事实证明，讲故事并不总是让人们相信事实的最佳方式

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

事实证明，讲故事并不总是让人们相信事实的最佳方式

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.

讲故事是人类最强大的工具之一。故事通常被教育者、政治家和广告商所使用，它具有影响、教诲、激励和说服的力量。

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，关于故事是否有助于说服人们相信事实，或有相反的效果，一直存在一些争论。现在一项新的研究表明，这取决于你想分享的事实。

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.

一组心理学家发现，讲故事实际上会冲淡更强烈、更直接的事实，但它们更容易传播更似是而非、更容易相信的观点。

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，研究人员只关注那些在我们的社会中还没有引起争议和两极分化的事实，所以我们并不是在谈论疫苗或气候变化之类的事情。

"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.

西北大学研究消费者心理学的Rebecca Krause解释说：“故事至少部分地破坏了人们去评估事实的能力，而不是偏向让一个人去积极思考。”

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.

这些发现增加了关于讲故事好处的争论。虽然一些研究表明，故事使枯燥的事实更容易被人接受，但另一些研究发现恰恰相反。

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年的一项研究发现，当有关乙肝疫苗的信息以叙述形式而非事实形式提供时，参与者对感染风险的感知和接种疫苗的意愿会增强。

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，一些研究发现，当涉及到比接种疫苗争议更小的问题时，讲故事是一个更大的障碍。

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，去年发表的一篇研究627名美国成年人的论文显示，与叙事视频相比，关于大流行性流感的非叙事视频，能让人们对这个问题有更深入的了解。

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.

由于结果好坏参半，心理学家很难弄清楚到底发生了什么。因此，克劳斯和她的合著者德里克·鲁克决定深入挖掘。

"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.

克劳斯和她的合著者德里克·拉克解释说:“对故事减少反驳的一个解释是，故事使人们产生偏见，不愿产生负面想法。”换句话说，它阻止人们批判性地思考他们听到的事实。

"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."

“因为故事往往是引人入胜的，沉浸在故事中的过程是令人愉快的，反驳的努力可能会破坏叙事的乐趣，把人们从叙事中拉出来。”

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.

但这并不是研究人员所发现的。在这项研究中，397名美国成年人被要求对一个名为“月光石”的人造手机品牌发表自己的意见。

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.

在这项研究中，一半的参与者得到了关于月光石的直接事实，而另一半的参与者则得到了一个故事，故事中包含了这些事实。

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.

这些事实中的每一个都被认为是“强”或“弱”，比如说，月亮石可以承受高达30英尺的坠落(一个令人信服或“强”的事实)，或者月亮石可以承受高达3英尺的坠落(一个弱的事实)。最后，每个参与者都被要求用一个客观的量表给他们新品牌的印象。

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，作者发现，当事实不足时，参与者更容易被故事的形式所说服。但当事实非常有力或特别令人信服时，情况就恰恰相反:没有任何叙述的事实似乎更有说服力。

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.

研究人员复制了第一项研究，这次是针对389名不同的成年人，再次发现了类似的结果。当他们以故事的形式陈述时，不仅对事实的负面反应减少了，比如“反驳”，作者还注意到对事实的正面反应减少了，比如接受。所以他们没有批判性地思考故事中的事实，但他们也没有接受这些事实。

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.

这意味着，当一个故事被讲述时，即使事实是可靠的，人类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.

作者写道:“这些结果表明，通过减少对薄弱事实的审视，而不是减少对负面想法的关注，故事的使用增强了说服力。”

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.

对他们的结果还不满意，小组进行了第三次实验。这一次，291名新的参与者被要求阅读关于一种虚构的流感药物的文章，这些信息要么是自己提供的，要么是在一个关于患病儿童的故事中提供的。最后，每个人都被问到是否愿意给他们的电子邮件提供更多的信息。

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，作者注意到了同样的模式。在这种情况下，当有力或令人信服的事实以叙述形式呈现时，参与者不愿意分享他们的电子邮件。

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

综上所述，这三个实验都表明，讲故事使“较弱”的事实更容易被接受，而最有力的论据则明显更难被接受。

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.

换言之，讲故事实际上可能会冲淡有力的事实，而支持软弱的事实。在现代世界，“另类事实”和“假新闻”正以前所未有的速度传播，这是对轶事如何破坏现实的有趣洞察。

"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.

克劳斯说:“考虑到人们对‘假新闻’的担忧，知道故事可能会给那些论据最缺乏说服力的人带来最有说服力的好处，这一点很重要。”

"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."

但这并不意味着一个故事就代表了薄弱的事实。相反，当你觉得一个伟大的故事特别吸引你时，你可能会想要更多地思考和考虑事实，以确定它们有多好。”

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.

在这项研究中毫无价值的一个重要限制是，所提供的事实中没有一个已经在社会上引起明显的两极分化或争议。作者指出，当涉及到更激烈的问题(例如，气候变化)时，故事可能会发挥不同的作用。

"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.

他们在论文中写道:“当人们自然地倾向于提出反驳意见时，故事可能会暂时起到让他们倾听的作用，从而使处理过程偏离原本会出现的负面想法。”

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

研究结果发表在《个性与社会心理学公报》上。