研究发现，我们惯用的威胁和警告其实一直都是错的，只能达到暂时性的自制效果，却无法真正让我们享受和习惯改变的过程。多尝试积极的方法，鼓励和奖励自己或他人，这样才更有效。
这篇演讲逻辑清晰，讲者在演讲中还配有图表文字，抒发了自己的真知灼见，在进行了很多铺垫之后从不同角度总结了真正驱动人的思想和行为的三个原则，见解独到且深刻。非常值得聆听！
↓↓以下为演讲全文（中英对照）：
So, we all have some behavior that we would like to change about ourselves. And we certainly all want to help someone else change their behavior in a positive way. So, maybe it’s your kid, your spouse, your colleague.
我们每个人都有一些自己想要改变的行为模式。我们也当然都想以一种积极的态度帮助某些人改变他们的行为，可能是你的孩子，你的配偶，或你的同事。
So I want to share some new research with you that I think reveals something really important about what gets people to change their behavior.
所以，我想和大家分享一些新的研究。我认为这些研究揭示了一些真正重要的东西，是什么能让人们改变他们的行为。
But before I do that, let’s zoom in on one strategy that I think you probably use a lot. So, let’s say you’re trying to stop yourself from snacking. What do you tell yourself? Well, most people, in a monologue, will say, “Beware. You’ll be fat.”
但在此之前，让我们来看一个我认为你们可能使用过度了的策略。所以，假设你向阻止自己吃零食。你会对自己说什么？嗯，大多数人会在心里对自己说，“注意，你会变胖的”。
And if this was your kid, you would probably tell him that smoking kills and, by the way, he’s in big, big trouble.
如果你的孩子抽烟，你可能会告诉他吸烟会害死他。顺便再说一句，他有大麻烦了。
So, what we’re trying to do here is we’re trying to scare ourselves and others into changing their behavior. And it’s not just us. Warnings and threats are really common in health campaigns, in policy.
所以，我们所做的是，我们在试图通过吓唬自己和其他人，以改变他们的行为。不只是我们。警告和威胁在健康项目和政治宣传中确实很常见。
It’s because we all share this deep-rooted belief that if you threaten people, if fear is induced, it will get them to act. And it seems like a really reasonable assumption, except for the fact that the science shows that warnings have very limited impact on behavior.
这是因为我们都有一个根深蒂固的信念：只要你威胁人们，让他们感到恐惧，他们就会采取行动。这似乎是一个非常合理的假设，只不过科学已经表明，威胁对行为的影响非常有限。
So, graphic images on cigarette packets, for example, do not deter smokers from smoking, and one study found that, after looking at those images, quitting actually became a lower priority for smokers. So, I'm not saying that warnings and threats never work, but what I'm saying is, on average, they seem to have a very limited impact.
例如，烟盒上的图像，并不能阻止吸烟者吸烟。一项研究发现，在看了这些图像后，戒烟实际上成了吸烟者更低的优先级。所以，我并不是说警告和威胁永远不起作用。但我要说，平均来说，它们的影响似乎非常有限。
And so, the question is: why? Why are we resistant to warnings?
那么问题是：为什么？为什么我们会拒绝威胁？
Well, if you think about animals, when you induce fear in an animal, the most common response you will see is freezing or fleeing, fighting, not as much. And so, humans are the same. So if something scares us, we tend to shut down and we try to eliminate the negative feelings.
嗯，如果你想想动物，当你给动物带去恐惧时，你会看到的最常见的反应是呆住或逃跑；而战斗的情况并不是那么常见。其实，人类也是一样的。如果有什么东西吓到了我们，我们会倾向于逃避，试图消除消极的感觉。
So, we might use rationalizations. For example, you might tell yourself:“My grandpa smoked. He lived to be 90.” So, I have really good genes and absolutely nothing to worry about. And this process can actually make you feel more resilient than you did before, which is why warnings sometimes have this boomrang effect.
所以，我们可能会尝试理性主义。例如，你可能会告诉自己：“我爷爷也抽烟啊，但他活到了90岁”。所以，我家基因特别好，绝对没有什么可担心的。所以这一过程实际上比你想象的更有弹性，也就解释了为什么恐惧有时会导致回弹效应。
In other times, we simply put our head in the ground. Take the stock market for example. Do you know when people pull their head out of the ground to look at their accounts--not to make a transaction, just to log in to check their account?
在其他时候，我们只是把头埋进地里（鸵鸟）。以股市为例。你知道吗，当人们把头从地里抬起来，恐惧地查看他们的账户时，并不是为了进行交易，只是为了登录看看他们的账户吗？
So, what you're seeing here, in black, is the S&P 500 over two years, and in gray, is the number of times that people logged in to their account just to check. And this is data from Karlsson, Loewenstein&Seppi, it's control[data] for all the obvious confounds.
所以，你在这里看到的，黑色的是在两年的时间里标准普尔500指数，灰色的是人们只为了看看自己的账户而登录查看的次数。这是来自Karlsson, Loewenstein&Seppi的数据。这是总体的明显看起来很混乱的控制数据。
So, what do we see? When the market is high, people log in all the time, because positive information makes you feel good. So you seek it out. And when the market is low, people avoid logging in, because negative information makes us feel bad. So we try to avoid it altogether. And all this is true as long as bad information can reasonably be avoided.
所以，我们看到了什么？当市场很健康的时候，人们总是登录，因为正向的信息会让你感觉很好，所以你就会主动去查看它。当市场低迷时，人们会避免登录，因为负面信息会让我们感觉不好。所以我们尽量避免。只要能合理地避免不良信息，所有这些都是真实的。
So, what you don't see here is what happened a few months later in the financial collapse of 2008 when the market went drastically down. And that was when people started logging in frantically, but it was too late.
所以，你在这里没看到的是几个月后发生的事情。在2008年的经济危机中，当市场急剧下跌的时候，人们才开始疯狂地登录，但是已经太晚了。
So, you can think about it like this — it’s not just finance: In many different parts of our life, we have warning signs and bad behaviors now. And they could potentially lead to all these bad outcomes later, but not necessarily so, because there are different routs from your present to your future, right?
所以，你好好想想--不仅仅是金融方面：在我们生活中的许多不同方面，我们同时拥有了警示牌以及坏习惯。坏习惯可能会导致各种糟糕的结果，但也不一定会导致这些结果，因为从你的现在到未来还要经历不同的路径，对吧？
It can go this way, it can go that way. And, as time passes, you gather more and more information about where the wind is blowing. And, at any point, you can intervene and you could potentially change the outcome, but that takes energy and you might tell yourself: “What’s the point about worrying about something that might happen? It might not happen.”
你有可能会这样，也可能会那样。而且，随着时间的推移，你会收集到越来越多的市场信息。而且，在任何时候，你都可以干预，你也可能会改变结果，但是这需要精力。所以你可能会告诉自己：“担心那些可能会发生的事情又有什么意义呢？也可能不会发生啊。”
Until we reach this point, at which time you do jump into action, but sometimes it’s a little bit too late.
在出问题之前，你确实会立即行动起来，但是有时候已经稍稍有些晚了。
So, we wanted to know, in my lab, what type of information does leak into people. So, we conducted an experiment where we asked approximately 100 people to estimate the likelihood of 80 different negative events that might happen to them in the future.
所以，我们想通过实验知道，什么样的信息会真正深入人心。因此，我们进行了一项实验。我们让大约100个人估计在未来可能发生在他们身上的80种不同负面事件的可能性。
So, for example, I might ask you: “What is the likelihood that you’ll suffer hearing loss in your future?” And let’s say you think it’s about 50%. Then, I give you the opinion of two different experts. So, expert A tells you: “You know, for someone like you, I think it’s only 40%.” So, they give you a rosier view of your future.
举个例子，我可能会问你：“你将来听力丧失的可能性有多大？”假设你认为是50%。然后，我会给你两个不同的专家的意见。专家A会告诉你：“你知道，像你这类人，我认为概率只有40%。”这样你对未来有了更美好的看法。
Expert B says: “You know, for someone like you, I actually think it’s about 60%. It’s worse.” So, they give you a bleaker view of your future.
而专家B说：“你知道，对你这样的人来说，我觉得概率约60%，这很糟糕”。所以，他们让你对你的未来有了更悲观的看法。
What should you do? Well, you shouldn’t change your beliefs, right? Wrong. What we find is that people tend to change their beliefs towards a more desirable opinion. In other words, people listen to the positive information.
你该怎么办？你不应该改变你的想法，对吧？不对。我们所发现的是，人们更容易把他们的想法，转换成一个使自己更乐观的观点。换句话说，人们乐意听积极的信息。
Now, this study was conducted on college students, so you might say: “Well, college students are delusional, right? We all know that.” And surely, as we grow older, we grow wiser. So we said: “OK, let’s test that. Does this really generalize? Does it generalize to your kid, to your parent? Does it generalize to your spouse?”
因为这项研究是针对大学生进行的，所以你可能会说：“嗯，那是因为大学生有妄想症，对吧？我们都懂的。”的确，随着年龄的增长，我们会变得更聪明的。所以我们想：“好，让我们来测试下，看它是否适用于你的孩子，你的父母？它是否适用于你的另一半呢？”
And so, we tested people from the age of 10 until the age of 80, and the answer was yes. In all these age groups, people take in information they want to hear — like someone telling you you’re more attractive than you thought — than information that they don’t want to hear.
因此，我们又测试了从10岁到80岁的人，而答案依然是肯定的。在所有这些年龄组中，人们都会更接受他们想要听到的信息--比如有人告诉你，你比你想象的更有魅力--而更不愿接受他们不想听到的信息。
And the ability to learn from good news remained quite stable throughout the life span, but the ability to learn from bad news, that changes as you age.
从好消息中学习的能力会在人的一生中保持稳定，但从坏消息中学习的能力会随着年龄的增长而变化。
So, what we found was that kids and teenagers were the worse at learning from bad news, and the ability became better and better as people aged. But then, around the age of 40, around midlife, it started deteriorating again.
因此，我们发现孩子和青少年从坏消息中学习的能力最差。而随着年龄的增长，他们的能力会越来越强。但是，到了40岁左右，也就是中年，它又会开始恶化。
So, what this means is that the most vulnerable populations, kids and teenagers on the one hand, and the elderly on the other hand, they’re the least likely to accurately learn from warnings.
所以，这意味着，最脆弱的人群，一类是儿童和青少年，另一类则是老年人，他们最难因警告或威胁而改变自己的认知。
But what you can see here is that it doesn’t matter what age you are. You can be 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60; everyone takes in information they want to hear more than information that they don’t.
但你会发现的是，你的年龄是多少并不重要。你可以是20岁、30岁、40岁、50岁或60岁；每个人只会接受他们想要听到的信息，而不是他们不想听到的信息。
And so, we end up with a view like this of ourselves. Our mistake as teachers, as mentors, as employers is that, instead of working with this positive image that people so effortfully maintain, we try and put a clear mirror in front of them.
因此，我们最终有了一个这样的看法。作为老师，作为导师，作为雇主，我们所犯的错误是，我们没有努力提供给人们他们想要努力维持的积极状态，而是用力在他们面前放一面清晰的镜子。
We tell them: “You know, the image is just going to get worse and worse and worse.” And it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because the brain will frantically try to distort the image, using Photoshop and fancy lenses, until it gets the image it’s happy with.
我们告诉他们：“你知道，你的样子只会变得越来越糟。”这并不起作用。它不管用，因为大脑会疯狂地扭曲这个图像，使用Photoshop和花哨的滤镜，直到得到它自己满意的图像。
But what would happen if we went along with how our brain works and not against it? Take handwashing, for example. We all know that handwashing is the number one way to prevent the spread of disease, and this is really important in hospitals.
但如果我们归顺大脑的运作方式，而不是反对它，会发生什么呢？以洗手为例。我们都知道洗手是预防疾病传播的最佳途径，在医院也是非常重要的。
So, in a hospital here in the United States, a camera was installed to see how often medical staff do, in fact, sanitize their hands before and after entering a patient’s room.
因此，在美国的一家医院里，安装了一台摄像头，来观察医务人员在进入病人病房前后对双手进行消毒的频率。医院人员知道已经
Now, the medical staff knew a camera was installed. Nevertheless, only one in ten washed their hands before and after entering a patient’s room. But then, an intervention was introduced: an electronic board that told the medical staff how well they were doing. Every time you washed your hands, the numbers went up on the screen and it showed you your rate of your current shift and the rate of the weekly staff.
医院人员知道已经安装了摄像头。然而，只有十分之一的人在进入病房之前和之后洗手。但随后，一个干预措施被引入了：一个电子板，告诉医务人员他们做得有多好。每次你洗手时，屏幕上的数字就会上升，它会显示你当前的洗手频率以及每周工作人员的吸收频率。
And what happened? Boom. Compliance raised to 90%, which is absolutely amazing. And the research staff were amazed as well, and they made sure to replicate it in another division in the hospital. Again, the same results.
然后发生了什么？砰。服从性提高到了90%，这绝对是令人惊讶的。研究人员也感到惊讶，他们也在医院的另一个科室复制了它。同样的结果。
So, why does this intervention work so well? It works well because, instead of using warnings about bad things that can happen in the future, like disease, it uses three principles that we know really drive your mind and your behavior.
那么，为什么这种干预效果如此之好呢？它的效果很好，因为它不是通过警告别人未来可能发生的坏事，比如疾病，而是使用我们知道的三个原则来真正地驱动你的思想和行为。
Let me explain. The first one is social incentives. In the hospital study, the medical staff could see what other people were doing. They can see the rates of the shift, the rate of the week. We’re social people, we really care what other people are doing, we want to do the same and we want to do it better.
让我解释一下。首先是社会激励。在医院的研究中，医务人员可以看到其他人在做什么。他们可以看到每一组的洗手率，一周的洗手率。我们是社会性的人，我们真的很在乎别人在做什么，我们会想做同样的事，而且想做得更好。
This is an image from a study that we conducted, led by PhD student Micah Edelson, and what it’s showing you is a signal in the emotional center of your brain when you hear about the opinion of others. And what we found was that this signal can predict how likely you are to conform at a later time, how likely you are to change your behavior.
这是我们在博士生Micah Edelson的带领下进行的一项研究中的一张图片。它向你展示的是当你听到别人的意见时，大脑情感中心的一个信号。我们发现，这个信号可以预测你一段时间过后服从的可能性。
So, the British government are using this principle to get people to pay taxes on time. In an old letter that they sent to people who “forgot” to pay taxes on time, they simply stressed how important it was pay taxes, and that didn’t help. Then, they added one sentence, and that sentence said: “Nine out of ten people in Britain pay their taxes on time.”
因此，英国政府正利用这一原则来督促人们按时纳税。在他们寄给那些“忘了”按时纳税的人的一封旧信中，他们只是强调了纳税的重要性，但这并没有起到什么作用。然后，他们加了一句话，那句话写到：“在英国，有90%的人会按时纳税。”
And that one sentence enhanced compliance within that group by 15%, and it’s thought to bring into the British government 56 billion pounds. So, highlighting what other people are doing is a really strong incentive.
这一改变使该群体的服从性提高了15%，人们认为这一判决为英国政府带来了56亿英镑的收入。因此，强调其他人都在做的事是一种很强的激励。
The other principle is immediate rewards. So, every time the staff washed their hand, they could see the numbers go up on the board and it made them feel good.
另一个原则是即时奖励。因此，每一次员工洗手，他们都能看到黑板上的数字上升，这让他们感觉很好。
And knowing that in advance made them do something that they, otherwise, may not want to do. Now, this works because we value immediate rewards, rewards that we can get now, more than rewards that we can get in the future.
而且事先知道能让他们做一些他们也许不想做的事情。这很有效，是因为我们重视眼前的奖励，重视现在能得到的奖励，而不是我们未来能得到的奖励。
And people tend to think it’s because we don’t care about the future, but that’s completely wrong, we all care about our future, right? We want to be happy and healthy in the future, we want to be successful, but the future is so far away.
人们倾向于认为这是因为我们不关心未来，但这是完全错误的，我们都关心我们的未来，不是吗？我们想要在未来幸福健康，我们想要成功，但是未来是如此的遥远。
I mean, maybe you’ll behave badly now and you’ll be fine in the future, and maybe you’ll be altogether dead. So, the here-and-now you would rather have that tangible drink, that tangible T-bone, rather than something that’s uncertain in the future.
我的意思是，也许你现在会表现不好，但将来你会好起来，也许到时候你们都死光光了呢。所以，此时此刻，你宁愿喝能喝到的饮料，吃能吃到的T骨牛排，而不在乎那些在未来是不确定的东西。
If you think about it, it’s not altogether irrational, right? You’re choosing something sure now rather than something that is unsure in the future.
如果你仔细想想，这并不是完全不合理的，对吧？你会选择有确定性的东西，而不是未来不确定的东西。
But what will happen if you reward people now for doing actions that are good for them in the future? Studies show that giving people immediate rewards make them more likely to quit smoking, more likely to start exercising, and this effect lasts for at least six months, because not smoking becomes associated with a reward, and exercising becomes associated with a reward, and it becomes a habit, it becomes a lifestyle.
但是，如果你因为他们未来的良好行为现在就奖励他们，那会怎样呢？研究表明，给予人们及时奖励会使他们更有可能戒烟，更有可能开始锻炼，这种效果至少能持续六个月，因为那时不吸烟就会成为一种奖励，锻炼就会成为一种奖励，成为一种习惯，成为一种生活方式。
So, we can reward ourselves and others now for behaving in ways that are good for us in the future and that’s a way for us to bridge the temporal gap.
因此，我们可以为未来对自己有益的行为方式奖励自己和他人，这也是我们缩短暂时差距的一种方式。
And the third principle is progress monitoring. So, the electronic board focused the medical staff attention on improving their performance.
第三个原则是进度监控。因此，电子告示板将医疗人员的注意力集中在了提高他们的工作表现上。
This is an image from a study that we conducted, that shows you brain activity suggestive of efficient coding of positive information about the future. And what we found was that the brain does a really good job at this, but it doesn’t do such a good job at processing negative information about the future.
这是我们进行的研究中的一幅图像，它显示了你的大脑活动，暗示着对未来积极信息的有效编码。我们发现，大脑在处理积极信息这方面做得很好，但在处理有关未来的负面信息方面却做得不是很好。
So, what does this mean? It means that, if you’re trying to get people’s attention, you might want to highlight the progress, not the decline. So, for example, if you take that kid with the cigarette, you might want to tell them: “You know, if you stop smoking, you’ll become better at sports.” Highlight the progress, not the decline.
这是什么意思？这意味着，如果你试图引起人们的注意，你可能想要突出自己的进步，而不是退步。所以，举个例子，如果用那孩子抽烟的例子来看，你可能会想告诉他们：“你知道，如果你戒烟，你的运动能力就会变得更好。”突出自己进步，而不是退步。
Now, before I sum up, let me just share this small anecdote with you. A few weeks ago, I got home and I found this bill on my fridge. And I was really surprised because there’s never any bills on my fridge. So, I was wondering why my husband decided to put that on our fridge.
现在，在我总结之前，让我和大家分享一个小轶事。几周前，我回到家，在冰箱上发现了这张账单。我真的很惊讶，因为我的冰箱上从来没有过账单。所以，我想知道为什么我丈夫决定把它放在冰箱上。
And so, looking at the bill, I could see that what this bill was trying to do is get me to be more efficient with my electricity use.
所以我看看账单，我发现了这个变动的目的，就是让我在用电方面更有效率。
And how was it doing it? Social incentives, immediate rewards and progress monitoring. Let me show you.
它是怎么做到的？社会激励、即时奖励和进度监控。让我来给你们展示一下。
Here are the social incentives. In gray is the energy use on the average energy use of people in my neighborhood. And in blue is my energy use, and in green is the most efficient neighbor.
以下是社会激励措施。灰色的是我们社区居民的能源平均使用率，蓝色是我的能源消耗，绿色是能源利用率最高的邻居。
And my reaction to this was — my immediate reaction was: “I’m a little bit better than average.” — a tiny bit, but still and my husband had exactly the same reaction — and “I want to get to the green bar.” And then, I got a smiley face.
我对此的反应是--我当时的反应是：“我比平均水平高一点”--就一点，但仍然是高嘛...我丈夫也是同样的反应--“我想达到绿色的水平线。”然后，我得到了一个笑脸。
That was my immediate reward and it was telling me, “You’re doing good,” and it made me want to put this on my fridge. And although I have this one smiley face, I can see an opportunity there to get two smiley faces.
这就是我得到的即时回报，它告诉我，“你做得很好”，这就让我想要把这个放在我的冰箱上。虽然我只有一个笑脸，但我能看到得到两个笑脸的机会。
So, there’s an opportunity for progress and it’s showing me my progress throughout the year, how my energy use changes throughout the year.
所以，这是一个进步的机会，它向我展示了一年中达到的进步，以及我家的能量利用在一年中是如何变化的。
And the last thing this bill gave me: it gave me a sense of control. So, it gave me a sense of I was in control of my use of electricity.
这个账单给我的最后一个提示是：它给我一种控制感。因此，它给了我在控制自己用电的感觉。
And that is a really important thing, if you try to get people to change their behavior, because the brain is constantly trying to seek ways to control its environment. It’s one of the principles of what the brain is actually doing.
这是一件非常重要的事情，因为你在试图让人们改变他们的行为，因为大脑一直在试图寻找控制它周围环境的方法。这就是大脑实际行为方式的原则之一。
And so, giving people a sense of control is a really important motivator. OK. So, what am I not saying? I’m not saying that we do not need to communicate risks, and I’m not saying that there’s one-solution-fits-all, but I am saying that, if we want to motivate change, we might want to rethink how we do it, because fear, the fear of losing your health, the fear of losing money, induces inaction, while the thrill of a gain induces action.
因此，给人们一种控制感是一个非常重要的鼓励方式。好的，我还有什么没说的？我不是说我们不需要交流风险，也不是说有一套适合所有人的解决方案，但我想说的是，如果我们想要激励人做出改变，我们可能需要重新思考我们是如何做的，因为对于恐惧、对不健康的恐惧、失去金钱的恐惧，会让人不想作为，而成功的刺激会刺激人的行为。
And so, to change behavior in ourselves and in others, we may want to try these positive strategies rather than threats, which really capitalize on the human tendency to seek progress.
因此，为了改变我们自己和他人的行为，我们也许该试试这些积极的策略，而不是威胁，因为这种策略有效利用了人类追求上进的本能。
Thank you.
谢谢。
联系客服
