事實(shí)證明，講故事并不總是讓人們相信事實(shí)的最佳方式

Turns Out Storytelling Isn't Always The Best Way to Get People to Believe Facts

事實(shí)證明，講故事并不總是讓人們相信事實(shí)的最佳方式

Storytelling is one of humanity's most powerful tools. Commonly used by educators, politicians and advertisers, stories have the power to influence and teach, inspire and persuade.

講故事是人類(lèi)最強(qiáng)大的工具之一。故事通常被教育者、政治家和廣告商所使用，它具有影響、教誨、激勵(lì)和說(shuō)服的力量。

But there's been some debate over whether stories help convince people of facts, or have the opposite effect. Now a new study has shown that it depends on the kind of facts you want to share.

但是，關(guān)于故事是否有助于說(shuō)服人們相信事實(shí)，或有相反的效果，一直存在一些爭(zhēng)論。現(xiàn)在一項(xiàng)新的研究表明，這取決于你想分享的事實(shí)。

A team of psychologists found that telling stories can actually dilute strong, more in-your-face facts - but they make it easier to spread more specious and easy-to-believe ideas.

一組心理學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)，講故事實(shí)際上會(huì)沖淡更強(qiáng)烈、更直接的事實(shí)，但它們更容易傳播更似是而非、更容易相信的觀點(diǎn)。

It's important to note, however, that the researchers only looked at facts that weren't already controversial and polarising in our society - so we're not talking about things like vaccines or climate change.

然而，值得注意的是，研究人員只關(guān)注那些在我們的社會(huì)中還沒(méi)有引起爭(zhēng)議和兩極分化的事實(shí)，所以我們并不是在談?wù)撘呙缁驓夂蜃兓?lèi)的事情。

"Stories persuade, at least in part, by disrupting the ability to evaluate facts, rather than just biasing a person to think positively," explains Rebecca Krause, who researches consumer psychology at Northwestern University.

西北大學(xué)研究消費(fèi)者心理學(xué)的Rebecca Krause解釋說(shuō)：“故事至少部分地破壞了人們?nèi)ピu(píng)估事實(shí)的能力，而不是偏向讓一個(gè)人去積極思考。”

The findings add to the ongoing debate over the benefits of storytelling. While some studies suggest stories make dry facts easier to swallow, others have found the exact opposite.

這些發(fā)現(xiàn)增加了關(guān)于講故事好處的爭(zhēng)論。雖然一些研究表明，故事使枯燥的事實(shí)更容易被人接受，但另一些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)恰恰相反。

For instance, a 2008 study found that when information on the hepatitis B vaccine was given in narrative form, as opposed to factual form, a participant's perception of risk of infection and their intention to get the vaccine were boosted.

例如，2008年的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)有關(guān)乙肝疫苗的信息以敘述形式而非事實(shí)形式提供時(shí)，參與者對(duì)感染風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的感知和接種疫苗的意愿會(huì)增強(qiáng)。

On the other hand, some research has found storytelling to be more of a hindrance when it comes to issues less controversial than vaccination.

另一方面，一些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)涉及到比接種疫苗爭(zhēng)議更小的問(wèn)題時(shí)，講故事是一個(gè)更大的障礙。

For example, a paper published just last year examining 627 American adults showed that a non-narrative video on pandemic influenza led to greater knowledge on the issue when compared to a narrative video.

例如，去年發(fā)表的一篇研究627名美國(guó)成年人的論文顯示，與敘事視頻相比，關(guān)于大流行性流感的非敘事視頻，能讓人們對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題有更深入的了解。

With such mixed results, it's been hard for psychologists to figure out what is going on. So Krause and her co-author Derek Rucker decided to dig deeper.

由于結(jié)果好壞參半，心理學(xué)家很難弄清楚到底發(fā)生了什么。因此，克勞斯和她的合著者德里克·魯克決定深入挖掘。

"One explanation for why stories reduce counterarguing is that stories bias people away from generating negative thoughts," explain Krausse and her co-author Derek Rucker. In other words, it stops people from thinking critically about the facts they hear.

克勞斯和她的合著者德里克·拉克解釋說(shuō):“對(duì)故事減少反駁的一個(gè)解釋是，故事使人們產(chǎn)生偏見(jiàn)，不愿產(chǎn)生負(fù)面想法。”換句話說(shuō)，它阻止人們批判性地思考他們聽(tīng)到的事實(shí)。

"Because stories are often engaging, and the process of immersing oneself in a story is enjoyable, efforts to counterargue might disrupt narrative enjoyment and pull people out of the narrative."

“因?yàn)楣适峦且巳雱俚?，沉浸在故事中的過(guò)程是令人愉快的，反駁的努力可能會(huì)破壞敘事的樂(lè)趣，把人們從敘事中拉出來(lái)。”

But this is not exactly what the researchers found. In the study, 397 adults in the United States were asked to give their opinion on a made-up phone brand called Moonstone.

但這并不是研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的。在這項(xiàng)研究中，397名美國(guó)成年人被要求對(duì)一個(gè)名為“月光石”的人造手機(jī)品牌發(fā)表自己的意見(jiàn)。

During the study, half the participants were given straightforward facts about Moonstone, while the other half received a story where the facts were embedded in the narrative.

在這項(xiàng)研究中，一半的參與者得到了關(guān)于月光石的直接事實(shí)，而另一半的參與者則得到了一個(gè)故事，故事中包含了這些事實(shí)。

Each of these respective facts was deemed either 'strong' or 'weak' - as in, the Moonstone can withstand a fall of up to 30 feet (a compelling or 'strong' fact), or the Moonstone can withstand a fall of up to 3 feet (a weak fact). At the end, each participant was asked to give their impression of the new brand using an objective scale.

這些事實(shí)中的每一個(gè)都被認(rèn)為是“強(qiáng)”或“弱”，比如說(shuō)，月亮石可以承受高達(dá)30英尺的墜落(一個(gè)令人信服或“強(qiáng)”的事實(shí))，或者月亮石可以承受高達(dá)3英尺的墜落(一個(gè)弱的事實(shí))。最后，每個(gè)參與者都被要求用一個(gè)客觀的量表給他們新品牌的印象。

Interestingly enough, the authors found participants were more persuaded by the story format when the facts were weak. But when the facts were strong or particularly compelling, the reverse happened: the facts alone without any narrative appeared to be more persuasive.

有趣的是，作者發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)事實(shí)不足時(shí)，參與者更容易被故事的形式所說(shuō)服。但當(dāng)事實(shí)非常有力或特別令人信服時(shí)，情況就恰恰相反:沒(méi)有任何敘述的事實(shí)似乎更有說(shuō)服力。

Replicating the first study, this time with 389 different adults, the researchers once again found similar results. Not only was there a decrease in negative reactions to the facts, such as 'counter-arguing', when they were delivered in story format, the authors also noted a decrease in positive reactions to the facts, such as acceptance. So they weren't thinking critically about the facts in the story, but they also weren't accepting them.

研究人員復(fù)制了第一項(xiàng)研究，這次是針對(duì)389名不同的成年人，再次發(fā)現(xiàn)了類(lèi)似的結(jié)果。當(dāng)他們以故事的形式陳述時(shí)，不僅對(duì)事實(shí)的負(fù)面反應(yīng)減少了，比如“反駁”，作者還注意到對(duì)事實(shí)的正面反應(yīng)減少了，比如接受。所以他們沒(méi)有批判性地思考故事中的事實(shí)，但他們也沒(méi)有接受這些事實(shí)。

This implies that when a story is told, humans tend to suffer from a general lack of critical thinking, even when the facts are solid.

這意味著，當(dāng)一個(gè)故事被講述時(shí)，即使事實(shí)是可靠的，人類(lèi)也往往缺乏批判性的思考。

"These results suggest that the use of stories increased persuasion via a reduction in scrutiny of weak facts as opposed to a reduced focus on negative thoughts," the authors write.

作者寫(xiě)道:“這些結(jié)果表明，通過(guò)減少對(duì)薄弱事實(shí)的審視，而不是減少對(duì)負(fù)面想法的關(guān)注，故事的使用增強(qiáng)了說(shuō)服力。”

Not satisfied with their results just yet, the team conducted a third experiment. This time, 291 new participants were asked to read about a fictitious flu medication, and the information was given either on its own or in a story about a sick child. At the end, each person was asked if they would like to give their emails for more information.

對(duì)他們的結(jié)果還不滿意，小組進(jìn)行了第三次實(shí)驗(yàn)。這一次，291名新的參與者被要求閱讀關(guān)于一種虛構(gòu)的流感藥物的文章，這些信息要么是自己提供的，要么是在一個(gè)關(guān)于患病兒童的故事中提供的。最后，每個(gè)人都被問(wèn)到是否愿意給他們的電子郵件提供更多的信息。

For the third time, the authors noticed the same pattern. In this case, the participants were less willing to share their emails when strong or compelling facts were presented in narrative form.

第三次，作者注意到了同樣的模式。在這種情況下，當(dāng)有力或令人信服的事實(shí)以敘述形式呈現(xiàn)時(shí)，參與者不愿意分享他們的電子郵件。

Taken together, all three of these experiments suggest that storytelling makes the 'weaker' facts easier to swallow and the strongest arguments significantly harder.

綜上所述，這三個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)都表明，講故事使“較弱”的事實(shí)更容易被接受，而最有力的論據(jù)則明顯更難被接受。

In other words, storytelling might actually dilute strong facts while bolstering weak ones. In the modern world, where 'alternative facts' and 'fake news' are spreading like never before, this is an interesting insight into how anecdotes can undermine reality.

換言之，講故事實(shí)際上可能會(huì)沖淡有力的事實(shí)，而支持軟弱的事實(shí)。在現(xiàn)代世界，“另類(lèi)事實(shí)”和“假新聞”正以前所未有的速度傳播，這是對(duì)軼事如何破壞現(xiàn)實(shí)的有趣洞察。

"Knowing that stories may provide the most persuasive benefit to those with the least compelling arguments could be important given concerns about 'fake news,'" suggests Krause.

克勞斯說(shuō):“考慮到人們對(duì)‘假新聞’的擔(dān)憂，知道故事可能會(huì)給那些論據(jù)最缺乏說(shuō)服力的人帶來(lái)最有說(shuō)服力的好處，這一點(diǎn)很重要。”

"But this does not mean a story is indicative of weak facts. Rather, when you feel especially compelled by a great story you might want to give more thought and consideration to the facts to determine how good they are."

但這并不意味著一個(gè)故事就代表了薄弱的事實(shí)。相反，當(dāng)你覺(jué)得一個(gè)偉大的故事特別吸引你時(shí)，你可能會(huì)想要更多地思考和考慮事實(shí)，以確定它們有多好。”

One important limitation worth nothing in this study is that none of the facts offered up were already notably polarising or controversial in society. The authors note that when it comes to more heated issues (for example, climate change) stories may play a different role.

在這項(xiàng)研究中毫無(wú)價(jià)值的一個(gè)重要限制是，所提供的事實(shí)中沒(méi)有一個(gè)已經(jīng)在社會(huì)上引起明顯的兩極分化或爭(zhēng)議。作者指出，當(dāng)涉及到更激烈的問(wèn)題(例如，氣候變化)時(shí)，故事可能會(huì)發(fā)揮不同的作用。

"When people are naturally inclined to generate counterarguments, stories might serve the role of momentarily causing them to listen, which could bias processing away from the negative thoughts that would otherwise occur," they wrote in their paper.

他們?cè)谡撐闹袑?xiě)道:“當(dāng)人們自然地傾向于提出反駁意見(jiàn)時(shí)，故事可能會(huì)暫時(shí)起到讓他們傾聽(tīng)的作用，從而使處理過(guò)程偏離原本會(huì)出現(xiàn)的負(fù)面想法。”

The findings are published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

研究結(jié)果發(fā)表在《個(gè)性與社會(huì)心理學(xué)公報(bào)》上。