Why do we do the things we do? Despite our best attempts to “know thyself,” the truth is that we often know astonishingly little about our own minds, and even less about the way others think. As Charles Dickens once put it, “A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other.”
我们为什么要做眼下的事情？虽然我们尽力去“了解自己”，但我们对自己的思维却知之甚少。就像查尔斯·狄更斯曾说过：“每个人对别的人都是个天生的奥秘和奇迹 – 此事细想起来确实有些玄妙。”
Psychologists have long sought insights into how we perceive the world and what motivates our behavior, and they’ve made enormous strides in lifting that veil of mystery. Aside from providing fodder for stimulating cocktail-party conversations, some of the most famous psychological experiments of the past century reveal universal and often surprising truths about human nature. Here are 10 classic psychological studies that may change the way you understand yourself.
对与人类认知世界的方式和其行为背后的源动力，心理学家早就想对其一探究竟。目前，他们为了揭开这层神秘面纱，已经有了长足的进步。不算那些心理学座谈形式的实验，过去一个世纪，有些著名的心理学实验展现了人性中普遍却令人惊讶的真相。下面是能改变你自我认知的10大经典心理学实验
We all have some capacity for evil.
总有恶在我们心中
Arguably the most famous experiment in the history of psychology, the 1971 Stanford prison study put a microscope on how social situations can affect human behavior. The researchers, led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psych building and selected 24 undergraduates (who had no criminal record and were deemed psychologically healthy) to act as prisoners and guards. Researchers then observed the prisoners (who had to stay in the cells 24 hours a day) and guards (who shared eight-hour shifts) using hidden cameras.
可以说，心理学历史上最著名的实验，就是1971年斯坦福大学的监狱实验，研究了社会现状对人行为的影响。心理学家Philip Zimbardo主导的实验，在斯坦福心理学系地下室改造成一个模拟监狱，选择了24个（无犯罪记录，均精神健康）本科生来分饰狱警和囚犯。（实验过程中，）研究人员利用隐形摄像机观察囚犯（需24小时呆在牢房中）和狱警（八小时轮班制）。
The experiment, which was scheduled to last for two weeks, had to be cut short after just six days due to the guards’ abusive behavior — in some cases they even inflicted psychological torture — and the extreme emotional stress and anxiety exhibited by the prisoners.
由于狱警的虐待行为 – 有时甚至上升到精神折磨的地步 – 和囚犯的极端情绪压力和焦虑表现，原定为期两周的实验，不得不进行六天之后被强制终止。
“The guards escalated their aggression against the prisoners, stripping them naked, putting bags over their heads, and then finally had them engage in increasingly humiliating sexual activities,” Zimbardo told American Scientist. “After six days I had to end it because it was out of control — I couldn’t really go to sleep at night without worrying what the guards could do to the prisoners.”
“狱警对囚犯逐步地进行侵犯，先是脱衣裸露，用纸袋遮盖头部，到最后的无人道的性虐待行为” Zimbardo和《美国科学家》期刊说，“六天之后，我不得不终止实验，因为现场已经失去了控制 – 我连睡觉都担心晚上那些狱警会对囚犯做出什么要命的事情。”
We don’t notice what’s right in front of us.
我们对眼前视而不见
Think you know what’s going on around you? You might not be nearly as aware as you think. In 1998, researchers from Harvard and Kent State University targeted pedestrians on a college campus to determine how much people notice about their immediate environments. In the experiment, an actor came up to a pedestrian and asked for directions. While the pedestrian was giving the directions, two men carrying a large wooden door walked between the actor and the pedestrian, completely blocking their view of each other for several seconds. During that time, the actor was replaced by another actor, one of a different height and build, and with a different outfit, haircut and voice. A full half of the participants didn’t notice the substitution.
The experiment was one of the first to illustrate the phenomenon of “change blindness,” which shows just how selective we are about what we take in from any given visual scene — and it seems that we rely on memory and pattern-recognition significantly more than we might think.
你知道你周边的一切？你也许没你想的那么了解。1998年，哈佛大学和肯特大学研究学者对校园散步的人进行了研究，了解他们对周边眼前所发生的事情的了解。实验中，一个工作人员向路人询问方向。当路人给予指点的时候，两个带着大木头门的工人从他们两人间穿过，几秒钟内完全堵住问路和指路两人的视线。此时，工作人员换成另一个工作人员，两者身高体重，外套发型声音完全不同。整整一半的实验对象没有发现问路的人变了。这实验是一系列“变化视盲”现象的实验之一，这反应出我们队所看到的一切都存在很大的选择性认知的 – 似乎相比我们的理性思考，我们更依赖记忆和模式辨别。
Delaying gratification is hard — but we’re more successful when we do.
推迟享受很苦难 – 但成此事者成大事
A famous Stanford experiment from the late 1960s tested preschool children’s ability to resist the lure of instant gratification — and it yielded some powerful insights about willpower and self-discipline. In the experiment, four-year-olds were put in a room by themselves with a marshmallow on a plate in front of them, and told that they could either eat the treat now, or if they waited until the researcher returned 15 minutes later, they could have two marshmallows.
上世纪60年代后期，斯坦福做了一个著名的实验。实验测试学龄前儿童对眼前诱惑的忍耐能力 – 实验结果让我们对毅力和自律有了更深的了解。实验中，一群四岁的孩子带进一个房间。每个孩子面前摆着一个棉花糖，被告知：“你可以现在把糖吃了，或者你不吃等到15分钟，实验员回来会给你两个棉花糖吃。”
While most of the children said they’d wait, they often struggled to resist and then gave in, eating the treat before the researcher returned, TIME reports. The children who did manage to hold off for the full 15 minutes generally used avoidance tactics, like turning away or covering their eyes. The implications of the children’s behavior were significant: Those who were able to delay gratification were much less likely to be obese, or to have drug addiction or behavioral problems by the time they were teenagers, and were more successful later in life.
《时代周刊》写到，虽然大部分孩子同意等待，但他们通常无法抵御诱惑，在实验员返回之前放弃并吃掉糖果。那些坚持15分钟的孩子们，通常使用回避的战术，例如转身走开或者闭上眼。那些孩子的行为具有很强的预示性：那些能推迟享受的人，更不容易肥胖、吸毒上瘾或者成为问题青年，而且更有可能日后获得成功。
We can experience deeply conflicting moral impulses.
我们潜隐默化的受到内心道德的审判
A famous 1961 study by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram tested (rather alarmingly) how far people would go to obey authority figures when asked to harm others, and the intense internal conflict between personal morals and the obligation to obey authority figures.
1961年，耶鲁大学心理学家Stanley Milgram做过一个著名的（惊人的）实验。实验测试了，在权威人士授意下，实验对象能伤害一个人到什么程度；这是一次人性道德和盲从权威之间巨大的心理角力。
Milgram wanted to conduct the experiment to provide insight into how Nazi war criminals could have perpetuated unspeakable acts during the Holocaust. To do so, he tested a pair of participants, one deemed the “teacher” and the other deemed the “learner.” The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner (who was supposedly sitting in another room, but in reality was not being shocked) each time they got questions wrong. Milgram instead played recordings which made it sound like the learner was in pain, and if the “teacher” subject expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter prodded him to go on. During the first experiment, 65 percent of participants administered a painful, final 450-volt shock (labeled “XXX”), although many were visibly stressed and uncomfortable about doing so.
Milgram想通过实验来了解为什么纳粹战犯大屠杀能做出如此惨无人道的行为。于是，他设计了一个双人试验，一人做“老师”另一个做“学生”。每次学生答错问题时，试验要求老师电击来惩罚学生（学生被安置在另一个房间，现实中没有收到任何电击）。Milgram用事先准备的惨叫录像来代替学生因痛苦发出的叫声。如果“老师”在过程中想终止试验的话，试验组织者会鼓励他继续下去。第一组试验中，虽然实验对象对这么做有明显的压力和不安，但65%的人最终施加了难以想象的450伏电击（XXX强度标识）。
While the study has commonly been seen as a warning of blind obedience to authority, Scientific American recently revisited it, arguing that the results were more suggestive of deep moral conflict.
虽然本实验普遍被认为是对盲从的一个警醒，《Scientific American》近期回顾写到，本实验更多地体验了内在道德人性的斗争。
“Human moral nature includes a propensity to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow kin and group members, plus an inclination to be xenophobic, cruel and evil to tribal others,” journalist Michael Shermer wrote. “The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within.”
“人性本身就对同胞个体和团体亲切和善，具有同情心；对敌对个体偏于排斥、残酷和心怀敌意。”新闻记者Michael Shermer说道，“这惊人的试验，不仅仅反应了盲从，也体现了内心中的潜在道德对抗趋势”
Recently, some commenters have called Milgram’s methodology into question, and one critic noted that records of the experiment performed at Yale suggested that 60 percent of participants actually disobeyed orders to administer the highest-dosage shock.
近期，有网友对Milgram的方法提出了之一，其中一人提到，耶鲁大学所做的重复试验中，60%的参与者实际上是拒绝听从指令继续施加高强度电击的。
We’re easily corrupted by power.
权利面前，腐败轻而易举
There’s a psychological reason behind the fact that those in power sometimes act towards others with a sense of entitlement and disrespect. A 2003 study published in the journal Psychological Review put students into groups of three to write a short paper together. Two students were instructed to write the paper, while the other was told to evaluate the paper and determine how much each student would be paid. In the middle of their work, a researcher brought in a plate of five cookies. Although generally the last cookie was never eaten, the “boss” almost always ate the fourth cookie — and ate it sloppily, mouth open.
那些居高位的有时候对待他人用一种斜眼和不尊重的影响，其实背后是有心理学的原因的。《Psychological Review》期刊2003年一个试验做了一个三人试验。三个学生同写一篇论文，两个学生被要求撰写论文，第三个被要求评价论文并决定撰写学生的报酬。撰写过程中，实验人员送来了五块饼干。虽然第五块几乎没被碰过，但（做评价的）“大老板”几乎总是吃掉了第四块 – 而且吃得大手大脚，肆无忌惮。
“When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, they are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests,” psychologist Dacher Keltner, one of the study’s leaders, wrote in an article for UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.
“当实验人员给予实验对象更多权利时，实验对象更可能从行为上的骚扰其他人，做更风险的决定和冒险，谈判中更早提议，更直话直说，（像前个试验中）更肆无忌惮的吃饼干。”在一篇伯克利大学的《大科学中心》文章中，心理学家Dacher Keltner写道。
We seek out loyalty to social groups and are easily drawn to intergroup conflict.
我们寻找团体忠诚感，团体间的矛盾却一触即发
This classic 1950s social psychology experiment shined a light on the possible psychological basis of why social groups and countries find themselves embroiled in conflict with one another — and how they can learn to cooperate again.
上个世纪50年代的经典社会心理学实验为理解为何社会团体和国家间总是互相争斗 – 及他们如何学会互相合作 – 提供了一个可行的心理学基础。
Study leader Muzafer Sherif took two groups of 11 boys (all age 11) to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for “summer camp.” The groups (named the “Eagles” and the “Rattlers”) spent a week apart, having fun together and bonding, with no knowledge of the existence of the other group. When the two groups finally integrated, the boys started calling each other names, and when they started competing in various games, more conflict ensued and eventually the groups refused to eat together. In the next phase of the research, Sherif designed experiments to try to reconcile the boys by having them enjoy leisure activities together (which was unsuccessful) and then having them solve a problem together, which finally began to ease the conflict.
实验领头人Muzafer Sherif挑选了两组11岁男孩，每组各11人，分开去Oklahoma 的Robbers Cave国家公园进行“夏令营”。在完全不知道对方组存在的情况下，两组男孩（分辨为鹰组和蛇组）活动了一周时间，期间组内互相玩耍，互相建立团队协作等。然后两组合并为一组，男孩们开始互相叫骂另一组成员，做游戏互相较劲，冲突变得频繁，最终两组人拒绝一起吃饭。之后的实验，在通过一起休闲运动来化解两组男孩的冲突未果之后，Sherif让双方一起解决难题，最终才化解了这次矛盾冲突。
We only need one thing to be happy.
关于快乐，有它就好
The 75-year Harvard Grant study –one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies ever conducted — followed 268 male Harvard undergraduates from the classes of 1938-1940 (now well into their 90s) for 75 years, regularly collecting data on various aspects of their lives. The universal conclusion? Love really is all that matters, at least when it comes to determining long-term happiness and life satisfaction.
哈佛大学一项长达75年的实验 – 系世上最长的实验之一 – 记录了268位1938-1940年入学的男性本科生日后生活的点点滴滴。有什么通用的结论吗？爱就是一切。起码关系到长远的快乐和生活的满足来说，是这样的。
The study’s longtime director, psychiatrist George Vaillant, told The Huffington Post, that there are two pillars of happiness: “One is love. The other is finding a way of coping with life that does not push love away.” For example, one participant began the study with the lowest rating for future stability of all the subjects and he had previously attempted suicide. But at the end of his life, he was one of the happiest. Why? As Vaillant explains, “He spent his life searching for love.”
本次实验的负责人，神经专家George Vaillant，告诉本邮报：“快乐需要两个支撑，一个是爱，另一个是找到让生活持续保有爱。”举个例子，一个研究对象期初生活贫困潦倒，未来无望而且曾经有尝试自杀的行为。但现在他是活的最开心的。为什么呢？Vaillant的解释：“因为他用一辈子在找寻爱。”
We thrive when we have strong self-esteem and social status.
强大的自尊和社会地位，让我们更健壮
Achieving fame and success isn’t just an ego boost — it could also be a key to longevity, according to the notorious Oscar winners study. Researchers from Toronto’s Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre found that Academy Award-winning actors and directors tend to live longer than those who were nominated but lost, with winning actors and actresses outliving their losing peers by nearly four years.
根据针对奥斯卡获奖者的研究发现，拥有名利和成功并不仅仅是自我意思的提升 –这还涉及到长寿的方面。来自Toronto’s Sunnybrook和 Women’s College Health Sciences Centre的研究员发现，奥斯卡获奖演员和导演总体比提名却落选的对手长寿。相较落选的，获奖的男女演员要多活近四年。
“We are not saying that you will live longer if you win an Academy Award,” Donald Redelmeier, the lead author of the study, told ABC News. “Or that people should go out and take acting courses. Our main conclusion is simply that social factors are important … It suggests that an internal sense of self-esteem is an important aspect to health and health care.”
“我们不是为了表达，你如果获得奥斯卡奖就会活得更久，”本次试验负责人Donald Redelmeier如此告诉ABC新闻频道，“也不是劝说大家辞去工作去演戏。我们结论中心是表明，社会因素是重要的… 试验暗示，就健康和保健而言，强大的内在自尊是很重要的一个影响因子。”
We constantly try to justify our experiences so that they make sense to us.
我们时常辩护我们的经历，方便我们自我理解
Anyone who’s taken a freshman Psych 101 class is familiar with cognitive dissonance, a theory which dictates that human beings have a natural propensity to avoid psychological conflict based on disharmonious or mutually exclusive beliefs. In an often-cited 1959 experiment, psychologist Leon Festinger asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks, like turning pegs in a wooden knob, for an hour. They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a “waiting participant” (aka a researcher) that the task was very interesting. Those who were paid $1 to lie rated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. Their conclusion? Those who were paid more felt that they had sufficient justification for having performed the rote task for an hour, but those who were only paid $1 felt the need to justify the time spent (and reduce the level of dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior) by saying that the activity was fun. In other words, we commonly tell ourselves lies to make the world appear a more logical, harmonious place.
一个1959年常引实验，心理学家Leon Festinger要求参与者进行一系列无聊的任务，比如一个小时转动木门把手。然后他们被付给1美金或20美金的，然后欺骗下个实验对象（即实验人员）为什么所做任务很有趣。相比拿20美金的，拿1美金的参与者认为这个任务更有意思。那结论呢？那些钱多的参与者觉得，他们从那个无趣的一小时工作中已经得到了足够的补偿，但那些只拿了1美金的却需要通过描述工作的有趣性，来辩护自己的经历（从而减少他们行知之前的差距）。换句话说，我们经常告诉欺骗自己，这世界会变得更理性，更和谐。
We buy into stereotypes in a big way.
我们总是陷入树立利用典型的怪圈
Stereotyping various groups of people based on social group, ethnicity or class is something nearly all of us do, even if we make an effort not to — and it can lead us to draw unfair and potentially damaging conclusions about entire populations.
即使我们有意避免，但几乎所有人都会，根据社会群体，种族或阶级来区分社会上各种人– 但这会导致我们对那个团体得出不公平和不利的结论。
NYU psychologist John Bargh’s experiments on “automaticity of social behavior” revealed that we often judge people based on unconscious stereotypes — and we can’t help but act on them. We also tend to buy into stereotypes for social groups that we see ourselves being a part of.
纽约大学心理学家John Bargh的“社会行为自律性”的试验就发现了，我们根据潜意思的典型案例来判断别人 – 我们对此似乎无能为力。同时，我们也因为自己觉得自己属于某个团体而向那种典型靠近。
In one study, Bargh found that a group of participants who were asked to unscramble words related to old age — “Florida,” “helpless” and “wrinkled” — walked significantly slower down the hallway after the experiment than the group who unscrambled words unrelated to age. Bargh repeated the findings in two other comparable studies that enforced stereotypes based on race and politeness.
一个试验中，Bargh要求一组参与者整理和年纪有关的词语 – 例如：“Florida”（美国养老圣地），“无助的”和“满是皱纹” – 试验后，此组参与者明显比整理与年龄无关的对照组走路要慢很多。在两个其他重复可比试验中，通过加强了种族和文雅两种典型，Bargh也发现了同样的现象。
“Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far,” Bargh told Psychology Today. “When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender, the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren’t out there in the environment. They don’t reflect reality.”
“典型作为代表，运用范围过于广泛了”Bargh告诉《Psychology Today》,“当我们找典型，我们考虑面前人的性别，年龄，肤色，我们大脑自动反馈我们，敌对，愚蠢，迟缓，脆弱等消息。这些结论不是通过外部（逻辑观察），它们不代表现实的状况。”（作者：Carolyn Gregoire；译者：RK翔）