Level 2 Reading 11B

Ch.22 Reading 11B

第22章 阅读11B

THE LIMITS OF LYING Lying is a part of human nature. But how far will people go? Psychologist Dan Ariely became interested in dishonesty about 15 years ago. During along-distance flight, he came across an IQ test in a magazine. He answered the first question and checked the answer key to see if he got it right. He then took a quick look at the next answer before looking back at the quiz. He continued in this way through the whole test. Not surprisingly, he scored very well. "When I finished, I thought—I cheated myself," he says. So why did he do it? "Presumably, I wanted to know ho smart I am, but I also wanted to prove I'm this smart to myself." The experience led Ariely to develop a lifelong interest in the study of lying and other forms of dishonesty. To find out more about lying habits, Ariely developed a series of studies known as the Matrix Experiments. In the experiments, volunteers completed a test with 20 simple math problems. They were given five minutes to solve as many as they could. For each correct answer, they were told they would receive a sum of money. When the time was up, the volunteers counted the number of problems they solved correctly. They were then asked to destroy their answer sheets in a shredder. After reporting their own test scores, they were paid accordingly. However, there was something the volunteers didn't know. Their answer sheets were never actually destroyed. By comparing actual test scores to reported scores, Arielys research team found out how many volunteers lied, and how much they lied by. The results? Of the 40,000 people who participated in the experiment, nearly 70 percent lied about their test score. On average, volunteers said they solved six problems, but it was closer to four. The results are similar across different cultures. Most of us lie, but only a little. The question Ariely finds most interesting is not why so many of us lie, but rather why we don't lie a lot more. In one version of the experiment, participants were offered significantly more money for each correct answer. However, this did not cause them to cheat more. "Here we give people a chance to steal lots of money, and people cheat only a little bit. So something stops us—most of us—from not lying all the way," Ariely says. The reason, he believes, is that we want to see ourselves as honest, because honesty is a value taught to us by society. This is why most of us place limits on how much we lie. We may be able to come up with an excuse for taking Post-it Notes from an office fairly easily. "But it is much more difficult to come up with an excuse for taking $10,000," Ariely explains. The extent of our lying is determined largely by what is acceptable by society. "Cheating is easier," he says, "when we can justify our behavior."

撒谎的限度 撒谎是人性的一部分。但人们会走多远？ 心理学家丹·艾瑞里在15年前开始对不诚实感兴趣。 在长途飞行中，他在一本杂志上看到了智商测试。 他回答了第一个问题，并检查了答案是否正确。 然后，他快速浏览了下一个答案，然后回头看了看测验。 他在整个测试过程中一直这样。 毫不奇怪，他得分很高。 “当我完成时，我想——我欺骗了自己，”他说。 那他为什么这么做？ “大概，我想知道我有多聪明，但我也想证明我对自己这么聪明。” 这段经历使艾瑞里对研究撒谎和其他形式的不诚实产生了终生的兴趣。 为了了解更多关于撒谎习惯的信息，艾瑞里开展了一系列被称为矩阵实验的研究。 在实验中，志愿者完成了20道简单数学题的测试。 他们有五分钟的时间尽可能多地解决问题。 对于每一个正确答案，他们都会得到一笔钱。 时间到了，志愿者们计算出他们正确解决的问题数量。 然后，他们被要求在碎纸机中销毁答卷。 在报告了自己的考试成绩后，他们得到了相应的报酬。 然而，志愿者们不知道一些事情。 他们的答卷从未被销毁。 通过将实际测试分数与报告分数进行比较， Arielys的研究小组发现了有多少志愿者撒了谎，以及他们撒了多少谎。 结果如何？ 在参与实验的4万人中，近70%的人谎报了他们的考试成绩。 平均而言，志愿者们说他们解决了六个问题，但接近四个。 不同文化的结果是相似的。 我们大多数人都会撒谎，但只有一点点。 艾瑞里发现最有趣的问题不是为什么我们这么多人撒谎，而是为什么我们不多撒谎。 在一个版本的实验中，参与者为每个正确答案提供了更多的钱。 然而，这并没有导致他们更多地作弊。 “在这里，我们给人们一个偷很多钱的机会，而人们只会作弊一点点。 所以有些东西阻止了我们——我们大多数人——不撒谎，”艾瑞里说。 他认为，原因是我们想把自己看作是诚实的，因为诚实是社会教给我们的一种价值观。 这就是为什么我们大多数人会限制自己撒谎的程度。 我们也许能想出一个借口，很容易地从办公室拿走便利贴。 艾瑞里解释说：“但要为拿走1万美元找借口要困难得多。”。 我们撒谎的程度在很大程度上取决于社会能接受什么。 他说：“当我们能够为自己的行为辩护时，作弊就更容易了。”

♪