說(shuō)謊多了，你的大腦就會(huì)麻木

People who tell small, self-serving lies are likely to progress to bigger falsehoods, and over time, the brain appears to adapt to the dishonesty, according to a new study.

一篇新發(fā)表的論文稱，人們?nèi)绻鱿乱恍├旱男≈e，就有可能更進(jìn)一步，編造更大的謊言，而且假以時(shí)日，大腦似乎會(huì)做出調(diào)整，去適應(yīng)這種不誠(chéng)實(shí)。

The finding, the researchers said, provides evidence for the “slippery slope” sometimes described by wayward politicians, corrupt financiers, unfaithful spouses and others in explaining their misconduct.

研究人員稱，上述研究結(jié)果為“滑坡謬誤”論提供了證據(jù)，這種論調(diào)有時(shí)會(huì)在反復(fù)無(wú)常的政客、腐敗的金融家、出軌的配偶以及其他人等為自己的不當(dāng)行為辯解時(shí)浮出水面。

“They usually tell a story where they started small and got larger and larger, and then they suddenly found themselves committing quite severe acts,” said Tali Sharot, an associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London. She was a senior author of the study, published on Monday in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

“在他們的敘述中，起初發(fā)生的不過(guò)是些小事，但事情越來(lái)越大，然后他們突然發(fā)現(xiàn)自己做出了極為惡劣的舉動(dòng)，”倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院(University College London)認(rèn)知神經(jīng)學(xué)助理教授塔利·沙羅特(Tali Sharot)說(shuō)。她是周一發(fā)表在《自然神經(jīng)科學(xué)》(Nature Neuroscience)雜志上的這篇論文的資深作者。

Everyone lies once in a while, if only to make a friend feel better (“That dress looks great on you!”) or explain why an email went unanswered (“I never got it!”). Some people, of course, lie more than others.

每個(gè)人都會(huì)偶爾撒個(gè)謊，哪怕只是為了讓朋友感覺(jué)好一點(diǎn)(“這條裙子你穿著真好看!”)，抑或是給沒(méi)回郵件找個(gè)借口(“我從未收到!”)。當(dāng)然了，有些人撒謊的次數(shù)會(huì)比其他人多。

But dishonesty has been difficult to study. Using brain scanners in a lab, researchers have sometimes instructed subjects to lie in order to see what their brains were doing. Dr. Sharot and her colleagues devised a situation that offered participants the chance to lie of their own free will, and gave them an incentive to do so.

但不誠(chéng)實(shí)一直是一種難以研究的特質(zhì)。在實(shí)驗(yàn)室里，研究人員有時(shí)會(huì)讓受試者撒謊，并通過(guò)腦部掃描儀觀察其腦部活動(dòng)。沙羅特博士和同事們?cè)O(shè)定了這樣一種情境：給予受試者自愿撒謊的機(jī)會(huì)，并激勵(lì)他們這樣做。

A functional MRI scanning device monitored brain activity, with the researchers concentrating on the amygdala, an area associated with emotional response.

一部功能性核磁共振造影掃描儀監(jiān)控著腦部的活動(dòng)，受到研究人員重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的是杏仁體，一個(gè)與情感反應(yīng)有關(guān)的區(qū)域。

Participants in the study were asked to advise a partner in another room about how many pennies were in a jar. When the subjects believed that lying about the amount of money was to their benefit, they were more inclined to dishonesty and their lies escalated over time. As lying increased, the response in the amygdala decreased. And the size of the decline from one trial to another predicted how much bigger a subject’s next lie would be.

在這項(xiàng)研究中，受試者接到指令，要就罐子里有多少硬幣給待在另一個(gè)房間里的伙伴提供意見(jiàn)。當(dāng)受試者覺(jué)得就硬幣數(shù)量撒謊對(duì)自己有利時(shí)，會(huì)更傾向于欺騙對(duì)方，而且隨著時(shí)間的推移，其謊言會(huì)逐漸升級(jí)。謊越撒越大，杏仁體里的反應(yīng)則越來(lái)越弱。此外，通過(guò)受試者一次次嘗試撒謊時(shí)反應(yīng)減弱的程度，可以預(yù)測(cè)他們下一次撒的謊又會(huì)嚴(yán)重多少。

These findings suggested that the negative emotional signals initially associated with lying decrease as the brain becomes desensitized, Dr. Sharot said.

沙羅特博士稱，這些研究結(jié)果表明，隨著大腦變得越來(lái)越麻木，最初與撒謊有關(guān)的負(fù)面情感信號(hào)會(huì)逐漸減弱。

“Think about it like perfume,” she said. “You buy a new perfume, and it smells strongly. A few days later, it smells less. And a month later, you don’t smell it at all.”

“想來(lái)就和香水差不多，”她說(shuō)。“你新買了一瓶香水，味道很濃。過(guò)了幾天，它的味道變淡了。一個(gè)月以后，你就什么都聞不見(jiàn)了。”

Functional imaging is a blunt instrument, and the meaning of fluctuations in brain activity is often difficult to interpret. Dr. Sharot agreed that the study could not determine exactly what type of response the decreased activity in the amygdala represented.

功能性造影是一種不那么精確的手段，而且腦部活動(dòng)的波動(dòng)常常是難以解釋的。沙羅特博士承認(rèn)，通過(guò)這項(xiàng)研究無(wú)法確切認(rèn)定杏仁體內(nèi)活動(dòng)的減弱代表著哪種類型的反應(yīng)。

“We know for sure it’s related to lying,” she said. “Whether it’s their negative emotional reaction, that’s only speculation, based on the parts of the brain we looked at.”

“我們確定它和撒謊有關(guān)，”她說(shuō)。“至于那是不是他們的負(fù)面情感反應(yīng)，只能基于我們所觀察的那塊腦部區(qū)域進(jìn)行推測(cè)。”

But the researchers included numerous checks on the study’s results and replicated some parts of it before publication. The research was led by Neil Garrett, a doctoral student at University College London at the time. Dan Ariely of Duke University and Stephanie C. Lazzaro of University College London were also authors of the report.

但在論文發(fā)表前，研究人員就研究結(jié)果做過(guò)大量核對(duì)工作，并重復(fù)得出了部分研究結(jié)果。這項(xiàng)研究的牽頭人尼爾·加勒特(Neil Garrett)當(dāng)時(shí)是倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院的一名博士生。杜克大學(xué)(Duke University)的丹·阿雷利(Dan Ariely)和倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院的斯蒂芬妮·C·拉扎羅(Stephanie C. Lazzaro)也是該研究報(bào)告的作者。

Christian Ruff, a professor of decision neuroscience at the University of Zurich, noted that in previous research, it had been “really, really difficult to characterize the neural processes that underlie purposeful lying.”

蘇黎世大學(xué)(University of Zurich)決策神經(jīng)科學(xué)教授克里斯蒂安·拉夫(Christian Ruff)指出，在以往的研究中，一直“非常非常難以描繪故意撒謊背后的神經(jīng)變化過(guò)程”。

The new study, he said, provided one way of doing that, and showed the importance of considering the emotional component of dishonesty.

他說(shuō)，這項(xiàng)新研究提供了一種做這件事的方法，還表明了研究不誠(chéng)實(shí)所包含的情感成分的重要性。

Amitai Shenhav, a psychologist at Brown University who has studied moral decision-making, also praised the study, calling it “nicely executed.”

布朗大學(xué)(Brown University)致力于研究道德決策問(wèn)題的心理學(xué)家阿米塔伊·舍恩霍(Amitai Shenhav)也贊揚(yáng)了這項(xiàng)研究，說(shuō)它“開(kāi)展得很好”。

He said the findings were “suggestive of a slippery slope.” But he added that it was still not entirely clear what was driving people down that slope.

他說(shuō)研究結(jié)果“會(huì)讓人聯(lián)想起滑坡謬誤”。但他還表示，目前尚未完全弄清是什么驅(qū)使著人們一路滑坡。

For example, Dr. Shenhav said, it could be that the act of lying by itself increased the propensity for acting dishonestly, “like gradually pushing our foot off a brake.” Or that the subjects, who were not punished in any way for their dishonesty, concluded that lying in that environment was not so bad.

舍恩霍博士說(shuō)，例如，可能是撒謊行為本身增強(qiáng)了不誠(chéng)實(shí)行事的傾向，“就像逐漸讓腳離開(kāi)剎車板一樣。”又或者，受試者反正不會(huì)因?yàn)椴徽\(chéng)實(shí)而受到任何懲罰，所以得出了在那種環(huán)境里撒謊并沒(méi)有多糟糕的結(jié)論。

“We need to be cautious when generalizing to real-world dishonesty that is typically associated with threats of reprimand” or damage to someone’s reputation, he said.

他說(shuō)，“現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里的不誠(chéng)實(shí)通常會(huì)牽涉到遭受譴責(zé)的危險(xiǎn)”或者某人名譽(yù)受損的可能性，“我們?cè)诎蜒芯拷Y(jié)論推廣到現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的時(shí)候一定要分外小心”。

In the study, the subjects — 80 adults, most of them university students — were asked to help the unseen partner guess the number of pennies in the jar. The partner, the subject was told, would then tell the researchers the guess. (The partner was in reality a confederate of the scientists.)

研究對(duì)象是80名成年人，大部分是大學(xué)生。研究者要求研究對(duì)象幫助看不見(jiàn)的搭檔猜測(cè)罐子里錢幣的數(shù)量，并告知研究對(duì)象，他的搭檔會(huì)把他猜出的數(shù)字告訴研究者(這位搭檔實(shí)際上是這些科學(xué)家的合作者)。

In some cases, the subjects were given an incentive to lie: They were told that they would be paid more if their partners overestimated the money in the jar, and that the higher the overestimation, the more they would be paid. Their partners’ payments, however, would depend on how accurate the estimates were.

有時(shí)，研究者會(huì)采取措施鼓勵(lì)研究對(duì)象撒謊：他們告知研究對(duì)象，如果他們的搭檔高估了罐子中錢幣的數(shù)量，他們將獲得更多酬勞，高估得越多，酬勞越多。不過(guò)，他們搭檔的酬金將取決于估測(cè)數(shù)量的準(zhǔn)確度。

In other cases, the participants were told that both they and their partners would be paid more for overestimating the number of pennies; still others were told that their payments depended on the accuracy of the estimates, while their partners would be paid more for overestimating.

在其他一些時(shí)候，參與者被告知，他們和搭檔都將因高估錢幣數(shù)量而獲得更多酬勞。還有些時(shí)候，參與者被告知，他們的酬勞將取決于估測(cè)數(shù)量的準(zhǔn)確度，而他們的搭檔會(huì)因高估而獲得更多酬勞。

Dr. Garrett said he hoped that the study could be repeated in other, more realistic settings, and that another study could be done to look at what might stop people from escalating their dishonesty.

加勒特博士稱，他希望這項(xiàng)研究能在其他更現(xiàn)實(shí)的環(huán)境中重復(fù)，還說(shuō)可以再做一項(xiàng)研究，觀察怎樣才能阻止人們變得更不誠(chéng)實(shí)。

“How do you stop it? How do you prevent it?” he asked.

“怎么去阻止?怎么去預(yù)防?”他問(wèn)道。

But Dr. Ruff said that if the findings from this study held up, the message seemed clear.

不過(guò)拉夫博士稱，如果這項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果經(jīng)得起考驗(yàn)，那么結(jié)論似乎很明確。

“The implication is that we should watch out that we don’t tolerate lies, in order to prevent people from lying when it really matters,” he said.

“那就意味著，我們必須密切注意，不要容忍謊言，以免人們?cè)谡嬲匾臅r(shí)候撒謊，”他說(shuō)。