選擇越多越迷茫？

2009年11月27日 07:53 AM
選擇越多越迷茫？
GIVEN THE CHOICE, HOW MUCH CHOICE WOULD YOU LIKE?
作者：英國《金融時報》專欄作家 提姆•哈福德


Is more choice better? Ten years ago the answer seemed obvious: Yes. Now the conventional wisdom is the opposite: lots of choice makes people less likely to choose anything, and less happy when they do choose.
選擇越多就越好嗎？10年前，答案似乎明顯是肯定的。如今，普遍的觀點則恰恰相反：大量選擇更有可能讓人們什麽都不選，而在選擇時也不那麽快樂。


The most famous supporting evidence is an experiment conducted by two psychologists, Mark Lepper and Sheena Iyengar. They set up a jam-tasting stall in a posh supermarket in California. Sometimes they offered six varieties of jam, at other times 24; jam tasters were then offered a voucher to buy jam at a discount.
支持這一說法的最著名證據，是心理學家馬克•萊普(Mark Lepper)和希娜•連格(Sheena Iyengar)進行的一次實驗。他們在加州的一家豪華超市設立了一個果醬品嘗櫃台。有時他們會提供6種果醬，其它時間為24種；品嘗果醬的顧客會得到一張打折購買果醬的優惠券。

The bigger display attracted more customers but very few of them actually bought jam. The display that offered less choice made many more sales – in fact, only 3 per cent of jam tasters at the 24-flavour stand used their discount voucher, versus 30 per cent at the six-flavour stand. This is an astonishingly strong effect – and utterly counter to mainstream economic theory.
較大規模的展示吸引了更多顧客，但很少有人真正購買果醬。提供較少選擇的展示帶來了更多銷售——實際上，在提供24種果醬的櫃台，只有3%的品嘗者使用了打折優惠券，而在提供6種選擇的櫃台，購買者高達30%。這是一個令人震驚的結果，與主流經濟理論完全相悖。

One practical response to such experiments is that choice can be a good thing overall even if it does discourage us. I may find the choice between Robertson's jam and Wilkin and Sons' jam irritating and of no practical consequence to me, but you can bet that it has consequences for the two companies. We are often offered an apparently pointless choice between two equally good products, not appreciating that they are only good because we have been offered the choice.
對此類實驗一個講求實際的回答是，總體來說，選擇可以是件一件好事，即使它會讓我們泄氣。我可能會發現，在Robertson果醬和Wilkin and Sons果醬之間做出選擇令人不快，對我也沒有什麽有用的效果，但你可以打賭，它會對兩家公司產生影響。我們常常被要求在兩件同樣好的產品之間做出明顯毫無意義的選擇，而沒有意識到，正是因為我們有了選擇的機會，它們才是好產品。

The counter-argument was once put in a sketch about TV deregulation by Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie: a waiter whisks away silver cutlery from a politician responsible for the proliferation of channels before dumping a sackful of plastic coffee stirrers in his lap. “They may be complete crap, but you've got choice, haven't you?” Funny, but Fry and Laurie had it backwards. Zero choice is the fastest route to low quality.
斯蒂芬•弗萊(Stephen Fry)和休•勞利(Hugh Laurie)一幅關於電視監管放鬆的作品曾展現了相反的論調：一位服務生收走了對頻道擴散負有責任的政治家面前的銀質餐具，然後把一袋塑料咖啡攪拌勺扔到他的腿上。“它們也許就是廢物，但你得到了選擇，不是嗎？”這有點可笑，但弗萊和勞利弄錯了。零選擇是通向低質量的最快捷路線。

But a more fundamental objection to the “choice is bad” thesis is that the psychological effect may not actually exist at all. It is hard to find much evidence that retailers are ferociously simplifying their offerings in an effort to boost sales. Starbucks boasts about its “87,000 drink combinations”; supermarkets are packed with options. This suggests that “choice demotivates” is not a universal human truth, but an effect that emerges under special circumstances.
但對於“選擇是件壞事”的命題，一個更重要的反對意見是，心理影響也許實際上根本就不存在。我們很難找到大量證據，證明零售商在為了提振銷售而極力減少產品的提供。星巴克(Starbucks)自詡擁有“8.7萬種飲品組合”；超市裡的貨品琳琅滿目。這表明，“選擇讓人失去動力”並非放諸四海而皆準的人類真理，而是一種在特殊情況下才會出現的結果。

Benjamin Scheibehenne, a psychologist at the University of Basel, was thinking along these lines when he decided (with Peter Todd and, later, Rainer Greifeneder) to design a range of experiments to figure out when choice demotivates, and when it does not.
巴塞爾大學(University of Basel)心理學家本傑明•謝伯翰(Benjamin Scheibehenne)在考慮這些問題時，決定（與彼得•托德(Peter Todd)以及後來的雷納•格雷芬尼德(Rainer Greifeneder)一道）設計一系列實驗，考察選擇何時讓人失去動力，何時又不會。

But a curious thing happened almost immediately. They began by trying to replicate some classic experiments – such as the jam study, and a similar one with luxury chocolates. They couldn't find any sign of the “choice is bad” effect. Neither the original Lepper-Iyengar experiments nor the new study appears to be at fault: the results are just different and we don't know why.
但奇怪的事情幾乎立刻就發生了。一開始，他們試圖復制一些經典的實驗，比如果醬研究和與此類似的高級巧克力實驗。他們沒有發現任何跡象，表明“選擇是件壞事”。無論是萊普-連格最初的實驗，還是這項新的研究，似乎沒有問題，但結果就是不同，而我們不知道原因何在。

After designing 10 different experiments in which participants were asked to make a choice, and finding very little evidence that variety caused any problems, Scheibehenne and his colleagues tried to assemble all the studies, published and unpublished, of the effect.
謝伯翰和他的同事設計了10個不同的實驗，要求參與者做出選擇，但幾乎沒有發現多樣性會產生問題的證據。其後，他們試圖把關於這一影響的所有研究（發表的和未發表的）放在一起加以整理。

The average of all these studies suggests that offering lots of extra choices seems to make no important difference either way. There seem to be circumstances where choice is counterproductive but, despite looking hard for them, we don't yet know much about what they are. Overall, says Scheibehenne: “If you did one of these studies tomorrow, the most probable result would be no effect.” Perhaps choice is not as paradoxical as some psychologists have come to believe. One way or another, we seem to be able to cope with it.
所有這些研究的平均水平表明，提供大量額外選擇對哪方面似乎都不會產生重大影響。似乎在有些情況下，選擇會產生反效果，然而盡管經過仔細的尋找，我們仍然不太清楚這些情況是什麽樣子的。謝伯翰表示，總體而言，“如果你明天進行其中一項研究，最可能的結果會是沒有任何影響。”選擇或許不像一些心理學家認為的那樣詭異。無論如何，我們似乎可以應付。

譯者/梁艷裳