評論
打印
Science and technology.
科技。
The psychology of morality.
道德心理學。
Time to be honest.
誠實是需要時間的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一個簡單的實驗卻為我們提供了一種鼓勵誠實的途徑。
"IS SIN original?" That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science. Dr Shalvi and his colleagues, Ori Eldar and Yoella Bereby-Meyer of Ben-Gurion University in Israel, wanted to know if the impulse to cheat is something that grows or diminishes when the potential cheater has time for reflection on his actions. Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
"人性本‘惡'？"這是由阿姆斯特丹大學的一位心理學家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科學》雜志上發表的一篇論文中所提出的問題. Shalvi博士和他的兩位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大學的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潛在的騙子有時間對他們的行為作出充分考慮，他們撒謊的沖動會否因此增強或減弱呢？換句話說，撒謊究竟是人的一種本能行為，還是經過仔細分析后所作出的選擇呢？
Appropriately, the researchers' apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity, the gambling die. They wanted to find out whether people were more likely to lie about the result of a die roll when asked that result immediately, or when given time to think.
研究人員為他們的實驗選擇了一樣合適的工具—骰子—罪惡活動的標志。他們想查明的是：人們是在搖骰后立即被詢問其結果時容易撒謊呢，還是在他們獲得一定的思考余地的時候呢？
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76 volunteers a six-sided die and a cup. Participants were told that a number of them, chosen at random, would earn ten shekels (about $2.50) for each pip of the numeral they rolled on the die. They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die and remember this roll. Next, they were asked to roll the die two more times, to satisfy themselves that it was not loaded, and, that done, to enter the result of the first roll on a computer terminal. Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds while the others were given no time limit.
實驗前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士給作為實驗對象的76位志愿者每人發了一個搖盅和一粒骰子。參加者被告知他們中的一部分被隨機抽選出來的，會依據其擲出的骰子點數而得到相應數目的獎勵，每點10謝克爾（約合2.5美元）。接著他們便按照指示搖盅，開盅查看結果，記住點數。然后他們被要求多搖兩次，以讓自己確信骰子中沒有被灌鉛。最后，讓他們自己在電腦終端里輸入第一次所擲出的點數。有一半參加者被要求在20秒內完成整個實驗流程，而另一半則沒有時間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course. But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been 3.5. This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants' honesty. Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a mean roll of 4.6. Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9. Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
研究人員當然無法知曉每個參加者實際擲出點數。但他們知道，依照統計學規律，如果所有人都能做到如實上報點數，那么這次實驗的平均擲出點數應為3.5。這就為研究人員提供了一個測量參加者誠實程度的依據。他們發現，那組被要求于20秒內輸入結果的的參加者所上報的擲出點數平均值為4.6，而另外沒有時間壓力的參加者的為3.9.顯然這兩組人都撒謊了，不過在那些有充分時間進行考慮的參加者中撒謊的較少。
A second experiment confirmed this result. A different bunch of volunteers were asked to roll the die just once. Again, half were put under time pressure and, since there were no additional rolls to make, the restriction was changed from 20 seconds to eight. The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
第二次實驗則驗證了這一結果。這次是另一群不同的志愿者被要求擲骰子，不過只擲一次。同上次一樣，他們中一半人被限制了時間，并且由于此次只需擲一次骰子，時間限制也從20s縮短為8s.其余一般則想考慮多久都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4. Those given no time limit reported an average of 3.4. The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
在這次實驗中，前面有時間限制的一半人所上報點數的平均值為4.4，而沒有時間限制的所上報的平均值為3.4。換言之，后者如實上報了數據。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeed original. Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled "cheat". Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing. If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediate decision.
因此，得出的結論是——至少在此次搖骰作弊的案例中如此—"人性本‘惡'"。在缺少時間進行考慮的情況下，人們會進入默認的"撒謊"模式。然而，如果他們獲得了那樣的考慮時間，一般會作出道德上正確的選擇。所以，如果你希望某人對你誠實，那么千萬別逼迫他立即做出出決定啊
