双语阅读｜人性化的数字助手有可能让人羞于求助
DIGITAL assistants such as Siri and Cortana are increasingly common on phones and computers. Most are designed to give their users the impression that a humanlike intelligence lies behind the program’s friendly voice. It does not, of course. But dozens of experiments over the years have shown that people readily build strong bonds with computerised helpers which are endowed with anthropomorphic features, whether visual or vocal.
苹果的Siri、微软“小冰”等数字助手如今正普遍使用在电脑和手机上。这些数字助手的设计是为了让用户觉处在友好的电脑程序声音背后隐藏着一种类人智能。当然，事实并非如此。但多年来，数十项实验表明，不论是视觉还是声音，人们都乐意与这些赋予了拟人化特征的电脑助手建立紧密联系。
Developing an emotional relationship with a piece of software can, however, cut both ways. As a study published in Psychological Science by Park Daeun, of Chungbuk National University in South Korea, and her colleagues, shows, one emotion sometimes involved in machine-human interaction is embarrassment. This, Dr Park has discovered, makes some users reluctant to ask for help from their artificially intelligent pals. Apparently, they are sheepish about doing so.
然而， 与一款软件建立情感关系有两面性。韩国国立忠北大学朴太恩（Park Daeun）及其同事在《心理科学》（Psychological Science）上发表的研究表明，有时，人机交互也会让人感到尴尬和别扭。 朴博士发现，这会让一些用户不愿向他们的人工智能伙伴寻求帮助。显然，寻求帮助的行为会让他们感到尴尬和不安。
Dr Park and her team recruited 187 participants into their study. To start with each was presented with a series of statements on the malleability of intelligence. These included, “you have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it”, and “you can always substantially change how intelligent you are”. Participants rated their responses to these statements on a six-point scale, on which one meant “strongly disagree” and six meant “strongly agree”. The reason for this initial test was that Dr Park knew from previous work that, in academic settings, those who believe intelligence to be malleable are comfortable asking for assistance while those who believe it to be fixed often feel ashamed to do so.
朴博士及其团队招募了187名志愿者参与实验。首先，每个志愿者需要在一系列关于智力是否具有可塑性的言论中进行选择，包括“你有一定的智力，却很难改变”以及“你总能大幅度改变你的智商”。参与者给这些言论打分，最高为6分，意味着“非常赞同“，1分则表示“完全不同意”。这项初始测试的理论依据是，朴博士根据之前的工作经验，发现在学术界，那些相信智力具有可塑性的人会很乐意寻求帮助，而那些认为智力不变的人总是为此感到羞愧。
The initial test done, the researchers presented their volunteers with a second, which involved looking at 16 sets of three words and trying to think of a fourth word that linked them. For example, when offered “room, blood, salts” a correct answer would be “bath”. Sometimes the first three words were accompanied by an unrequested hint (in the example given, this was “tub”). Sometimes they were not.
在完成初试之后，志愿者们进入第二轮测试。他们需要查看16组单词，每组三个，并试图填出第四个词使它们产生联系。例如，“房间、血液、盐”，对应的正确答案是“洗澡”。有时候，即使你没有要求，研究人员也会给你一些提示（例如，在给出的例子中，提示为“浴缸”）。有些则没有。
Hints appeared as the written form of the word in question, accompanied by a computer-shaped icon. For half of participants this icon had a humanlike face, and the hint was placed inside a speech bubble originating from that face, thus anthropomorphising the presentation to some degree. For the other half the icon lacked a face and there was no speech bubble. After the final set of words had been displayed, participants were asked to agree or disagree with follow-up statements about their experience, such as “it was embarrassing to receive help during the task”, and “others might think I am incompetent because I received help during the task”. This time, they quantified their feelings on a seven-point scale, with higher scores representing greater feelings of unease.
提示词写在问题里，并有一个电脑形状的图标。参与者被一分为二，一半志愿者的图标是长着一张人脸，旁边有一个对话框，提示就放在对话框里，在一定程度上达到了拟人化的效果。另一半志愿者的图标则没有脸，也没有对话框。当完成所有16组单词后，研究人员会对他们的经历进行描述，参与者需要就其陈述选择同意或不同意，例如“在任务中获得帮助令人尴尬“，“在任务中获得帮助会让别人觉得我很无能“。这一次，满分为7分，数值越大，代表不安程度越高。
The researchers found that participants who believed intelligence to be unchangeable felt more embarrassed and more incompetent after the tests. Specifically, those whose level of belief that this is true was more than one standard deviation above the mean score on the six-point scale for perceptions of intelligence flexibility (in other words, the top sixth of the sample), averaged 3.2 when measured for feelings of shame and embarrassment if the computer icons they had seen giving the hints had had faces and speech bubbles, but only 2.7 if not. In contrast, people who strongly believed that intelligence could be changed over time (the bottom sixth of the sample) felt the same level of discomfort (around 2.5) whether or not the icons had been anthropomorphised.
研究人员发现，测试完成后，认为智力不会改变的人感受到的尴尬和无能程度会更高。具体而言，在第一轮六分制的智力灵活性测试中分值比均值高一个标准差的人（换言之，样本中的前六位），在第二轮羞愧感和尴尬感测试中，面对不同的电脑图标，分值也有所不同。当提示的形式是一张人脸加上对话框时，平均分值为3.2，此外，分值为2.7. 与此相反，坚信智力会随时间改变的人（样本中的后六位），无论图标是否拟人化，在第二轮不安值测试中分值基本一致（约2.5）。
A second experiment, in which a different set of participants were allowed to ask for help rather than having it thrust upon them at random had similar results. Dr Park therefore concludes that some people do, indeed, seem to wish to avoid losing face by seeking help from an icon that has, well, a face. And that in turn suggests there are circumstances when the relentless pseudo-humanisation of machine-human interactions could usefully be curbed.
随后，研究人员又进行了第二项实验。在实验2中，研究人员不会事先随机给出提示，但参与者可以选择是否寻求帮助，最终，实验结果与实验1基本一致。因此，朴博士认为，当提示图标拟人化时，的确会有一些人会为了面子问题，而拒绝计算机的帮助。反之，这也意味着，那些没完没了的人机交互伪人性化可以得到有效抑制。
编译：ashly7
编辑：翻吧君
来源：经济学人（2018.01.06）