吉米·怀特

徐正星译

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.

科学家们正在揭示使所要传达的信息更具有说服力的方法，这些小伎俩对于政客们和推销员已是司空见惯的事，谁能不继续读下去呢？

阿肯萨斯大学社会心理学教授埃里克·希金斯声称自己掌握了实验证据证明有一种劝说他人的新方法，采用这种方法可以打消人们的顾虑，或是减少他们的抵制情绪。

希金斯博士强大的说服力使他成功说服了美国国家科学基金会给他拨163,000美元专门用于研究使传达的信息和请求更具有说服力的方法。最近，他和其他一些研究人员在阿肯萨斯大学会议上简要介绍了他们关于消除抵抗情绪的研究工作。

当某人对某个决定犹豫不决时，往往是因为有些方面具有诱惑力而鼓励人们接受，而另一些方面却令人感到不满，使人产生抵触情绪。研究人员把使得提议更具吸引力的说服策略称为“阿尔法”策略。而将那些使得人们对提议抵触情绪降到最小程度的策略称为“欧米咖”策略。希金斯博士从字母表的“欧米咖”端开始研究。

他对“欧米咖”策略的独到见地在于提出了这样一种观点，即抵触情绪很像是玻璃缸中的水，因此它可以被耗尽，也可以被再次充满。抵触程度的这种变化并不一定是逻辑或是理性依据的结果。水平一旦降低，缸中的水会逐步上升直到再次被充满，这很像是贮水箱，箱中的水一旦被冲掉又会自动填满。说服者的任务就是把缸中的水排光，而消费者的任务则是使其中的水够满以抵御不良变化。

最近希金斯博士与阿肯萨斯大学的一位同事杰·林合作，开始在政治宣传广告的环境下检验这一理论是否有效。两位研究人员首先提出一些问题，并根据对问题的回答把实验对象分成“怀疑型”和“轻信型”两类（虽然他们自己不使用这些术语）。然后他们再把实验对象分为四组。并使每组接受不同的实验“待遇”，包括观看七段陌生候选人谈论自己对某个特定问题的看法的视频。

一组实验对象被要求对第一段视频多加注意，而另外三组实验对象被要求特别注意最后一段视频。在放最后一段视频前还为后三组实验对象中的其中两组放映了一段关于斐济的旅行记录短片。两组中的其中一组被要求对斐济产生积极的想法，而另外两组被要求列出在去斐济群岛旅行时可能遇到的问题。最后，所有实验对象都必须对每则广告和每位候选人提出批评。

“轻信”型的实验对象不久就丧失了对广告的抵抗力。随着实验的继续，他们变的对政策和候选人越来越宽容。由于短片以不同的顺序放给不同的受试者观看，这种情况的出现不可能是信息或是传递信息的人本身缺乏某种内在价值引起的。实验对象对最后一段视频的反应取决于他们被要求对记录短片采取的态度。与让研究对象被要求担心旅行的种种困难时相比，当研究对象被要求以积极的心态观看短片而使他们的抵触情绪耗费殆尽时，他们对最后一个候选人的反感情绪更加强烈。这与希金斯博士的理论模型相吻合。

“怀疑”型的实验对象表现有所不同。他们对起初的候选人最为宽容，但随着广告的播放，他们的态度变得越来越消极——不管他们被要求以何种态度观看有关斐济的短片。在这种情况下，反复观看似乎更加深而不是耗尽反感情绪。这一结果更难与劳诺的实验模型相吻合。继续以水箱打比方，这表明感应水位的浮球阀正被向上移动。抵触情绪作为可变量的观点仍然成立，但是其最初所处的位置和它从那个位置上升或下降的趋势之间的关系需要做进一步研究。

决策过程的另一个具有极大影响力的方面是预期悔恨情绪。举个例子：这就是人们不愿交换彩票的原因。他们会想如果自己起初买的号码中了奖，感觉会是多么糟糕呀。直接面对这种担心是一种增强或降低抵抗情绪的方法，而这也是“欧米咖”策略起作用的又一个例子。

印第安那大学研究员史帝芬·舍曼和他的同事们最近展示了预期遗憾产生的效果：在一项试验中，两组参与者提供了两种无足轻重且表面上同样诱人的选择——该在两个足球队中的哪个上投注。试验人员在实验对象中安放的鸣响装置迫使他们选择其中一个队而不选另一个队。并让其中一个组以问卷的方式考虑如果要是没有选择提供的建议自己会感到多么后悔。这一组实验对象要比第一组选择给出的建议的可能性更大。这一结果使市场营销人员可以充分利用人们的恐惧心理。

还有其他一些伎俩可以被用来降低人们的抵触情绪。例如出其不意的事情可以消除人们的抵抗情绪。在几年前所做的一项实验中，装扮成乞丐的学生发现如果他们直接索要而不明确要多少时，他们得到小额零钱的几率是百分之四十四。如果他们索要是一个精确的数额（25美分）时，他们得到的可能性是百分之六十四。但是当他们索要表面上看起来很随意的一个数额时，他们得到的可能性是百分之七十五。要求越精确越不寻常，人们越无法拒绝。

当然所有关于这些抵抗的言论都十分模糊——虽然广告商和推销员对此很感兴趣。但是劳诺博士认为不仅仅只是术语而已。他们也许与动物身上的激励或禁止行为的各个不同的神经系统相适应。根据这一模式，“欧米伽”策略通过将禁止变为行动发挥作用。

抵抗情绪是不断进化的大脑中固有的还是可以习得的呢？

这表明抵抗机制是大脑固有的。但是一些研究人员例如北伊利诺伊大学的心理学家布莱得·萨格雷就认为抵抗情绪在某种程度上可以习得，而且这种情绪可以通过磨炼而增强。换句话说，水缸本身不能根据环境和经历进行暂时或永久扩大。

例如，人们不抵制广告，因为他们错误的认为自己可以不受广告的影响。他们认为广告只会对其他人造成影响。但是萨格雷博士说如果你通过告诉其他人他们被骗了从而证明这是错误的，这将会极大地增加抵御性。

人们不想被骗。的确，进化心理学——一门试图阐明人类情感起源和本质的学科——表明看穿骗局并避免被骗是人类心理最强烈的驱动力之一。这支持了抵抗机制是由进化植入人的本性中的观点。

世人是否真有必要知道如何使所传达的信息更有说服力是另外一回事。不用说所有研究人员对此都是坚信不疑的。正如博士所承认的，这种知识可能被用来强迫他人。但是他也指出可以用来教化人们。他说不管怎么说，可以通过把人们的抵抗情绪减少到最低程度来减少人们对未来所做的这个决定懊悔的可能性。对劝说这门科学还是持怀疑态度？那么请读者想想如果最后得出结论认为这个理论一直有道理时自己可能会多么后悔。