Chapter 4 4. Social identity

Every city and every resident in Chinese society is familiar with a phenomenon, that is, the craze for children to learn piano, or foreign language, or fitness, or super girls. In short, there will always be large-scale herd behavior in society. It seems that everyone has to refer to the behavior of those around them to decide what they should do, and no one seems to be able to determine their own opinions.My parents are not in business, they are both intellectuals, but our family has a traditional Chinese boom scale, and they always use this scale to weigh anything at home.Although the weight is only 5 kilograms, we often weigh all kinds of things, whether it is food or books, or school bags and quilts, in short, many things at home have been overweighted.I wonder, how can there be such a steelyard at home.It turned out that one day in 1965, my parents saw many people queuing up on the way home, and they followed suit without hesitation.Since I have been in the queue for a long time, and everyone has arrived, I thought I would not waste the time in the queue, so I bought this steelyard, so I kept using this steelyard in order not to waste the money purchased.But why did you line up in the first place?They said that when they saw others queuing, they followed suit.If it hadn't happened to my parents, a person like me who thinks he is quite rational would never believe that such a thing exists in the world.

Social proof gradually affects you from the behavior of those around you, and, scary, you don't know it yet. I've never met anyone who liked pre-recorded voiceover laughs.I did a little survey of the people who came to my office one day, including a few students, two phone repairmen, a few college professors, and a cleaner, and without exception, everyone laughed at the dub sound critical.And those TV shows that constantly use dubbed laughs to heighten the comedy got the most bang for their buck.In fact, all of them hate dub laughs.They think dub laughs are silly, fake, and superficial.It's a small sample size, but I'd venture to say that the results reflect the negative perception most Americans have of dubbed laughter.

That being the case, why are TV executives still so obsessed with dubbed laughter?The reason why these people have prominent positions and good incomes is that they know how to cater to the needs of the public.And yet, they are the ones who insist on using dubbed laughs, despite the disgust of the audience and the objections of many talented artists.In fact, some of the best directors, writers, and actors routinely request that pre-recorded audience responses be removed from the television shows they participate in, but their request is occasionally successful, and even these rare victories are It is earned through hard work.

Why is dubbed laughter so attractive to TV executives?Why do these seasoned and savvy businessmen have to take the risk of not being recognized by potential audiences and offending talented creative staff?The answer is very simple and very interesting: they just understand the results of some scientific research.Studies have shown that dubbed laughter can make viewers laugh more often and for longer when watching humorous programs, and it can make them think the content of the programs is more interesting.Plus, there's some other evidence that dubbed laughs work best for lame jokes. Therefore, according to the above point of view, the decision-makers of TV companies still make sense.Adding dubbed laughs to a comedy show can enhance the show's sense of humor and the audience's response, especially when the show is poor.It wouldn't surprise us at all to add voice-over laughs to the sitcoms that flood the screens today, most of them cheesy and artless.Those TV executives are not stupid, they know what they are doing.

But when we unravel the mystery of dubbed laughter, the questions before us are even more puzzling.Why does dubbed laughter have this effect on us?What TV company decision makers are doing is not surprising, because they are just acting according to their own logic and interests.It would be weird if they acted according to the audience, according to your logic and your own interests.Why do we laugh more when we watch comedy shows brimming with artificial joy?Why do we think worthless comedies are funnier?The decision makers of the TV companies are not fooling us, because anyone can tell the difference between recorded laughter, loud and false, and real laughter.And we also know very well that the laughter we hear has nothing to do with the humor of the jokes we told earlier.That kind of laughter didn't come naturally from the real audience, it was edited in post.And yet, we are still swayed by the laughter, even though we know it's fake.

To find out why dubbed laughter is so effective, we first need to understand the nature of another powerful weapon of influence—the principle of social proof.This principle states that one of the criteria by which we make judgments about right and wrong is to see what other people think, especially when we have to decide what is right behavior.If we see someone else do something on a certain occasion, we judge it to be justified.Whether it's how to dispose of an empty popcorn box at the movie theater, how fast to drive on a certain stretch of road, or how to eat chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us play an important role in determining how we should act. .

This is not without reason.Thinking that what most people do is the right behavior often works.Under normal circumstances, doing it according to the experience of the public can indeed save us a lot of mistakes, because what most people do is often the right thing.But this feature of the principle of social proof is both its strength and its Achilles' heel.Like other weapons of influence, while it provides us with a shortcut to thinking and acting, it also leaves us vulnerable to the speculators who lurk there. Take dubbed laughs, for example.The problem arises when we begin to respond casually and reflexively to things that we have socially approved of, and then we are deceived by some incomplete or false identification.Our mistake is not that we use other people's laughter to help us judge what is humor and when it is appropriate to laugh. Of course, doing so is completely consistent with the principle of fact-based social proof.We are wrong in making judgments based on false laughter. Somehow, the sound, which is not characteristic of humor, acts like the essence of humor.The examples of the mother turkey and the stuffed weasel in Chapter 1 should give us some inspiration.Since the newborn turkeys will make a "squeak" sound, as long as the female turkey hears this sound, she will develop a kind of maternal love for the individual who makes this sound.Therefore, if a tape recorder that can play the "squeak" of a young turkey is placed in a weasel specimen, the female turkey will mistake it for her offspring and take care of it in every possible way.That is to say, the crowing of the fake young turkey can activate the maternal love tape of the female turkey.

This example just reflects the unhappy relationship between ordinary viewers and the decision-makers of TV companies who use dubbed laughter.As ordinary viewers, we have become accustomed to using other people's reactions as the basis for judging whether a program is humorous or not.So we too can be blinded by a voice rather than the truth.Just as a recorded "cheep" of a baby turkey can inspire motherly love, a recording of a real audience laughing can make us laugh along.Decision makers at the TV companies take advantage of our desire to take shortcuts, our tendency to automatically respond to imperfect evidence.They knew that whenever their voiceover tape was played, our auto-response tape would follow.Click, wow!

Television executives aren't the only ones who know how to exploit the principle of social proof to their advantage.We tend to infer that the actions of others are always more correct.As everyone knows, in many cases, this is how we are taken advantage of.For example, bartenders often put a few banknotes in their trays before the bar opens, pretending that they were left by the customers in front, in order to leave customers with tips. This is the behavior that should be done in bars. impression.Church solicitors also put money in baskets for the same purpose, and it works very well.The missionary approach is to insert people in the audience and have them walk on stage at appointed times to donate money or testify.Graham made such preparations ahead of an expedition known as Crusader, reports a team at Arizona State University who infiltrated Billy Graham's organization. "A procession of 6,000 people was ordered to wait there before Graham came into town to stand at the altar and call. Every once in a while, some of them would make their way to the altar in order to scare people. An impression that the masses are spontaneously flocking there."

Advertisers love to tell us that a product is growing the fastest or selling the best, so they don't have to directly convince us that their product is good quality.All they need to say is that plenty of other people feel the same way to attest to the quality of their merchandise.Producers of charity TV shows also like to spend a long time reading a long list of viewers who have donated.They did this to clearly convey the following message to those who had not yet donated: "Look, so many people have decided to donate, it must be the right thing to do." When discos were popular, some discotheque owners Customers will be left queuing outside to wait for entry, but there is still a lot of open space in the ballroom.The reason they do this is to give people the feeling that the dance hall business is booming.And when the salesperson sells his products, he will also mention as many customers as possible who have bought his products in the past.Sales and motivation consultant Calvert Roberts' advice to those in sales training exemplifies the essence of the principle of social proof."Since only 5 percent are originals and the other 95 percent are imitators, the actions of others are more convincing than the evidence we can provide," he said.

Researchers have also begun to use some research methods based on the principle of social proof, sometimes with amazing results.The psychologist Albert was the first to successfully use this method to help people get rid of their bad behavior.Bandera's research shows that there is a surprisingly simple way to help people with phobias get rid of their fears.In one of their earlier studies, for example, he took kindergarteners who were afraid of dogs and had them spend 20 minutes a day watching a young boy happily play with a dog.As a result, this practice has caused a change in the name of children who are afraid of dogs.After just 4 days, 67% of the children were willing to go into the playpen with the puppy and play with it.And when the others left, they stayed there, patting or petting the pup affectionately.And, when the researchers tested the children's fear of dogs again a month later, they found that the progress the children had made did not disappear over time.In fact, they enjoy playing with dogs more than ever. In a second study of young children who were particularly afraid of dogs, researchers made important new and practical findings.To reduce children's fear of dogs, it is not necessary to show them a live scene of another child playing with a dog; movie clips can also have the same effect.And, the most effective are the ones with lots of kids playing with dogs.Clearly, the principle of social proof is more effective when the actions of many other people are taken as proof. Movie clips have a powerful influence on changing children's behavior, and we can use this influence to solve many different problems.Psychologist Robert Roberts conducted a study of withdrawn preschoolers and came up with some startling evidence.We have all seen this type of child who is very shy, plays alone, and rarely joins in with his peers.O'Connor worries that once a person develops a pattern of long-term self-isolating behavior, especially at an early age, as an adult, he will have difficulty getting along with others and adjusting his behavior.To change this pattern of behavior, O'Connor made a film that included 11 different scenes of kindergarten activities.Each scene begins with a child standing alone watching some group activity in progress.But in the end, the kid volunteered to join in the activities and everyone was happy.O'Connor selected the most withdrawn children from four kindergartens and showed them the film, and the effect was remarkable.Immediately after seeing the film, the withdrawn kids began to socialize with their peers to the same degree as the normal kids at school. What O'Connor saw when he returned to school six weeks later was even more startling.The withdrawn kids who hadn't seen the movie were just as withdrawn as ever, while those who had seen the movie were taking the lead in various social activities on campus.It seems that although the movie is only 23 minutes long, just watching it once is enough to change the bad behavior that may accompany you for a lifetime.And this is the power of the principle of social proof. Whenever I want to illustrate the power of the principle of social proof, I especially like to use the following example.I particularly like this example for several reasons: First, it is a good example of the scientific method of using participant observation.Participatory observation is a concise and easy-to-understand research method, which means that scientists personally devote themselves to the natural environment of a certain process to observe, analyze and study the process.Second, the information it provides is of interest to many different groups, including historians, psychologists, theologians, and others.Most importantly, it clearly shows how social proof is used by ourselves, not by others, in order to convince ourselves that what we wish to be true appears to be true. This is an old story, and we need to look at some ancient sources first, because it has been used in various religious activities for thousands of years.Many sects and believers have predicted that on a special day, people who believe in the sect will be saved and enter a world of bliss.Every denomination prophesies that when this day comes, there will be an inevitable event, commonly known as the end of the world.Of course, these prophecies were ultimately proven to be false.But for the terrified members of the sect, those prophecies never came true. But history has recorded this incredible scene.Believers did not wake up from disillusionment, on the contrary, they became more determined in their faith.Although their fundamental teachings have been proven false, they have taken to the streets, despite public jeers, to defend their teachings openly, and to win over their followers with ever greater zeal.This was true of the Montanists in 2nd-century Turkey, the Anabaptists of 16th-century Holland, the Sabbathists of Izmir in the 17th century, and the Millerians of 19th-century America.And three scientists interested in the phenomenon believe that a doomsday sect based in today's Chicago could be added to the list.The three scientists were colleagues at the University of Minnesota at the time.After they heard about the sect in Chicago, they thought it was worth studying, so they decided to hide their names and pretend to be Protestants to join the organization.Others were also hired to observe the group's activities.The result was a very rich first-hand account of all the events that took place before and after the disaster day. The sect is small in number, never exceeding 30 members.Leading the charge were a middle-aged man and a middle-aged woman, whom the researchers dubbed Dr. Armstrong and Mrs. Keech in their publication.Dr. Armstrong is a doctor in the student health service of a certain university. He has always had a strong interest in metaphysics, occult arts, and flying saucers, so he is recognized as an authority in this field by people in this sect.But Mrs. Keech was the soul of the sect's activities and the object of everyone's attention.Earlier that year, she began receiving messages from spirits living on other planets whom she dubbed "Guardians."It is these information transmitted through Keech's hands through the "automatic writing" device that forms the main religious belief system of this sect.In general, Patronus teachings are loosely related to traditional Christian thought.One of the ghosts, Sananda, eventually revealed that Jesus was his current incarnation. Messages from the Patronus have always been the subject of discussion and analysis by the sect.But the message takes on greater significance when they learn that a flood will begin in the Western Hemisphere and eventually inundate the entire world.The faithful were a little panicked at first, but then received a message assuring them that all those who believed in the oracle handed down by Mrs. Keech would be saved.Before the catastrophe strikes, the astronauts will fall from the sky, and the flying saucer will transport them to a safe place, possibly on another planet.The believers knew almost nothing about the details of the rescue except for their request to make preparations for the rescue.Those preparations included practicing the words to be exchanged (“I left my hat at home.” “What’s your problem?” “I’m my own porter.”) and removing all metalwork from clothing, Traveling with a flying saucer while wearing or carrying metal objects would be "extremely dangerous". When Festinger, Rickon, and Schachter observed the preparations of the believers in the weeks leading up to the Flood, they noticed two important features in the behavior of the believers.First of all, their beliefs are very firm.Because they expected to leave the disaster-ridden earth soon, they took many irreversible actions.Most members have family and friends who oppose their beliefs, but they do not hesitate, often even turning against relatives and friends.In fact, neighbors or family members of several members have taken legal action declaring them insane.Dr. Armstrong's sister took action, taking away his custody of his two young children. Some have stopped working or giving up their studies to devote themselves to the cause.Some people even give away their possessions or simply throw them away because they feel they won't be needed anytime soon.These people firmly believe that the truth is in their own hands, so they can withstand the huge pressure of society, economy and law.In fact, each time the pressure increased, their belief in the teachings increased by one point. Another characteristic of the behavior of the believers before the Flood was their reluctance to do anything.For example, each of them firmly believed in the teachings, but amazingly, none of them spread it to the outside world.Although they announced the impending flood, they did not intend to persuade people to convert their religion.All they are willing to do is sound the alarm and offer a little advice to those who respond voluntarily, nothing more. The sect's reluctance to admit new members is evident in many ways.Not only did they seldom actively persuade people to believe their teachings, but they also took a lot of secrecy measures—burning redundant copies of the oracle, setting passwords and secret marks, and strictly prohibiting outsiders from knowing the contents of some private tapes ( These tapes were so classified that even long-time religious people were not allowed to write them down with a pen).They also go out of their way to avoid publicity.As the day of the catastrophe approached, more and more journalists from newspapers, television and radio stations gathered at the sect headquarters in Mrs. Keech's home, but in most cases these people were dismissed or ignored. ."No comment" is the most common response to journalists' questions.Although the media were disappointed for a while, when Dr. Armstrong was expelled from his school for engaging in religious activities, the media workers swarmed up again.One particularly stubborn reporter was even threatened with a lawsuit.There was a similar siege the night before the flood, when a group of journalists swarmed to pester the faithful for more information, but were eventually dispersed.Later, when the researchers summarized the sect's attitude towards the media and the recruitment of new members before the flood, they said with considerable respect: "Facing the great public interest, they tried to spread more rumors and gave up persuading people to convert. opportunities. They are either evasive or tight-lipped. Their performance borders on indifference.” Finally, after all the journalists and catechumens were kicked out of the room, the believers began to make the final preparations before the arrival of the spaceship.To Festinger, Rickon, and Schachter, the scene at that time seemed like a ridiculous farce.And some ordinary people—a few housewives, a few college students, a high school boy, a publisher, a doctor, a hardware store clerk, and his mother—are seriously participating in the slapstick act.Two members were in regular contact with the Patronus for updated instructions: Marianne Kitch, who had received a message from Sananda that night, received a further message from Berser.Boser was a former beautician, and it was through his mouth that the Creator's instructions were conveyed.They communicated diligently, shouting the password before entering the flying saucer in unison: "I am my own porter." "I am my own pointer." One of the astronauts on the show) sent as a joke, or as coded intelligence from the rescuers.And they also strictly enforce the dress code.In order not to bring any metal objects to the flying saucer, all metal objects were removed from the clothes of the believers.They removed metal objects from shoes, women wore no bras or wore bras that had their metal rings removed, men removed zippers from their trousers and replaced belts with cords. A researcher has experienced first-hand the frenzy of sect members removing all metal objects.According to him, 25 minutes before midnight, he noticed he had forgotten to unzip his trousers.As a result, the discovery caused panic.He was immediately wheeled into the bedroom.There, Armstrong cut the zipper off his trousers with a razor blade and snapped the zipper clip with pliers.During this process, he would look at the clock every few seconds, and his hands were shaking constantly.After all this haste, the researcher was sent back to the living room.It can be imagined that although the metal objects on his body were removed, his face must have become paler. When the scheduled departure time approached, the devotees fell silent, immersed in silent anticipation.Fortunately, thanks to the presence of trained scientists at the time, we were able to see a detailed and vivid account of this momentous moment: The last 10 minutes were intense for the sect members in the living room.They had nothing to do but sit with their coats on their knees and wait quietly.In the tense and silent atmosphere, the sound from the two clocks was particularly loud.One of them is about 10 minutes faster than the other.When the fast-moving clock reached 5 minutes after 12 o'clock, someone pointed it out loudly, but immediately the people retorted in unison, saying that midnight had not yet come.Eastman was certain that the slow clock was accurate because he had set it that afternoon.And the clock showed only four minutes to midnight. Except for one cry, the four minutes passed in deathly silence.When the slow clock on the mantelpiece showed that the flying saucer was coming in a minute, Marianne screamed nervously: "Never has a plan failed!" The clock struck twelve, and in silent anticipation , and each bell was achingly clear.But the believers still sat there motionless. By this time, people maybe a believer will do something.It was past midnight and nothing happened.It was less than 7 hours before the disaster, but the people in the house did not respond.No one spoke, and no one made any sound.Everyone sat quietly, their faces stiff and expressionless.Only Mark moved a bit.He lay down on the sofa, closed his eyes, but did not fall asleep.When someone spoke to him later, he just uttered monosyllabic responses, but lay still.Others appeared calm on the surface, but we later learned that they had suffered a heavy blow mentally. Gradually, an atmosphere of pain, confusion and despair enveloped the entire sect.The believers began to rethink the previous prophecy and the message that came with it, while Dr. Armstrong and Mrs. Keech reaffirmed their beliefs.Faced with the embarrassing situation they were in, everyone put forward one explanation after another, but they were all dissatisfied.Mrs. Keech also broke down just before 4 a.m. and broke into tears.As she wept, she realized that some people had grown skeptical, but she had to keep the sect together, and she had to teach those who needed it most.The rest of the faithful also began to lose their cool.They were visibly shaken, and many were on the verge of tears.It was almost 4:30, and they still couldn't find any way to deal with the situation.By this time, most of the sect was speaking openly about the failure of the operation.The sect seemed on the verge of disintegration. Just when skepticism began to permeate the denomination and the faith of believers began to crumble, researchers witnessed two unusual events on both feet.The first thing happened around 4:45.At that time, Mrs. Mary Ankitch's hand suddenly began to "automatically write", copying a copy of the oracle transmitted from above.The oracle gives an excellent explanation of what happened that night: "My faithful, you sat down all night and spread much light, so that God has saved the whole world from destruction." The explanation, though succinct, But it doesn't make people fully satisfied.For example, upon hearing this explanation, a member stood up, put on his hat, put on his clothes and left.It appears that something else is needed to restore believers to their former faith. At this time, the second thing that can restore the believers' confidence happened.Those present later described it vividly: The atmosphere in the sect changed suddenly, and their behavior changed with it.Within minutes of Mrs. Keech receiving the message explaining the failure of the prophecy, she received another message instructing her to make the interpretation public.She immediately picked up the phone and started calling a newspaper.While she was waiting for the phone to connect, she was asked, "Marian, is this the first time you've called the newspaper yourself?" She replied without thinking, "Yes, it's the first time I've called them." Call. I've never had anything to tell them before, but now it's urgent." Her words resonated with all members of the denomination, who also felt the urgency of the situation.As soon as Marian put down the phone, other members sprang into action, calling newspapers, news agencies, radio stations, and national magazines in turn, explaining why the prophecy had failed.As they attempted to spread the word convincingly and quickly, they revealed to the public something that had been kept secret until now.Just a few hours ago they shunned journalists, finding media attention painful, but now they have become enthusiastic suitors of the public media. Not only has the long-standing policy of secrecy and the treatment of the mass media undergone a 180-degree turn, but the church's attitude towards catechumens has also changed.In the past, they either ignored or perfunctoryly ignored the visitors who came here admiringly.But after the prophecy failed, their attitude was completely different.They receive all visitors, answer all their questions, and try to convert them.The willingness of sect members to recruit new members has never been stronger.The conversation between nine visiting high school students and Mrs. Keech the night after the failed operation provided the best evidence of this: They discovered that she was seriously discussing the flying saucer issue with someone on the phone, and they later learned that she was on the phone with the cosmonauts.She wanted to keep on the phone with the cosmic beings, but also wanted to keep her new guests, so she included them in the conversation.For more than an hour, she alternated between the guests in the living room and the cosmic being on the other end of the phone.She wanted so much to be converted that she didn't seem to want to miss an opportunity. What caused the radical shift in attitudes among members of the sect?In just a few hours, they have gone from rejecting others and keeping God's golden words to themselves, to being open-minded and enthusiastic evangelists of God's gospel.And what made them choose such an extremely inappropriate timing?When the flood prophecy failed, those who did not believe in the sect were more likely to think that the sect and its teachings were ridiculous. It turns out that this pivotal event occurred sometime during the night of the Flood, just as it became increasingly clear that the prophecy would not be fulfilled.Oddly, it was not an earlier sense of firmness in their beliefs but a growing sense of doubt that changed sect members' attitudes.They come to realize that if the predictions about flying saucers and floods are wrong, there may be something wrong with the entire belief system they've relied on.For those huddled in Mrs. Keech's living room, the prospect of this growing clarity sent shivers down their spines. Because they have come so far and given up too much for their faith that they cannot see the shattering of their faith.And the inner humiliation, financial loss and ridicule from others are too much for them to bear.They must therefore hold fast to their faith, as can be seen from their own words.A young mother of a 3-year-old said: I have to believe the flood is coming on the 21st because I spent all my savings, I quit my job, I dropped my computer studies... I already have to believe. And Dr. Armstrong told a researcher four hours after the failed operation: I had to work hard to believe it myself because I'd given up on almost everything.I disconnected from everyone and turned my back on the world.I can't doubt, I can only believe.I have no choice. Let us imagine the predicament that Dr. Armstrong and his followers faced when morning came.They are so committed to their beliefs that they cannot tolerate the existence of any other truth.However, their set of beliefs has been ruthlessly attacked by the real world: no flying saucers landed, no aliens knocked on the door, no floods occurred, and every prophesied thing did not happen.Now that the only acceptable truth has been completely refuted by material evidence, there is only one way for them to get out of the predicament: they must establish another system of identification for the correctness of their beliefs, and that is social identification. This would explain why they went from tight-lipped plotters to ardent missionaries in an instant, and also why they were at that moment (the failure of prophecy minimized their persuasiveness to the outside world) time) to change.They must risk being slighted and ridiculed because publicity and recruiting are their only hope.If they can proclaim the word of God, if they can tell the unknown, if they can persuade the doubters; if by doing so they can bring more people to believe their faith, then their precious threatened faith can become true.The principle of social proof says: "The more people who believe that an idea is true, the more true that idea is."因此这个教派的任务很明确：既然物质证据不能被改变，那就得改变社会认同。说服别人，你也就被说服了！ 本书讨论的所有影响力的武器，都会在某些情况下发挥出更好的作用。如果我们要充分保护自己不受这些武器的伤害，我们就必须搞清楚他们最佳的工作条件，以便知道什么时候我们最容易受到他们的袭击。对社会认同原理来说，我们已经从芝加哥信徒们的行为知道了它什么时候能发挥出最大的作用，那就是信徒们的信心动摇、激发他们积极行动去改变他人的信仰的时候。一般说来，当我们对自己缺乏信心时，当形势不很明确时，当不确定性占上风时，我们最有可能接受并参照别人的行为。 然而，在观察他人的反应以消除我们的不确定性的过程中，我们很可能忽略了一个细小但很重要的事实，那就是为消除自己的不确定性，他人可能也正在观察别人的反应。特别是在形势模糊不清的时候，这种每个人都希望看看别人在做什么的倾向会导致一种名为“多元无知”的有趣现象。充分了解多元无知现象，可以帮助我们解释这个国家普遍存在的一种让人感到费解而又耻辱的现象：当一名受害者在痛苦中挣扎着需要帮助的时候，却没有一个旁观者伸出援手。 有一个最著名的旁观者对受害者的痛苦无动于衷的例子，它引起了新闻界、政界以及科学界的激烈争论。这是一起发生在纽约市皇后区的一桩普通的谋杀案，一位约30的妇女，吉诺维西深夜下班回家时在所住的街道遇害。谋杀从来就不是一个能轻松带过的话题，但在纽约这样的大都市里，对吉诺维西事件的报道只占了《纽约时报》一个栏目中的很小一块地方。要不是由于一个偶然的错误，对吉诺维西事件的报道，也许会与她本人一起在1964年3月的那一天死去了。 巧的是，《纽约时报》大都会专栏的主编，罗森塔尔在案件发生一周后与纽约市的警察局长共进午餐。他向警察局长问起发生在皇后区的另一桩杀人案，但警察局长误以为她问的是吉诺维西的案子，于是披露了一些通过调查掌握的令人震惊的情况。每个听到事实真相的人，包括警察局长在内，都对此惊愕不已。原来，吉诺维西并不是很快地、安静地被杀死的。她的死亡过程极其漫长、喧闹、残忍而且相当公开。在最后一刀结束她的求救声之前，杀人犯在长达35分钟的时间里，在街上追逐并袭击了她3次。令人难以置信的是，她的38个邻居透过自己家的窗户看到了谋杀案的发生，却没有一个人愿费举手之劳拨打报警电话。 罗森塔尔是一名获得过普利策新闻奖的记者，对好新闻有着灵敏的嗅觉。在与警察局长共进午餐的当天，他便派了一名记者去调查旁观者对吉诺维西事件的看法。不到一个星期，《纽约时报》就在头版刊登了一篇很长的文章，引起了读者的强烈反响。这篇逐渐深入的报道的基调和中心议题从它的前几段就可以看出来： 在半个小时内，38名皇后区令人尊敬的守法公民眼睁睁地看着凶手在丘园3次追逐并刺杀同一个女子。 有两次，他们发出的声音和他们卧室里突然亮起的灯光都让杀手吃惊地停了下来。但每一次他都返回去，找到她并刺杀她。整个过程没有一个人报警。在这个女人死后才有一名目击者给警察局打了电话。 那是两个星期以前的事。负责皇后区侦破工作的助理检察长卢森虽然有25年调查凶杀案的经验，但他仍然对本案感到震惊。 他对许多谋杀案都能倒背如流，但丘园命案却令他困惑不解。不是因为这是一桩谋杀案，而是因为所谓的好人没有报警。 像助理检察长卢森一样，震惊和困惑几乎是所有读过该报道的人的共同反应。这些警察、新闻工作者和读者怎么也想不明白，在这种情况下，38个“好人”怎么会无动于衷呢？没有人能知道这是怎么回事，甚至连谋杀案目击者们也觉得莫名其妙。“我不知道，”每一个被问到的人几乎都这么说，“我真的不知道。”只有几个人对自己的行为做出了无力的辩解。例如，有两三个人解释说他们“害怕”或“不想卷进去。”但这些理由显然都经不起仔细推敲。给警察局打一个简单的匿名电话就可以挽救吉诺维西的生命，而且不会危及到报案人的安全和自由。不，他们不采取行动的原因，不是因为害怕或不愿使自己的生活复杂化。这里所发生的事情就连他们自己也搞不清楚。 但茫然无徐肯定出不了好新闻。所以《纽约时报》以及其他媒体，包括几家对此事进行了后续报道的报纸、电视台和杂志，都在强调当时唯一能够得到的解释：目击者就像我们大多数人一样，对这样的事情没有关心到想要被卷进去的地步。美国正在变成一个自私自利、麻木不仁的国家。现代生活，尤其是都市生活的紧张忙碌，使我们的心肠变得越来越硬。我们的社会已经变成了一个“冷漠的社会”，人们对自己同胞的困境越来越漠不关心。 为了支持这种解释，大肆渲染公众冷漠的新闻报道不断地出现在各种媒体上。实际上，继罗森塔尔将事实真相公布于众之后，《纽约时报》也发表了以“冷漠”为主题的连续报道。一批脱离实际的社会评论家也站出来，支持这种解释，这些人似乎从来就不会向报界承认自己有什么不明白的地方。他们也认为吉诺维西案件具有重大的社会意义。毫无例外，所有人都用到了“冷漠”这个词。值得注意的是，这个词也出现在《纽约时报》头版新闻报道的标题中，尽管大家对造成冷漠的原因做了不同的解释。有一种说法把人们的冷漠归咎于电视暴力的影响，另一种说法则认为这是由于人类的攻击性受到抑制造成的。但大多数人都把都市生活的“非人性化”与“特大城市社会”以及“个人与群体的疏离”这些概念扯在一起。甚至连罗森塔尔这个最先披露这个事实并最终以此事件为题材写了一本书的人，也支持这种城市导致冷漠的理论： 没有人能够说得清楚为什么当吉诺维西遭受攻击时，38个人都没有拿起电话，因为人们对自己的认识总是不够深入。但是我们可以假定，他们的冷漠无情确实是大城市的一个特征。这几乎是一个关系到我们在心理上是否能生存下来的大问题。假如一个人被几百万的人包围并要承受他们施加的压力，为避免受到他们的伤害，唯一的办法就是尽可能地忽略他们。在纽约以及其他大城市中，对邻居们及其所遇到的麻烦视而不见，正是生活中的条件反射。 吉诺维西事件越炒越大，除了罗森塔尔的书以外，这件事还成了许多报纸杂志、几个电视新闻纪录片，以及一个外百老汇戏剧作品的主要内容。此外，纽约的两位心理学教授拉塔奈和达利对此也很感兴趣。他们研究了所有关于吉诺维西事件的报道，然后运用他们的社会心理学知识，得出了一个看起来最不可能的解释，那就是因为有38个目击者在场。以前的报道都毫无例外地强调虽然有38个旁观者，却没有任何人采取行动。但拉塔奈和达利则认为，没有任何人采取行动恰恰是因为旁观者太多。两位心理学家推测，当发生紧急事件的时候，如果有许多旁观者在场，那么任何一个旁观者出面帮忙的可能性都不大。原因至少有两个。第一个原因简单明了，当周围有几个可能会帮忙的人时，每一个人的责任感都下降：“也许其他人会帮忙的，也许有人已经这样做了。”所以，当每个人都以为其他人会去帮忙或已经帮了忙时，结果却是其实没有一个人帮忙。 从心理学的角度来说，第二个原因更加有趣。它建立在社会认同原理的基础上，而且与多元无知效应有关。有时候要判断一件事是否紧急并不容易。比如说，倒在路上的这个人是心脏病发作了还是一个醉汉睡着了？街上传来的刺耳的声音是枪声还是卡车逆火发出的声音？隔壁发出了喧闹声，是有人受到了袭击需要叫警察来解决，还只是两口子吵架，外人最好不要介入？In the end what happened?当我们碰到这种不确定的情况时，自然就会先去看周围其他人的反应。从其他人的反应中，我们可以知道这件事件到底是不是紧急。 但人们却经常忘记，那些观察事态发展的人可能也在寻找社会认同。而且因为我们都喜欢在他人面前表现得信心十足、不慌不忙，因此在寻找认同时也是不动声色，可能只是对我们身边的人偷偷扫视一眼而已。结果每个人都是一幅镇定自若的样子，而且没有采缺任何行动。于是，在社会认同原理的作用下，这件事情就被解释成了一个非紧急事件。按照拉塔尔和达利的说法，这就是多元无知的状态：“每个人都认为既然大家都不担心，就说明一切正常。而与此同时，事态却变得越来越危急，有可能达到某个临界点。这时候，终于有人不再受其他人貌似镇静的影响，站出来采取了行动。 拉塔奈和达利的推理得出了一个很有趣的结论，那就是对一个紧急事件的受害者来说，在场的人越多越好的想法通常是大错特错。对那些深处险境需要帮助的人而言，如果只有一个而不是一群在场的话，或许他得救的机会还要大一些。为了证实这个不同寻常的观点，达利、拉塔奈以及他们的学生和同事们一起实施了一项系统的，不寻常的研究计划，并得出了一组明确的结果。他们的基本方法是观察紧急事件中旁观者的表现，有时是一个人，有时则是很多人。然而记下两种不同情况下受害者得到帮助的次数。他们的第一个实验是让一个纽约大学的学生假装癫痫病发作。当只有一个人在场时，他得到帮助的概率为85%，而当有5个人在场时，他得到帮助的概率只有31%。由于几乎所有单独经过的人都向他伸出了援手，所以很难再说我们的社会是人人自危的“冷酷社会”。很显然，正是由于其他旁观者在场，才使得人们向受害者提供帮助的概率降到了令人汗颜的程度。 另外一些研究是为了考察社会认同在普遍存在的目击者“冷漠”现象中所发挥的作用。研究人员把一些人安插到一组可能会目击到紧急事件的人当中，而这些人已经被事先告知要装出若无其事的样子。例如在纽约所进行的一次实验中，当单独一个旁观者看到有烟从门底冒出时，75%的人报了警。然而，当同样的事情被3个人同时看见时，报警的概率则降到了38%。但是，当3个人中有两个人事先被告知要表现得若无其事的时候，报警次数最少，只有10%。在多伦多进行的类似研究中，单独一个旁观者给予紧急救助的概率达90%。但当一个旁观者身边有另外两个始终都不动声色的旁观者时，提供紧急救助的概率则降到了16%。 经过一段时间的研究之后，现在，社会学家们对什么时候旁观者会在紧急事件中伸出援手已经知道得很清楚了。首先，我们的社会并不像有些人认为的那样已经变成了一个冷漠无情的社会。实际上，一旦旁观者相信确实存在着紧急情况，他们提供帮助的可能性还是蛮大的。在这种情况下，直接参与援救或召集他人帮忙的人数还是非常令人欣慰的。例如，在佛罗里达进行的4个独立的、涉及紧急救助一名维修工的实验就证明了这一点。在其中的两次实验中，当受伤的维修工需要帮助的情况非常明确时，100%的旁观者都帮助了他。在另外两次实验里，要帮助维修工就得冒触电的危险，但在这种情况下，仍有90%的旁观者采取了行动。而且，这些伸出援手的人既有单个旁观者，也有来自一群人中的旁观者。 但是，当旁观者不能肯定他们看到的事情是否紧急时，情况就大不相同了。这时候受害者更有可能从单个旁观者而不是一群旁观者那里得到帮助，特别是当这群人都素不相识时。看起来多元无知效应在陌生人之间表现得最为显著。这一方面是因为我们喜欢在重任面前表现得泰然自若、老成持重；另一方面是因为对那些不认识的人，我们不了解他们在这种情况下会做出什么反应，因此不太可能表露自己或正确解读别人的关切表情。其结果就是，紧急事件被认为是不紧急的，受害者遭了殃。 仔细分析这些研究结果可以得出一个很有启发性的模式。所有那些令紧急事件的受害者得到帮助的可能性下降的因素，都自然而然地存在于城市而不是乡村里： ⑴与农村相比，城市的环境更喧嚣、更容易分散人们的注意力而且变化也更快。因此在这里，人们很难对遇到的事件的本质做出快速的判断。 ⑵城市人口稠密，因此当人们目击到潜在的紧急事件时，和其他人一起看到的可能性更大。 ⑶城市居民认识的同市居民的百分比远远低于乡镇居民。因此在目击到紧急事件时，城市居民更有可能是处在一群陌生人中间。 混乱、人口稠密、认识率低这三个城市环境的自然特征，恰好与研究发现的降低旁观者帮助率的因素相吻合。因此无需借助“城市非人性化”、“大都市令人感情疏离”这样一些带有罪恶感的概念，我们就能解释为什么在我们的城市中会有这么多“冷漠无情”的旁观者。 的最大的贡献。 但是，用比较温和的观点来解释现代城市生活中的危险现象并不能消除危险。事实上，随着世界人口不断向城市迁移，10年内整个人类将有一半的人会变成城市居民，因而减少这种危险的需要会变得越来越迫切。幸运的是，科学研究的新发现给我们提供了真正的希望，以这种科学知识为指导，紧急事件的受害者能够极大地提高自己得到帮助的机会。重要的是要认识到，旁观者没有采取行动并不是因为冷漠无情或缺乏善意，而是因为他们对当前的情况不够了解。他们不知道是否有紧急事件发生，也不知道自己是否有责任去采取行动。如果他们明确地知道自己有责任介入到一个紧急事件当中，他们的反应的是非常迅速的。 一旦我们知道了我们的对手并不是像“城市非人性化”之类的难以捉摸的社会状态，而是简单的不确定性，紧急事件的受害者就可以通过减少旁观者的不确定性来保护自己。例如，设想在一个夏日的午后你去参加一个在公园里举行的音乐会。当音乐会结束后人们开始离开的时候，你感到一个手臂有些麻木，但你并没有太在意。当你随着人群向远处的停车场走去时，你感到的麻木的感觉已经向下传到了你的手上，向上传到了你的一侧脸颊。你感到有点神志不清，于是决定靠着树坐下来休息一会儿。很快你意识到问题很严重,因为坐着已经无济于事了。事实上，肌肉的控制和协调功能已经恶化到连张嘴说话都很困难的地步，我想站却站不起来。一个可怕的年头在你的脑子里闪过：“哦，天啦，我中风了！”一群人正从你的身边走过，但大多数人都没有注意到你。有几个人看到你奇怪的瘫倒在树下，或发现你脸色很难看，但他们却在周围寻找着社会认同。当他们看到没有任何人做出关切的反应时，他们认为没有发生什么事，因而离开了。 当你发觉自己处于这种困境时，你要怎么做才能客服障碍获得帮助呢？由于你的身体状况正在迅速恶化，事件非常紧迫。假如你在呼救之前失去了说话和行动的能力或甚至失去了知觉，你得到帮助以及康复的机会都会显著下降。那什么才是最有效的求救方式呢？呻吟、呜咽或喊叫困难都不会管用。它们可能会引起人们的注意，但都不能提供充分信息让过路人确信你正处于真正的危险之中。 假如仅仅靠喊叫不一定能让过路的人来帮助你，你也许应该表示得更明确一点。仅仅引起别人的注意还不够，你必须清楚地说明你需要帮助，不能让过路的人认为你的情况并不紧急。你最好是使用“救命”这样的字眼，让旁观者知道你的处境确实非常危险。不要怕喊错了，在这里不好意思是你的头号敌人。如果你觉得自己可能中风了，就不应该为把问题估计得过于严重而感到尴尬。因为为避免一时的窘境，你可能要付出死亡或终生瘫痪的代价。 但是，即便是大声求救也不是最有效的策略。虽然这么做可以让旁观者明白你正处在危险之中，但还是不能消除每个旁观者心中的疑点：这里到底需要什么样的帮助？我是应该提供帮助呢，还是应该由更合适的人去做？是不是有人已经去找专业人士来帮助了呢？这是不是我的责任？旁观者站在那里，呆呆地望着你，设法想清楚这些问题。而对你来说生死攸关的时间却在无情地逝去。 显然，作为一名受害者，除了让旁观者知道你需要紧急的帮助之外，你还要更进一步，帮他们搞清楚他们应该如何帮助你以及由谁来帮助你。但哪一种方法才最有效、最可靠呢？ 根据我们已经看到的研究结果，我的建议是从人群中挑出一个人来，盯着他，指着他，直接对他说：“你，穿蓝夹克的先生，我需要帮助，请叫一辆救护车来。”通过这么简单的一句话，你可以消除所有可能妨碍或延误救助的不确定性。你已经把穿蓝夹克的人摆到了“救援者”的位置。他现在应该明白，紧急帮助是必要的；他也应该明白，他而不是别人有责任提供帮助；最后，他应该准确地知道要如何去做。所有科学证据都指出，这样做的结果就是你将迅速得到有效的帮助。 总之，在你处在紧急状态中需要帮助时，最有效的策略就是减少周围人对你的处境和他们的责任的不确定性。你要尽可能准确地将你需要的帮助表达出来。不要让旁观者自己去下结论，因为社会认同原理和多元无知效应很可能使他们对你的处境做出错误的判断，人多的时候尤其如此。 而且，你要向一群旁观者中的某一个人提出需要帮助的请求，一定要克服请求大家帮忙的这种本能。从众人中挑出一个人来并给他指派任务，否则，很容易使群体中的每一个人产生其他人应该会帮忙，其他人会去帮忙或者其他人已经帮忙了的想法。在本书谈到的所有顺从技巧中，这个技巧或许是最需要牢记的。因为如果你不能迅速得到帮助，你就可能要承受严重的个人后果。 不久之前，我曾亲身经历过这种事情。当时我被卷入了一起很严重的车祸，我和另一位司机都受了重伤。我脑后留着血，摇摇晃晃地想站起来，而他则趴在方向盘上，不省人事。车祸发生在一个十字路口的中心，而且几位停车等待变灯的人都看到了车祸的发生，当我跪在车门旁边的路上，试图让自己清醒一点时，绿灯亮了。等待的车辆开始慢慢开过十字路口。司机们目瞪口呆地看着我们，但没有人停下来。 这时我想起来了，“哦，这一切和研究结果一模一样。他们全都开走了！”幸好我想到了这点。作为一名社会心理学家，我对旁观者的研究也略知一二，所以才会产生这种想法。我赶紧回忆那些与我当前的困境相关的研究结果，马上就知道我要怎么做了。为了看得更清楚，我努力地站起来。我指着一辆车，对它的司机喊道：“叫警察。”有对后面两辆车的司机说：“把车开过来，我们需要帮助。”这些人立即做出了反应。他们马上打电话叫来了警察和救护车；用自己的手绢擦去我脸上的血迹；给我披上夹克衫，所谓目击者，他们愿意为车祸提供证据；甚至有一个人背着我去医院。 他们的帮助不仅迅速，而且还很有感染力。很快就有更多的司机自动停下来，去帮助另外那个受伤的司机。现在，社会认同原理开始为我们发挥作用了。为做到这点，关键在于要让球朝帮助我们的方向滚动。这一步完成以后，我们就可以放轻松，因为那些真心关心事态的旁观者和社会认同原理的力量自然会把余下的事情做好。 前面我们指出过，社会认同原理就像所有其他影响力的武器一样，也有能使它发挥出最大威力的条件。我们已经找到了其中的一个，即不确定性。当人们对自己不是很有把握时，他们依靠其他人的行为来决定自己应该怎么做的可能性更大。除此之外，要想让社会认同原理发挥最大威力，还有另外一个条件也很重要，那就是相似性。也就是说，当我们看到别人的行为恰好与我们自己的行为一模一样时，社会认同原理就能发挥出最大的威力。正是这些人的行为让我们清楚地知道了构成我们正确行为的因素是什么。因此，我们往往会效仿那些与我们相似的人，而不是与我们不同的人。 我相信，正是因为这个原因，电视上由普通人做的广告渐渐变得风行起来。广告商知道，将商品卖给普通观众（他们构成最大的潜在市场）的一个有效方法就是证明其他“普通人”喜欢并且使用该商品。于是，我们在电视上看到了一个又一个街上的普通人对某种软饮料、止痛药或是洗涤剂赞不绝口的画面。 科学研究也为这种论断提供了很有说服力的证据。哥伦比亚大学的心理学家几年前进行了一项很有意思的实验。他们将钱包放在曼哈顿商业区不同的街道上，然后观察人们发现这些钱包时会怎么办。每个钱包中都有2块钱的现钞、26.3元的支票和关于钱包“主人”的姓名、地址的资料。除此之外，钱包中还有一封信。这封信可以证明这个钱包已经不止一次被丢了。信是写给钱包主人的。写信人不久前捡到了这个钱包并打算把它归还给失主。他在信中写道，他非常高兴能够帮忙，有机会用这种方式效劳让他感觉非常好。 任何捡到这个钱包的人一看就知道，这个捡到钱包的好心人在去寄这个钱包的路上又将它弄丢了，因为钱包就包在写有失主地址的信封里。研究人员想要知道的是，在捡到钱包的人中，有多少人会效仿第一个拾到钱包的人，将钱包原封不动地寄给它的主人。但在研究人员将钱包放在地上之前，他们对放在钱包里的那封信做了一点改动。其中一些信看上去是一个普通的美国人用标准的英语写的，而另一些信则是一个自称刚来不久的外国人用蹩脚的英语写的。换句话说，拾到钱包的人根据里面的信就可以判断出这个捡到钱包并试图把它还给失主的人是否与大多数的美国相似。 现在一个有趣的问题就是，如果第一个捡到钱包并试图将它归还的人与大多数美国人相似的话，那么那些捡到钱包和信的曼哈顿人是否更容易受到他的影响，将钱包寄回去呢？答案明明白白：当拾到的钱包是那个外国人第一个拾到的那个时，只有33%的人把钱包还了回来。但当第一个拾到钱包的人是普通的美国人时，70%的人都把钱包还了回来。这些结果清楚地表明了社会认同原理发挥作用的一个重要条件：我们参照别人的行为来决定我们采取什么样的行为才是正确的，尤其是当我们认为那些人与我们相似的时候。 这个结论不仅可以用在成年人身上，而且还可以用在孩子们身上。例如，那些进行健康研究的人发现，学校的反吸烟计划如果让与学生同龄的人做教员，效果就会比较持久。而另一项研究发现，当孩子们在看了一部描写一个小孩愉快地去看牙医的电影之后，他们再去看牙医时，紧张的情绪就降低了，尤其是当他们与电影中的小孩年龄相同的时候。我真希望我能早一点知道这项研究结果，因为在结果公布的几年前，为降低我儿子克里斯的另一种不同的紧张情绪，我费了九牛二虎之力。如果那时候我就知道这项研究结果的话就好了。 我住在亚利桑那州，很多家庭的后院里都有游泳池。但不幸的是，每年都会有几个小孩掉进无人看管的游泳池中淹死了。因此我决定，在克里斯很小的时候就教他学习游泳。克里斯并不怕水，他很喜欢玩水。但问题是如果不给他套上救生圈，他就不肯踏进水池一步。不管我怎么劝说、哄骗甚至羞辱他，都无济于事。在试了两个月都毫无进展之后，我只好请我的一个研究生来帮忙。他身材魁梧高大，以前是救生员，而且还当过游泳教练。但他像我一样失败，他甚至连劝克里斯不带救生圈划一下水都做不到。 大约就在这时候，克里斯参加了一次白天的野营。这次野营安排了许多活动，其中包括在一个大游泳池里游泳，但对这种活动，克里斯一向是小心回避的。在这个研究生一败涂地之后不久的一天，我提前了一点到营地去接克里斯，眼前的一幕让我大吃了一惊。我看到克里斯跑到跳板上，纵身跳进了游泳池的最深处。我慌忙脱掉鞋子，准备跳到水中去救他，却发现他已浮出水面，安全地划到了池边。我提着鞋子冲了过去。 “克里斯，你会游泳了！”我激动地说，“你会游泳了！” “是啊，”他漫不经心地答道，“我今天学会的。” “太棒了！真是太棒了！”我高兴地手舞足蹈。“但你今天怎么不需要救生圈了呢？” 看到我不知何故穿着袜子站在水里，手里挥舞着鞋子，一幅语无伦次的样子，克里斯显得有点不好意思。他解释说：“哦，我都3岁了。汤米也3岁。他能不用救生圈游泳，那我也能。” 我当时真恨不得踢自己一脚。当然，克里斯应该向小汤米而不是向6英尺2英寸高的研究生，学习关于他能做所麽或者应该做什么的最重要的知识。如果当时我在解决克里斯游泳的问题上想得多一点，我可能会早一点想到用汤米做榜样，那样也许就用不着白忙活这几个月了。我可能会在日间野营时注意到汤米能游泳，然后与他的父母一起安排让两个小孩在周末下午到我家的游泳池里游一次泳。我想，克里斯的救生圈在那天结束时就可以扔掉了。 任何一种能使70%的纽约人把钱包原封不动地归还给失主（或者能降低孩子们吸烟的可能性或害怕看牙医的紧张情绪）的因素当然会令人印象深刻。然而，在涉及类似的人的行为对我们的巨大影响力时，这一类研究所显示的只不过是冰山一角，让人印象更深刻的例子还有很多。在我看来，最有说服力的例子是从一个看上去有点荒谬的统计数字开始的：在每一次自杀事件成为头版新闻之后，都会发生多起飞机坠毁事故。在这些坠毁的飞机中既有个人和公司的私人飞机，也有航空公司的班机。 例如，有证据表明，在某些自杀事件被广为宣传之后，紧接着因航空公司飞机失事而死亡的人数便增加了10倍。而且，不仅死于飞机失事的人数增加，死于车祸的人数也直线上升。What's going on here? 有一种解释马上就冒出来了：那些能让一些人自杀的社会条件也导致了其他的死亡事件。举例来说，某些有自杀倾向的人对一些给人造成压力的社会事件（经济下还、犯罪率上升、国际局势紧张）的反应可能就是一了百了。而另一些人对同样的事情会做出不同的反应，他们可能会变得愤怒、烦躁、神经紧张或心不在焉。如果让这些人来驾驶汽车和飞机，从某种程度上说，这些交通工具就变得不太安全，那么汽车、飞机事件激增也就不足为奇了。 那么，按照这种“社会条件论”的解释，一些相同的社会因素即引起了人为的死亡事件，也引起了偶然的死亡事件，而这就是为什么自杀报道与致命事故之间关系如此紧密的原因。但另一个有趣的统计数字则指出这种解释并不令人信服，因为致命事故增多的现象仅仅局限于那些自杀事件被广为报道的地区。而在那些社会条件相近、当地媒体未对自杀事件做报道的地区，致命事故并没有明显地增加。而且，在那些媒体报道了自杀事件的俄地方，媒体报道的力度越大，随后的失事率也就越高。由此看来，刺激人们自杀以及导致致命事故发生的并不是相同的社会条件。相反，是对自杀事件的公开报道导致了这些事故。 为解释对自杀事件的公开报道与随后发生的事故之间强烈的联系，有人提出了一种“丧亲论”。因为，在头版头条的新闻报道的自杀事件经常涉及著名的受人尊敬的公众人物，这些报道可能使许多人陷入了深切的悲哀之中。他们变得不知所措、心事重重，在驾驶飞机和汽车时也心不在焉，结果导致了死亡事件的剧增。虽然丧亲论这种