How to change your behavior for the better | Dan Ariely

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Camille Martínez

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: SF Huang

Hi.

嗨。

You might have noticed that I have half a beard.

你們可能已經注意到 我的鬍子只有一半。

It's not because I lost a bet.

不是因為我打賭輸了。

Many years ago, I was badly burned.

很多年前，我遭受嚴重的燒燙傷。

Most of my body is covered with scars,

我的身體上佈滿了傷疤，

including the right side of my face.

包括我的右臉頰。

I just don't have hair. That's just how it happened.

我長不出毛髮。就是這麼回事。

It looks symmetrical, but almost.

它看起來是對稱的，接近對稱。

Anyway, now that we discussed facial hair,

總之，我們已經談了臉上的毛髮，

let's move to social science.

現在就接著談社會科學吧。

And in particular, I want us to think about where is the potential for humanity

我特別希望大家能夠想想

人類的潛能及我們目前發揮到哪裡。

and where we are now.

And if you think about it, there's a big gap

仔細想想，會發現

我們認為能夠發揮與實際發揮的潛能

between where we think we could be and where we are,

兩者間有很大的落差，

and it's in all kinds of areas.

且在各領域皆是如此。

So let me ask you:

讓我問大家一個問題：

How many of you in the last month have eaten more than you think you should?

過去一個月中， 在座的各位有誰飲食過量？

Just kind of general. OK.

幾乎都有。好。

How many of you in the last month have exercised less than you think you should?

過去一個月中 誰覺得自己的運動量不足？

OK, and for how many of you has raising your hands twice

好，有誰舉這兩次手

been the most exercise you got today?

就是今天最大的運動量了？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

How many of you have ever texted while driving?

有誰在開車時發過訊息？

OK, we're getting honest. Let's test your honesty.

好，大家越來越誠實了。 來測試大家的誠實度。

How many people here in the last month

有誰在上個月

have not always washed your hands when you left the bathroom?

上完廁所之後不見得每次都會洗手？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）沒那麼誠實了。

A little less honest.

By the way, it's interesting how we're willing to admit texting and driving

順道一提，有趣的是， 我們都願意承認邊開車邊發訊息，

but not washing our hands, that's difficult.

至於洗手，就很難承認。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We can go on and on.

我們可以一直問下去。

The problem, the topic is that there's lots of things

問題是，有很多事情

when we know what we could do --

當我們知道自己要怎麼做——

we could be very, very different, but we're acting in a very different way.

我們就能有很大的改變， 但我們卻選擇了不同的做法。

And when we think how do we bridge that gap,

想想看要如何消除這個落差，

the usual answer is, "Just tell people."

一般人的答案通常是「告訴別人」。

For example, just tell people that texting and driving is dangerous.

比如，告訴別人， 邊開車邊發訊息很危險。

Did you know it's dangerous? You should stop doing it.

你們知道很危險嗎？別這麼做了。

你告訴別人某件事很危險， 他們就不會再去做。

You tell people something is dangerous, and they will stop.

邊開車邊發訊息是一例。

Texting and driving is one example.

Another very sad example is that in the US,

另一個可悲的例子是，

在美國，每年我們要花七到八億美金

we spend between seven and eight hundred million dollars a year

on what's called "financial literacy."

在所謂的「財務素養」上。

And what do we get as a consequence of that?

我們有得到什麼成果嗎？

There was recently a study that looked at all the research ever to be conducted

最近有一篇研究，探討了過去所有

曾經進行過的財務素養 相關研究——這叫做整合分析。

on financial literacy -- what's called a meta-analysis.

And what they found is that when you tell people,

他們發現當你告訴別人，

you teach them financial literacy,

當你教導別人財務素養，

they learn and they remember.

他們會學習並記下來。

But do people execute? Not so much.

但他們會執行嗎？不常。

The improvement is about three or four percent

在課程剛結束後， 還有 3~4% 的人會做改進，

immediately after the course,

and then it goes down.

之後就越來越少。

And at the end of the day,

到頭來，

the improvement is about 0.1 percent --

只有約 0.1% 的人會做改進，

not zero, but as humanly close to zero as possible.

不是 0，但從人類的角度 來說是非常接近 0 了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So that's the sad news.

所以遺憾的消息是，

The sad news is, giving information to people

把資訊給別人並不是 改變行為的好方法。

is just not a good recipe to change behavior.

What is?

好方法是什麼？嗯，

Well, social science has made lots of strides,

社會科學有很大的進步，

and the basic insight is that if we want to change behavior,

基本的見解是， 如果我們想要改變行為，

we have to change the environment.

我們就得改變環境。

The right way is not to change people, it's to change the environment.

正確的方式不是去改變人， 而是去改變環境。

And I want to present a very simpleminded model of how to think about it:

我想給各位看一個很簡單的 模型，說明我們是怎麼想的：

it's to think about behavioral change

就是將火箭送入太空的思考方式 運用在行為改變的思考模式上。

in the same way that we think about sending a rocket to space.

When we think about sending a rocket to space,

當我們思考將火箭送入太空時， 需做兩件重要的事情。

we want to do two main things.

The first one is to reduce friction.

第一，減少摩擦力。

We want to take the rocket and have as little friction as possible

我們要讓火箭的摩擦力越小越好，

so it's the most aerodynamic possible.

越符合空氣動力學越好。

And the second thing is we want to load as much fuel as possible,

第二，我們會想裝載的燃料越多越好，

to give it the most amount of motivation, energy to do its task.

讓火箭能有最大的 推動力和能源去完成任務。

And behavior change is the same thing.

行為改變也是一樣的道理。

So let's first talk about friction.

我們先來談談摩擦力。

In this particular case study I'll tell you about,

讓我跟各位談一項個案研究，

there's a pharmacy, an online pharmacy.

有一家藥局，線上藥局。

Imagine you go to your doctor.

想像你去看醫生。

You have a long-term illness,

你得了慢性病，

your doctor prescribes to you a medication,

醫生幫你開了處方用藥，

you sign up for this online pharmacy

你在這間線上藥局註冊，

and you get your medication in the mail every 90 days.

每九十天就會寄送藥品給你。

Every 90 days, medication, medication, medication.

每九十天，藥物、藥物、藥物。

And this online pharmacy wants to switch people

這間線上藥局想要讓客人

from branded medication to generic medication.

將藥品從原廠藥改為學名藥。

So they send people letters, and they say,

所以，他們寄信給客戶說：

"Please, please, please, switch to generics.

「拜託，拜託，拜託，改買學名藥。

You will save money, we will save money, your employer will save money."

你能省錢，我們能省錢， 你的僱主也能省錢。」

And what do people do?

大家會做什麼？什麼都不做。

Nothing.

So they try all kinds of things and nothing happens.

他們試過各種方法，都沒有用。

So for one year, they give people an amazing offer.

有一年，他們祭出一項大利多。

They send people a letter, and they say,

他們發信給客戶：

"If you switch to generics now, it will be free for a whole year."

「如果現在換成學名藥， 一整年都免費。」

Free for a whole year. Amazing!

一整年免費！太棒了！

What percentage of people do you think switched?

各位認為有百分之幾的人換藥了？

Less than 10 percent.

不到 10 %。

At this point, they show up to my office.

這時，他們來到我的辦公室。

And they come to complain.

他們來抱怨。

Why did they pick me?

他們為何挑上我？我寫了 幾篇「免費的誘惑」的論文。

I wrote a couple of papers on the "allure of free."

In those papers, we showed that if you reduce the price of something

在那些論文中，我們說明 如果調降某樣東西的價格，

for, let's say, 10 cents to one cent, nothing much happens.

比如，從十分錢減到一分錢， 人們不太會有什麼反應。

You reduce it from one cent to zero, now people get excited.

但若從一分錢變成免費， 大家就會興奮起來。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And they said, "Look, we read these papers on 'free,' we gave 'free.'

他們說：「我們讀了 這些『免費』的論文，

我們也做到『免費』， 結果卻不如預期。

Not working as we expected.

What's going on?"

怎麼搞的？

I said, "You know, maybe it's a question of friction."

我說：「也許問題在於摩擦力。」

They said, "What do you mean?"

他們說：「意思是？」

我說：「客戶本來就用原廠藥。

I said, "People are starting with branded.

They can do nothing and end with branded.

他們什麼事都不用做， 頂多就是照用原廠藥。

To move to generic, they have to choose generic over branded,

要換成學名藥， 他們還得要選學名藥的品牌，

but they also have to do something.

但他們還得做另一件事。

They have to return the letter."

他們得要回信。」

So this is what we call a "confounded design."

這是我們所謂的「混雜設計」。

Two things are happening at the same time.

兩件事同時發生。

It's branded versus generic,

原廠藥與學名藥，

but it's doing nothing versus doing something.

對應著什麼都不做與做點什麼。

So I said, "Why don't we switch it?

所以，我說：「不如互換一下吧？

Why don't we send people a letter and say, 'We're switching you to generics.

為什麼不寄信給客戶說： 『我們要把你的藥換成學名藥。

You don't need to do anything.

你什麼都不用做。

If you want to stay with branded, please return the letter.'"

如果你想要繼續用原廠藥，請回信。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Right?

是吧？

What do you think happened?

你們認為結果如何？

Lawyers, lawyers happened.

律師，律師會找上門。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

後來發現，這樣做不合法。

It turns out, this is illegal.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

By the way, for brainstorming and creativity,

順道一提，如果是 為了腦力激盪和創意，

doing things that are illegal and immoral, it's fine,

做不合法、不道德的事沒關係，

as long as it's just in the brainstorming phase.

只要還停留在腦力激盪階段就沒問題。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But this was the purity of the idea,

但這個想法太簡單，

because the initial design was the branded had the no-action benefit.

因為在最初用的設計上， 原廠藥具有「不行動」的優勢。

In my illegal, immoral design, generic had the no-action benefit.

在我那不合法、不道德的設計中， 學名藥具有「不行動」的優勢。

But they agreed to give people a T-intersection:

但他們同意要提供 客戶一個 T 叉路：

send people a letter and say,

發信給客戶說： 「如果你不回覆這封信，

"If you don't return this letter,

we will be forced to stop your medications.

我們會被迫停止寄藥給你。

But when you return the letter, you could choose branded at this price,

但當你回信時，你能選擇 這個價格的原廠藥，

generic at this price."

或這個價格的學名藥。」

Now people had to take an action.

現在客戶得採取行動了。 現在兩個選項的立足點平等吧？

They were on even footing. Right?

It wasn't that one had the no-action benefit.

沒有任何一種藥具有「不行動」優勢。

What percentage do you think switched?

各位認為有多少比例的人換藥？

The vast majority switched.

絕大多數換了。

So what does it tell us?

這告訴我們什麼？ 大家喜歡學名藥或原廠藥？

Do people like generics, or do we like branded?

We hate returning letters.

我們討厭回信。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This is the story of friction: small things really matter.

這就是摩擦力的故事：

小地方很重要。

And friction is about taking the desired behavior

摩擦力的重點在於採取所欲之行為，

and saying: Where do we have too much friction

說：哪個地方的摩擦力太大，

so it's slowing people down from acting on it?

讓大家拖拖拉拉地去做這件事？

And every time you see that the desired behavior

每當你發現預期的行為 和簡而易行的行為並不一致時，

and the easy behavior are not aligned,

it means we want to try and realign them.

表示需試著讓它們調整到一致。

That's the first part. We talked about friction.

我們剛談的摩擦力是第一部分。

Now let's talk about motivation.

現在來談談動機。

In this particular study,

在這項研究中，

we were trying to get very poor people in a slum called Kibera in Kenya

我們試圖要讓肯亞 基貝拉貧民窟的窮人，

to save a little bit of money for a rainy day.

存一點錢來未雨綢繆。

You know, if you're very, very poor, you have no extra money,

要知道，如果你非常窮， 你沒有額外的錢，

you live hand to mouth,

你過著勉強餬口的日子， 但天有不測風雲。

and from time to time, bad things happen.

And when something bad happens, you have nothing to draw on, you borrow.

當壞事發生時，你手頭上 沒有錢，只好去借錢。

The Kibera people can borrow at sometimes up to 10 percent interest a week.

基貝拉貧民窟的人有時

借錢的週利率會高達 10%。

And then, of course, it's really hard to get out of it.

當然，接下來就很難脫身了。

You live hand to mouth, something bad happens,

你三餐無以為繼，當壞事發生時，

you borrow, things get worse and worse and worse.

你得去借錢，然後每況愈下。

So we wanted people to keep a little bit of money for a rainy day.

所以我們希望他們能 存一點錢來未雨綢繆。

And we thought about what is the motivation,

我們想過動機是什麼，

what is the fuel that we need to add?

我們需要添加什麼樣的燃料？

And we tried all kinds of things.

我們什麼都試過了。

Some people, we texted them once a week and said,

我們會發訊息給某些人， 一週發一次說：

"Please try to save 100 shillings" -- about a dollar -- "this week."

「這週請試著存一百先令」——

大約是一美金。

Some people, we sent a text message as if it came from their kids.

我們也假扮某些人的孩子 來發訊息給他們。

So it said, "Hi Mom, hi Dad, this is little Joey" --

訊息會說：「嗨，媽，嗨， 爸，我是小喬伊」——

whatever the name of the kid was --

看那孩子叫什麼名字——

"Try and save 100 shillings this week for the future of our family."

「為了我們家庭的未來， 這週試著存一百先令。」

Right? I'm Jewish, a little bit of guilt always works.

對吧？我是猶太人， 加點罪惡感通常會有用。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Some people got 10 percent.

我們給某些人 10% 的現金獎勵。

"Save up to a hundred shillings, we'll give you 10 percent."

「存到一百先令，我們 就給你10% 的現金獎勵。」

Some people got 20 percent.

給某些人 20% 的現金獎勵。

Some people got also 10 percent and 20 percent,

還有人得 10%、20% 的現金獎勵，

but they got it with loss aversion.

同時還搭配損失規避。

什麼是損失規避？

What is loss aversion?

Loss aversion is the idea that we hate losing

損失規避說的是 討厭損失多於享受獲得。

more than we enjoy gaining.

Now, think about somebody who is in a 10-percent condition

想想看，有個人 得到的是 10% 的條件，

and they put 40 shillings in.

他存入了四十先令。

They put 40 shillings, we give them four more,

他存入四十先令， 我們就會多給他四先令，

they say thank you very much.

他會說非常謝謝。

That person gave up six.

那個人放棄了六先令。

They could have gotten six more if they gave a hundred,

如果他能存到一百先令， 他還能再得到六先令，

but they don't see it.

但他看不到。

So we created what we call pre-match.

所以我們創造了所謂的獎金預先撥付。

We put the 10 shillings in at the beginning of the week.

我們在一週開始時先存入十先令， 說「它在等著你！」

We said, "It's waiting for you!"

And then if somebody puts 40 in, we say, "Oh, you put 40 in,

若有人存入四十先令， 我們說：「喔，你存了四十，

we're leaving four, and we're taking six back."

我們會留下四先令，收回六先令。」

So in both cases, pre-match or post-match,

在兩種情況中，現金獎勵的 預先撥付或事後撥付，

people get 10 percent.

他們得到的都是 10%。

But in the pre-match,

但用預先撥付時，

they see the money they did not match leaving their account.

因為沒有達成目標，當事人會看到 帳戶中的錢被拿走。

So we have text, text from kids, 10 percent, 20 percent,

所以我們的策略有發訊息、 孩子發訊息、10%、20%、

pre-match, post-match.

預先撥付、事後撥付。

And we had one more condition.

我們還有一種做法。

It was a coin about this size,

是一個大約這麼大的硬幣。

with 24 numbers written on it.

上面有二十四個數字。

And we asked them to put the coin somewhere in their hut,

我們請他們把硬幣放在小屋中的某處，

and every week, take a knife and scratch the number for that week --

每週，拿一把刀在 當週的數字上刻劃——

week one, two, three, four --

第一週、第二、第三、第四——

scratch it like a minus if they didn't save

如果沒存到錢，就劃減號，

and scratch it up and down if they saved.

如果有存到，就劃垂直的一直線。

Now, think to yourself:

各位想想：

Which one of those methods do you think worked the best?

你們認為上述的哪個方法最有效？

Text, text from the kids, 10 percent, 20 percent,

發訊息、孩子發訊息、10%、 20%、一週的開始或結束、硬幣？

beginning of the week, end of the week, and the coin?

讓我告訴各位一般人是怎麼想的。

I'll tell you what the average people think.

We've done these studies of prediction,

我們在美國及肯亞 都做了這種預測研究。

both in the US and in Kenya.

People think that 20 percent will get a lot of action,

大家認為 20% 最能激勵窮人存錢。

10 percent less,

10% 效果差一點， 其他的都沒有用——

the rest of it will do nothing --

kids, coin, doesn't matter.

孩子、硬幣都沒用。

People think loss aversion will have a small effect.

大家認為損失規避的效應很小。

What actually happened?

那麼實際的情況如何？

Sending a text reminder once a week

每週發提醒訊息一次

helps a lot.

有很大的幫助。

Good news!

好消息！

This program lasted six months. People forget. Reminding people is great.

這個計畫長達六個月。 人會健忘，有提醒是很好的。

Ten percent at the end of the week helped some more.

週末提供 10% 有較多的助益。

Financial incentives work.

金錢的獎勵有用。

Twenty percent at the end of the week -- just like 10 percent, no difference.

週末提供 20% —— 跟 10% 一樣，沒差。

Ten percent in the beginning of the week

一週開始時提供 10% 比較有助益。

helps some more.

Loss aversion works.

損失規避有用。

Twenty percent in the beginning of the week,

一週開始時提供 20%

和一週開始時 提供 10% 一樣，沒差。

just like 10 percent in the beginning of the week, no difference.

And the text message from the kids was just as effective

孩子發的訊息效果等同

as 20 percent plus loss aversion --

20% 搭配損失規避——

which is amazing, right?

很驚人，是吧？

It's amazing how motivating messages from kids were.

孩子發送訊息帶來的動力讓人吃驚。

And one conclusion is we don't use kids enough.

其中一個結論是， 我們應該更善加利用孩子。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And, of course, I don't mean in a child labor sense.

當然，我不是指童工的那種利用。

But if you think about parents and their kids,

但，如果想想父母和他們的孩子，

we are the best that we can for our kids,

我們會為孩子盡力做到最好，

and we think about the future,

我們會去想未來，

and I think we should think

我認為我們應該想想

about how to use that amazing source of motivation

如何利用這麼棒的動機來源，

to get parents to behave in a better way.

來讓父母做出更好的行為。

But the big surprise of this study was the coin.

但這項研究中最大的驚喜是硬幣。

The coin basically doubled savings compared to everything else.

和所有其他策略比，硬幣 造成的存款幾乎都有兩倍。

And now the question is: Why? What was it about the coin?

問題是：為什麼？ 硬幣有什麼特別的？

So I'll tell you how I started thinking about the coin,

我先告訴大家，我如何 開始發想這個硬幣策略，

and then we'll come back to it.

接著再回來談。

So you know, when I do research on, let's say, buying coffee,

比如，當我做買咖啡的研究時，

I don't need to go anywhere. I can sit in my office.

我不需要去任何地方。 我可以坐在我的辦公室。

I've bought enough coffee. I know how it works.

我買過太多咖啡。

我很了解、熟悉所有細節。

The details, I'm familiar with.

When you do research in some of the poorest places in the world,

當你在世界上最貧窮的地方做研究時，

you have to go and visit and see what's going on

你得要親自造訪看看那裡的狀況，

and get some insight about how the system works.

深入瞭解它的體制是如何運作。

And on that particular day,

某一天，

I'm in a place called Soweto in South Africa,

我在南非一個叫做索韋托的地方，

and I'm sitting in a place that sells funeral insurance.

我坐在一個販售葬禮保險的地方。

You know, in the US people spend crazy amounts of money on weddings?

你們知道在美國大家 會花大把鈔票在婚禮上？

In South Africa, it's funerals.

在南非，是花在葬禮上。

People spend up to a year or two years of income on funerals.

那裡的人會花一、 兩年的收入在葬禮上。

And I sit in this place --

我坐在這個地方——

by the way, before you judge the South Africans as being irrational with this,

順道一提，在各位評斷南非人 在這件事上很不理智之前，

I just want to remind you

我想要提醒各位，

that spending a lot of money on funerals compared to weddings,

比起婚禮，在葬禮花上大把的鈔票，

at least you know for sure you only have one.

至少你能確定一生就只會辦這一次。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

OK, so I sit in this place that sells funeral insurance.

好，我坐在這個銷售 葬禮保險的地方，

And this guy comes in with his son -- his son is about 12 --

有個人帶著大約 十二歲的兒子進來，

and he buys funeral insurance for a week.

他購買了一週的葬禮保險。

It will cover 90 percent of his funeral expense

那大約能給付他 90% 的葬禮開銷，

only if he dies in the next seven days.

前提是他要在接下來的七天內死亡。

Right? These are very poor people, they buy small amounts of insurance

這些人非常貧窮， 他們買非常小額的保險 ，

and small amount of soap and such.

非常小量的肥皂等等。

And he gets that certificate,

他拿到那張證明，

and in a very ceremonious way, he gives it to his son.

用非常儀式化的方式交給他的兒子。

And as he gives it to his son, I think to myself, why the ceremony?

他交給他的兒子時， 我心想，為什麼要這儀式？

What is this father doing?

這位爸爸在做什麼？

Now, think about the breadwinner that decides on that particular day

想想看這位賺錢養家的人，

在特定的一天決定要把一些錢 拿來買保險或存起來。

to direct some money into insurance or savings.

What is the family going to see tonight?

這家人今天晚上會看到什麼？

They're going to see less.

他們會看到「變少」了。

Right? At that level of poverty, there'll be less food, less kerosene, less water --

是吧？窮到這種程度， 表示食物、煤油、水都會變少——

something less tonight.

今晚會有東西變少。

And what his father was doing and what our coin was trying to do

這位父親在做的事，也是 我們的硬幣策略在做的事，

is to say, yes, there's less food on the table,

是在說：沒錯，桌上的食物變少了，

but there's another activity.

但還有另一個活動在進行著。

You see, what happened is, there are many good, important economic activities,

這個狀況是：有很多很好、 很重要的經濟活動，

like savings and insurance, that are invisible.

比如存錢和買保險，都是隱形的。

And now the question is: How do we make them visible?

問題是：我們如何讓它們被看見。

So let's go back to our rocket model.

我們再回到火箭模型。

We have to, first of all, look at the system

首先，我們得要去看體制，

and see where there's little things we can fix, with friction,

和摩擦力有關的阻礙， 有哪些小地方是我們能修補的？

where is there that we can remove friction?

哪些摩擦力是可以除去的？

And then the next thing we want to do is to think broadly about the system,

接著，我們需要從 更廣的角度來思考體制，

and say: What other motivations can we bring in?

問：我們還能帶入什麼動機？

And that's a much more difficult exercise,

這部分困難許多，

and we don't always know what would work best.

我們不會都知道什麼方法最有用。

Is it going to be money? Is it going to be loss aversion?

會是錢嗎？會是損失規避嗎？

Is it going to be something that is visible?

會是看得見的東西嗎？

We don't know, and we have to try different things.

我們不知道，我們得要做不同的嘗試。

We also have to realize that our intuition sometimes misleads us.

我們也得知道，我們的直覺 有時會誤導我們。

We don't always necessarily know what would work the best.

我們不見得知道什麼是最有效的。

So if we think about this gap

所以，若去想想我們能做到 和已做到這兩者間的差距，

between where we could be and where we are,

it's a really sad thing to see this gap and to think about it.

看著並思考著這個差距 會讓人非常感嘆。

But the good news is, there's lots we can do.

但好息是，我們能做的很多。

Some of the changes are easy, some of the changes are more complex.

有些改變很容易，有些則比較複雜。

但如果我們能直接攻破每個問題點，

But if we'll attack each problem directly,

not by just providing more information to people

不僅只是提供大家更多資訊，

but trying to change the friction,

而是試著改變摩擦力，加強動力，

add motivation,

I think we can ...

我認為我們能…… 我們能消除差距嗎？不能。

Can we close the gap? No.

But can we get much better? Absolutely, yes.

但我們能變得更好嗎？絕對能。

Thank you very much.

非常謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）