加權分數。

而我們的大腦不會把 那些片段資訊加總起來，

And our minds do not add those pieces of information,

反而是把那些片段資訊做平均。

but rather average those pieces of information.

So when you introduce irrelevant or even weak arguments,

所以，當你提出不重要

或甚至很弱的論點時，

those weak arguments, if you will,

那些很弱的論點

reduce the weight of your overall argument.

會讓整體論點的重要性變輕。

A few years ago,

幾年前，

I landed in Philadelphia one August evening

八月的一個晚上，我到費城

for a conference.

去參加研討會。

Having just gotten off a transatlantic flight,

剛飛越大西洋，下了飛機之後，

I checked into my hotel room, put my feet up

我住進飯店，把腳抬高，

and decided to distract my jet lag with some TV.

決定看電視來轉移我的時差。

An ad caught my attention.

一則廣告吸引了我的注意。

The ad was an ad for a pharmaceutical drug.

那是一則藥物的廣告。

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

如果你是少數

還沒有榮幸看過這些廣告的人，

the typical architecture of these ads

這些廣告的典型架構， 就是可能會看到

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

一對快樂的夫妻雀躍地 在他們的花園中行走，

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

沉浸在喜悅中， 因為他們睡了一夜好覺，

with the aid of the sleep drug.

靠的就是安眠藥幫忙。

Because of FDA regulations,

因為食品及藥物管理局的規定，

這支一分鐘廣告的最後幾秒鐘

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

必須要用來說明該藥物的副作用。

of that drug.

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

通常你會聽到很急的旁白聲

說出：「副作用包括

"Side effects include heart attack, stroke,

心臟病、中風、

blah, blah, blah,"

有的沒的」，

and will end with something like "itchy feet."

可能最後用「腳癢」結尾。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

猜猜看「腳癢」會如何影響 大家對「心臟病」

of "heart attack" and "stroke"?

及「中風」的風險評估？

It dilutes it.

稀釋作用。

Imagine for a moment an alternate commercial

想像一下有另一支廣告，

that says "This drug cures your sleep problems,

說：「這種藥物能 治癒你的睡眠問題，

side effects are heart attack and stroke."

副作用是心臟病和中風。」

Stop.

就這樣。

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

突然間，你就會想：

「我其實不介意整晚睡不著。」

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

Turns out going to sleep is important,

結果發現，睡眠很重要，

but so is waking up.

但還能醒過來也很重要。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Let me give you a sample from our research.

讓我舉個例子，出自我們的研究。

So this ad that I witnessed essentially triggered a research project

我看到的這個廣告

促成了我的博士學生希曼特

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

在接下來兩年的研究計畫。

And in one of these studies,

在其中一項研究中，

we presented participants an actual print ad

我們拿給受試者看的

是出自雜誌的平面廣告。

that appeared in a magazine.

[Soothing rest for mind and body.]

〔舒適的身心休息〕

可以看到，最後一行

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

寫的是這種藥物的副作用。

of this drug.

For half of the participants,

我們讓一半的受試者 看到完整的廣告，

we showed the ad in its entirety,

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

包含重大的副作用

和輕微的副作用。

To the other half of the participants,

另一半的受試者

we showed the same ad with one small modification:

也看到同樣的廣告， 但有一項小差異：

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

我們從這一堆文字中拿掉了四個字。

Specifically, we extracted the minor side effects.

明確來說，我們拿掉了 輕微的副作用。

And then both sets of participants rated that drug.

接著讓兩組人為這種藥物做評分。

What we find is that individuals who were exposed

我們發現，

如果受試者同時接觸到重大副作用

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

和輕微副作用，

rated the drug's overall severity to be significantly lower

對這種藥物整體嚴重度的評分

會遠低於

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

只接收到重大副作用資訊的受試者。

Furthermore, they also showed greater attraction

此外，他們也比較容易被吸引

towards consuming this drug.

去購買這種藥物。

在後續的研究中，我們甚至 發現受試者願意花更多錢

In a follow-up study,

we even find that individuals are willing to pay more

to buy the drug which they were exposed to

去購買讓他們知道重大副作用

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

以及輕微副作用的藥物，

compared to just major side effects alone.

而非只知道重大副作用的藥物。

So it turns out pharmaceutical ads,

所以，結果發現，

藥物廣告

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

若能列出重大副作用和輕微副作用，

paradoxically dilute participants' and potential consumers'

很矛盾地，竟然會稀釋掉

受試者和潛在消費者

overall risk assessment of that drug.

對於該藥物的整體風險評估。

Going beyond shopping expeditions,

除了購物挖寶，

going beyond the evaluation of the scholastic aptitude of others,

除了評估別人的學術天賦，

and beyond evaluating risk in our environment,

除了評估我們環境中的風險，

what this body of research tells us

這一系列的研究告訴我們，

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

在為了影響他人而溝通的世界中，

quality trumps quantity.

質比量更重要。

By increasing the number of arguments,

增加理由內容

you do not strengthen your case,

並不會讓你更有說服力，

but rather you actively weaken it.

反而主動將它削弱了。

Put another way,

換言之，如果你要提升論點的品質，

you cannot increase the quality of an argument

by simply increasing the quantity of your argument.

就不能只是增加論點內容的份量。

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

下次，如果你想要在會議中發聲，

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

想要發言支持

你很讚同的政府立法，

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

或者就只是想要協助朋友

從不同的角度看世界，

it is important to note

很重要的是要注意到，

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

傳遞訊息的方式 和訊息的內容同等重要。

Stick to your strong arguments,

不要偏離你的強力論點，

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

因為在接收者的大腦並不會 把你的論點加總起來，

they average out.

只會被平均掉。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）