吉米·懷特

徐正星譯

cientists are uncovering ways of making messages more persuasive. Politicians and salesmen use such tricks already. Who can afford not to read on?

Eric Higgins,a professor of social psychology at the University of Arkansas said that he had experimental evidence to support a new approach to persuasion—one that works on removing peoples inhibitions,or lowering their resistance.

Dr Higgins is so compelling that he has managed to persuade Americas National Science Foundation to give him $163,000 to find ways of making messages and appeals more persuasive. Recently,he and a number of other researchers outlined their work on resistance-reduction at a meeting at the University of Arkansas.

When somebody is torn over a decision,some aspects will be attractive and encourage acceptance;others will be displeasing and create resistance. Researchers refer to persuasive strategies that work by making an offer more attractive as “alpha” strategies. Those that work by minimising resistance to the offer are called “omega” strategies. Dr Higgins operates at the omega end of the alphabet.

His main insight into “omega” strategies is the idea that resistance is in some sense a thing,and that it can thus be used up and replenished,rather like water in a tank. Such changes in resistance level are not necessarily the result of logical or rational argument. Once the level drops,the tank is topped up gradually until it is full again,rather as a water-closet cistern refills itself after it has been flushed. The task of the persuader is to drain the tank. That of the consumer is to keep it full enough to resist undesirable changes.

In collaboration with Jay Linn,a colleague at Arkansas,Dr Higginsrecently set out to test this idea in the context of political advertising. First,the two researchers asked a few questions which they used to divide their subjects into groups that might be described (although they did not use such terms themselves) as “sceptical” and “gullible”. They then redivided them into four groups and subjected each group to a different experimental “treatment” that involved watching a series of seven video-clips showing unfamiliar candidates for office talking about where they stood on a particular issue.

One group was asked to pay special attention to the first clip;the other three had to concetrate on the last. Two of the latter three groups were also shown a short travelogue about Fiji before the final clip. One of those two groups was asked to think positively about Fiji,and the other was instructed to make a list of all the things that could go wrong on a trip to the islands. Finally,all the subjects had to criticise each advertisement and candidate.

“Gullible” subjects used up their resistance to the advertising early on. They became less and less critical of both the policies and the candidates as the experiment proceeded. Since the clips were shown in different orders to different subjects,that could not be due to some inherent lack of worth in the message or the messenger. Subjects reactions to the final clip depended on the approach that they had been asked to take to the travelogue. They showed greater dislike of the final candidate when allowed to “replenish” their resistance by watching it in a positive frame of mind than if they had been asked to worry about the trips difficulties. This result fits well with Dr Higgins model.

“Sceptics” behaved differently. They were least critical of the initial candidate,but became increasingly negative as the advertisements progressed—no matter how they were asked to view the Fiji tape. In this case,repetition seemed to build up resistance,rather than draining it. Fitting that result into Dr Knowless model is harder. To pursue the cistern analogy,it suggests that the ballcock which detects water level is being moved upwards. The idea of resistance as a variable quantity is still there,but the relationship between its initial level and its tendency to rise or fall from that level needs further investigation.

Another powerful part of decision-making is anticipated feelings of regret. This is why people are,for example,reluctant to trade lottery tickets—they think about how awful they would feel if their numbers came up. Addressing such fears directly can be a way of increasing or reducing resistance, and is thus another example of an “omega” strategy.

Steven Sherman,a researcher at Indiana University,and his colleagues,recently demonstrated the effects of anticipated regret by offering two groups of participants in an experiment a choice between two trivial and,on the face of it,equally attractive alternatives: which of two football teams to place a bet on. A “ringer” planted among the subjects by the experimenters pushed them to choose one teamrather than the other. One group was also asked,using a questionnaire,to consider how much regret they would feel if they did not take the proffered advice. Those in this group were much more likely to choose what had been recommended than those in the first group. That result gives marketers a powerful fear to play on.

There are other tricks that can be employed to lower resistance. It can,for example,be “disrupted” by the unexpected. In an experiment a few years ago,students posing as beggars found that they received small change 44% of the time that they asked directly for it without specifying a sum. If they asked for a precise sum that was a single coin (25 cents),they got it 64% of the time. But if they asked for an apparently arbitrary number (37 cents) they got it 75% of the time. The more precise and unusual the request,the less people were able to resist it.

All this talk of resistance is,of course,rather fuzzy—though it is still of great interest to advertisers and salesmen. But Dr Knowles thinks that “alpha” and “omega” strategies may be more than mere phrases. They may correspond to the separate neurological systems that animals have for behavioural activation and inhibition. According to this model,“omega” strategies work by reducing inhibitions to action.

Is resistance “hard-wired” into the developing brain,or can it also be learnt?

This suggests that the resistance mechanism is “hard-wired” into the developing brain. But researchers such as Brad Sagarin,a psychologist at Northern Illinois University,think that levels of resistance can,to some extent,be learnt—and that they can be built up by exercise. In other words,the tank itself is capable of either temporary or permanent enlargement,in response to circumstances and experience.

For example,people often do not resist advertising,because they have the illusion of invulnerability to its effects. They believe that advertising is something that only affects everybody else. But,says Dr Sagarin,if you demonstrate to somebody that this is not true by showing them that they have been fooled,this causes a powerful increase in resistance.

People want to avoid being duped or cheated. Indeed, results from evolutionary psychology,a discipline that tries to elucidate the origins as well as the nature of human emotions,suggest that detecting and avoiding cheats is one of the strongest driving forces of human psychology. That supports the idea that the resistance mechanism has been wired in by evolution.

Whether the world really needs to know more about making messages more persuasive is a different question. Needless to say,all the researchers are convincing on the subject. It is true,as Dr Knowles admits,that such knowledge can be used coercively. But he points out that it can also be used to educate. In any case,he says,“By minimising a persons resistance, youll decrease the chance that theyll experience future regrets about the decision.”Not convinced about the science of persuasion? Readers are asked to consider how regretful they may feel if they later conclude that it was right all along.

科學家們正在揭示使所要傳達的信息更具有說服力的方法，這些小伎倆對于政客們和推銷員已是司空見慣的事，誰能不繼續(xù)讀下去呢？

阿肯薩斯大學社會心理學教授埃里克·希金斯聲稱自己掌握了實驗證據(jù)證明有一種勸說他人的新方法，采用這種方法可以打消人們的顧慮，或是減少他們的抵制情緒。

希金斯博士強大的說服力使他成功說服了美國國家科學基金會給他撥163,000美元專門用于研究使傳達的信息和請求更具有說服力的方法。最近，他和其他一些研究人員在阿肯薩斯大學會議上簡要介紹了他們關于消除抵抗情緒的研究工作。

當某人對某個決定猶豫不決時，往往是因為有些方面具有誘惑力而鼓勵人們接受，而另一些方面卻令人感到不滿，使人產(chǎn)生抵觸情緒。研究人員把使得提議更具吸引力的說服策略稱為“阿爾法”策略。而將那些使得人們對提議抵觸情緒降到最小程度的策略稱為“歐米咖”策略。希金斯博士從字母表的“歐米咖”端開始研究。

他對“歐米咖”策略的獨到見地在于提出了這樣一種觀點，即抵觸情緒很像是玻璃缸中的水，因此它可以被耗盡，也可以被再次充滿。抵觸程度的這種變化并不一定是邏輯或是理性依據(jù)的結(jié)果。水平一旦降低，缸中的水會逐步上升直到再次被充滿，這很像是貯水箱，箱中的水一旦被沖掉又會自動填滿。說服者的任務就是把缸中的水排光，而消費者的任務則是使其中的水夠滿以抵御不良變化。

最近希金斯博士與阿肯薩斯大學的一位同事杰·林合作，開始在政治宣傳廣告的環(huán)境下檢驗這一理論是否有效。兩位研究人員首先提出一些問題，并根據(jù)對問題的回答把實驗對象分成“懷疑型”和“輕信型”兩類（雖然他們自己不使用這些術語）。然后他們再把實驗對象分為四組。并使每組接受不同的實驗“待遇”，包括觀看七段陌生候選人談論自己對某個特定問題的看法的視頻。

一組實驗對象被要求對第一段視頻多加注意，而另外三組實驗對象被要求特別注意最后一段視頻。在放最后一段視頻前還為后三組實驗對象中的其中兩組放映了一段關于斐濟的旅行記錄短片。兩組中的其中一組被要求對斐濟產(chǎn)生積極的想法，而另外兩組被要求列出在去斐濟群島旅行時可能遇到的問題。最后，所有實驗對象都必須對每則廣告和每位候選人提出批評。

“輕信”型的實驗對象不久就喪失了對廣告的抵抗力。隨著實驗的繼續(xù)，他們變的對政策和候選人越來越寬容。由于短片以不同的順序放給不同的受試者觀看，這種情況的出現(xiàn)不可能是信息或是傳遞信息的人本身缺乏某種內(nèi)在價值引起的。實驗對象對最后一段視頻的反應取決于他們被要求對記錄短片采取的態(tài)度。與讓研究對象被要求擔心旅行的種種困難時相比，當研究對象被要求以積極的心態(tài)觀看短片而使他們的抵觸情緒耗費殆盡時，他們對最后一個候選人的反感情緒更加強烈。這與希金斯博士的理論模型相吻合。

“懷疑”型的實驗對象表現(xiàn)有所不同。他們對起初的候選人最為寬容，但隨著廣告的播放，他們的態(tài)度變得越來越消極——不管他們被要求以何種態(tài)度觀看有關斐濟的短片。在這種情況下，反復觀看似乎更加深而不是耗盡反感情緒。這一結(jié)果更難與勞諾的實驗模型相吻合。繼續(xù)以水箱打比方，這表明感應水位的浮球閥正被向上移動。抵觸情緒作為可變量的觀點仍然成立，但是其最初所處的位置和它從那個位置上升或下降的趨勢之間的關系需要做進一步研究。

決策過程的另一個具有極大影響力的方面是預期悔恨情緒。舉個例子：這就是人們不愿交換彩票的原因。他們會想如果自己起初買的號碼中了獎，感覺會是多么糟糕呀。直接面對這種擔心是一種增強或降低抵抗情緒的方法，而這也是“歐米咖”策略起作用的又一個例子。

印第安那大學研究員史帝芬·舍曼和他的同事們最近展示了預期遺憾產(chǎn)生的效果：在一項試驗中，兩組參與者提供了兩種無足輕重且表面上同樣誘人的選擇——該在兩個足球隊中的哪個上投注。試驗人員在實驗對象中安放的鳴響裝置迫使他們選擇其中一個隊而不選另一個隊。并讓其中一個組以問卷的方式考慮如果要是沒有選擇提供的建議自己會感到多么后悔。這一組實驗對象要比第一組選擇給出的建議的可能性更大。這一結(jié)果使市場營銷人員可以充分利用人們的恐懼心理。

還有其他一些伎倆可以被用來降低人們的抵觸情緒。例如出其不意的事情可以消除人們的抵抗情緒。在幾年前所做的一項實驗中，裝扮成乞丐的學生發(fā)現(xiàn)如果他們直接索要而不明確要多少時，他們得到小額零錢的幾率是百分之四十四。如果他們索要是一個精確的數(shù)額（25美分）時，他們得到的可能性是百分之六十四。但是當他們索要表面上看起來很隨意的一個數(shù)額時，他們得到的可能性是百分之七十五。要求越精確越不尋常，人們越無法拒絕。

當然所有關于這些抵抗的言論都十分模糊——雖然廣告商和推銷員對此很感興趣。但是勞諾博士認為不僅僅只是術語而已。他們也許與動物身上的激勵或禁止行為的各個不同的神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)相適應。根據(jù)這一模式，“歐米伽”策略通過將禁止變?yōu)樾袆影l(fā)揮作用。

抵抗情緒是不斷進化的大腦中固有的還是可以習得的呢？

這表明抵抗機制是大腦固有的。但是一些研究人員例如北伊利諾伊大學的心理學家布萊得·薩格雷就認為抵抗情緒在某種程度上可以習得，而且這種情緒可以通過磨煉而增強。換句話說，水缸本身不能根據(jù)環(huán)境和經(jīng)歷進行暫時或永久擴大。

例如，人們不抵制廣告，因為他們錯誤的認為自己可以不受廣告的影響。他們認為廣告只會對其他人造成影響。但是薩格雷博士說如果你通過告訴其他人他們被騙了從而證明這是錯誤的，這將會極大地增加抵御性。

人們不想被騙。的確，進化心理學——一門試圖闡明人類情感起源和本質(zhì)的學科——表明看穿騙局并避免被騙是人類心理最強烈的驅(qū)動力之一。這支持了抵抗機制是由進化植入人的本性中的觀點。

世人是否真有必要知道如何使所傳達的信息更有說服力是另外一回事。不用說所有研究人員對此都是堅信不疑的。正如博士所承認的，這種知識可能被用來強迫他人。但是他也指出可以用來教化人們。他說不管怎么說，可以通過把人們的抵抗情緒減少到最低程度來減少人們對未來所做的這個決定懊悔的可能性。對勸說這門科學還是持懷疑態(tài)度？那么請讀者想想如果最后得出結(jié)論認為這個理論一直有道理時自己可能會多么后悔。