在”震撼主義”一書中,作者Naomi Klein曾以Ewen Cameron與William Sargant等人的研究為喻,
將受到天災人禍震懾後失去公共知覺,並因而遭到政府趁火打劫的人民,
比擬為遭受”知覺剝奪”、”震撼療法”的受害者;初閱此書時個人覺得這引子繞得頗硬、不倫不類,
但現今再看,Norman個人卻不禁佩服起作者的巧思了─
根據一篇刊登於1月號哈佛商業評論(Harvard Business Review)、
由華沙社會科學與人文學院的Dariusz Dolinski等人所做的研究便顯示,
受到驚嚇後的”情緒混亂(emotional disorganization)”,確實使人更容易不拒來者、任其予取予求!
(以下內容引述自Compliance and the Fright Factor)
…..People who spotted what they at first thought was a parking ticket on their windshield
were more likely to buy an item from a street vendor immediately afterward. (The tickets were fake.)
And people who were asked “Haven’t you lost your wallet?”—but hadn’t, in fact—
were more likely to agree to take part in a survey.
These experiments, by Dariusz Dolinski and Katarzyna Szczucka,
of Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, show that the “emotional disorganization”
following apprehension and relief makes people more inclined to comply with a request…..
…..
原論文:Emotional disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence
這篇研究中,作者以”disrupt-then-reframe (中斷再構築,DTR)”為基礎,
提出了”fear-then-relief”此說服方式,並以”假交通罰單”與”假測驗電擊”等幾個實驗證明:
在“假交通罰單”實驗中,被假罰單嚇到的組別(傳單置於擋風玻璃)比起沒被嚇的組別(傳單貼門上),
無論是否有操弄argument,其之後向小販購買線香的平均人數都比較高;
而於”假測驗電擊“實驗中,比起沒有被恐嚇電擊的”一般組”和被恐嚇要電擊的”純驚嚇組”,
原本說要電擊後來又推遲的”驚嚇-解除組”亦是無論是否有操弄argument,
其在實驗後的平均捐款人數皆高於另外兩組!
此研究的操弄仍屬於個人層次,能否直接推論於群眾尚不一定,
但倘若可以的話─那麼再看看這個三天兩頭就用”不過服貿會死人”、
“搞環保就拼不了經濟”或”我要握手”等瘋言瘋語恐嚇、驚嚇人民的政府,
其所作所為或許並非蠢笨、而自有一番讓爾等屁民順從的大道理呢?
拿破崙曾言道”莫把他人的陰謀看作他人的愚蠢”,其中哲理果然值得玩味 ww