评论
打印
It seems like social media companies are always cracking down on fake accounts -- ones who aren't who they say they are, and are committed to spreading disinformation.
社交媒体公司似乎总是在打击虚假账户——并不是他们所说的那样，而是致力于传播虚假信息的账户。
Like in the US, where such fake accounts have been accused of trying to influence the 2016 election.
就像在美国，这些虚假账户被指控试图影响2016年的大选。
It's not clear what effect they had, but at least some people believed the fake posts were real enough to interact with and share them -- whether they're run by robots or real people.
目前还不清楚这些帖子产生了什么影响，但至少有些人认为这些虚假帖子足够真实，可以与之互动并分享——无论它们是由机器操作还是真人发布的。
So why do people fall for fake stories on social media? The people behind fake posts can rely on a few tricks to get you on board.
那么，为什么人们会在社交媒体上轻信虚假的故事呢？虚假帖子背后的人可以依靠一些技巧让你上钩。
But there are ways to spot them, and ways to avoid falling for what they have to say -- including taking a second to think before you share.
但还是有办法发现他们的，也有办法避免轻信他们的话——比如在分享之前花点时间想一想。
Not all of us interact with fake accounts and share their posts. Only about one in a thousand Twitter users are responsible for 80% of shares of fake stories.
并不是所有人都和虚假账户互动、分享他们的帖子。只有千分之一的推特用户要为80%的分享虚假故事负责。
And they were usually people who already had pretty extreme beliefs -- as did their friend groups.
他们通常都是已经有相当极端信仰的人——他们的朋友群体也是如此。
So how do fake accounts get us -- at least some of us -- to click on and share their posts? Well, they can be pretty savvy -- and studies have revealed some of their most effective tricks.
那么，假账号是如何让我们——至少是我们中的一些人——点击并分享他们的帖子的呢？嗯，他们可以很聪明——研究揭示了一些它们最有效的技巧。
One is to keep it simple. The truth is often complicated, but if you don't need to worry about sticking to the truth, you can come up with a much “clearer” explanation.
一是保持简单。真相往往是复杂的，但如果不需要坚信真相，便可以想出一个“更清楚”的解释。
For example, fake Twitter accounts just love to spread myths about vaccines. And the myth about vaccines and autism does make a simple story: get a shot, get symptoms.
例如，假推特账户就喜欢传播有关疫苗的谣言。关于疫苗和自闭症的谣言便可以编造个简单的故事：打一针，就会有症状。
We know that's not true, but that simple lie still has legs. So when a measles outbreak began in 2014, this was an opportunity to test what kinds of news headlines got shared.
我们知道那不是真的，但这个简单的谎言仍然会长期受到关注。因此，当2014年麻疹爆发时，有一个测试哪些新闻标题会有机会被分享。
In a 2016 paper, researchers looked at over 1600 vaccine-related stories that were shared on Facebook during that time.
在2016年的一篇论文中，研究人员查看了那段时间在Facebook上分享的超过1600个与疫苗相关的故事。
And they found that having a simple bottom-line meaning was the easiest way to get your article shared.
他们发现取个简单的重要标题是最容易让你的文章被分享的方法。
The credibility of the source -- like whether it included data from a reputable public health organization -- didn't make a difference at all.
而数据来源的可信度——比如数据是否来自著名的公共卫生组织——根本没有丝毫影响。
Another trick is to focus a reader on beliefs, rather than explanations.
另一个技巧是让读者关注信念，而不是解释。
One study from 2013 asked 204 participants their opinion on a number of issues, from healthcare to curbing climate change.
2013年的一项研究询问了204名参与者对从医疗保健到遏制气候变化等一系列问题的看法。
But the researchers picked one of those complicated topics and asked half the participants exactly how a solution they favored would work, giving concrete details.
但研究人员选择了其中一个复杂的话题，并询问了一半的参与者他们所支持的解决方案究竟如何发挥作用，并给出具体细节。
The other half were just asked to give reasons why they support or oppose it.
另一半则被要求给出支持或反对的理由。
People who had to explain how it worked were a little less extreme in their support of the issue afterward. Then, they were offered a little bit of cash.
那些不得不解释它是如何运作的人后来在支持这个问题时没有那么极端。之后，他们获得了一些现金。
And people in the group who gave reasons, rather than specific details, were more likely to pass it along to an organization that supported their view.
而团队中给出理由而非具体细节的人，更有可能将其传递给支持他们观点的组织。
So it seems like this kind of thinking would also motivate people to pass along posts that show support for their views.
所以，这种想法似乎也会促使人们传递支持自己观点的帖子。
Another really effective strategy is to evoke strong emotions.
另一个真正有效的策略是激起强烈的情绪。
An experiment done in 2008 demonstrated this by obtaining data on articles from the front page of the New York Times website, over 2500 in all.
2008年进行的一项实验证明了这一点，该实验获取了《纽约时报》网站首页上超过2500篇文章的数据。
They sorted them according to the emotions they evoked, and looked to see which articles made it to their most-emailed list.
他们根据这些文章激起的情绪对它们进行分类，并观察哪些文章是邮件列表中发送次数最多的。
They were specifically looking for the kinds of feelings that motivate action -- like anxiety, anger, and awe.
他们专门寻找那些能激发行动的情感，比如焦虑、愤怒和敬畏。
And they found awe boosted the chances of getting on the most-emailed list by 30% -- for anger, the figure was 34%.
研究人员还发现，因敬畏而被发送最多的邮件几率增加了30%，而愤怒被发送最多的邮件几率为34%。
So how can you avoid getting baited by fake stories that are great at getting you to share them?
那么，你如何才能避免被虚假的、容易让你分享的故事所引诱呢？
One thing to note is that just knowing more doesn't always help you avoid false claims. Which also means falling for a fake account doesn't make you ignorant.
需要注意的一点是，仅仅了解更多信息并不总能帮助你避免错误的说法。这也意味着，上当受骗并不会让你变得无知。
In fact, a handful of studies have shown that if you have more science knowledge or more math ability, it can actually make you better at rationalizing new information so it fits your political opinions.
事实上，一些研究表明，如果你有更多的科学知识或更强的数学能力，它实际上有助于让你对新信息更好地作出合理解释，使其符合你的政治观点。
In one such study, people were likely to misinterpret the results of a fake study about gun control if it conflicted with their politics -- but they got worse at it, not better, if they were better at math.
在一项这样的研究中，如果一项关于枪支管制的假研究与人们的政治观点相冲突，人们很可能会曲解它的结果——但如果他们的数学更好，他们的看法就会变得更差，而不是更好。
This phenomenon is comparable to confirmation bias -- you're more likely to think critically and defensively if you think the headline goes against something you already believe.
这一现象与确认偏颇类似——如果你认为标题与你所相信的相反，那么你更有可能怀有戒心地进行批判性思考。
And some people were, perhaps ironically, better at that defensive thinking. One thing that seemed to help, however, was being more curious.
讽刺的是，有些人更擅长这种防御性思维。然而，保持更加好奇似乎对其有所帮助。
In some similar studies, people who were more curious were more likely to click on surprising headlines to read them, even if it went against their political beliefs.
在一些类似的研究中，更好奇的人更有可能点击一些出人意料的标题来阅读，即使这与他们的政治信仰相悖。
Others have found a few smaller clues to look out for -- like, posts from fake accounts that have been purged by Facebook were more likely to mix up or omit articles like “a” or “the.”
其他人则发现了一些更细微的线索——比如，被Facebook清除的虚假账户发布的帖子更有可能混淆或删除“a”或“the”等冠词。
They also love to camouflage themselves with stories about sports or baking between inflammatory political articles, to make it seem like they're Real People with Interests.
他们还喜欢用体育新闻或烘焙在煽动性的政治文章间来伪装自己，让自己看起来像是有兴趣爱好的真实人物。
But one simple, effective strategy is to just... slow down and take your time before you share things.
但简单有效的策略就是……慢慢来，不要急着去分享。
In a study published in 2019, some researchers gave over three thousand people a bunch of real or fake headlines, and asked them to pick which were which.
在2019年发表的一项研究中，一些研究人员给3000多人提供了一些真实或虚假的标题，让他们选出孰真孰假。
They included a mix of things that either liberals or conservatives would be inclined to believe. The researchers also gave participants a list of a few trick-question word problems.
其中包括自由派或保守派倾向于相信的各种东西。研究人员还给了参与者一张清单，上面写有一些刁钻的问题。
They weren't super hard, but they were written in such a way as to make a wrong answer pop into your mind first. The kind of mistake that you can usually avoid if you just double-check.
问题并不是很难，但它们是以错误答案第一时间浮现在脑海中的这种方式写成的。这种错误你只要反复检查就能避免。
People who did a little more double-checking, and scored better on the math test, were less likely to share fake stories. And it worked even if the headline contradicted their political beliefs.
那些做了更多反复检查的人，在数学测试中取得的分数更好，也不太可能去分享假故事。即使标题与他们的政治信仰相矛盾，这种做法也还是奏效的。
Most of these solutions were worked out in lab studies, so we don't know for sure if real-life scenarios would unfold the same way. But it's probably worth a shot.
这些解决方案大部分都是在实验室研究中得出的，所以我们不确定现实生活中的场景是否也会以同样的方式出现。但也许值得一试。
So when you see a headline in a post you're considering sharing, try reading it with open-minded curiosity -- and just do a little bit of double-checking before you pass it along.
所以，当你看到一篇你正考虑分享的文章标题时，试着带着开放的好奇心态去阅读它——在转发给别人之前，再稍微检查一下。
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych. We double-checked and decided that yeah, we really like our patrons a lot.
感谢收看本期《心理科学秀》节目。我们再三确认后决定，是的，我们真的很喜欢我们的赞助商。
Patrons help make SciShow possible -- and they get access to neat perks too. If you want to get started, check out patreon.com/scishow.
赞助商的帮助使得《心理科学秀》成为可能——他们也可以获得极好的福利。如果你想要参与，请登录patreon.com/scishow。
