我們?yōu)槭裁匆獙C(jī)器和設(shè)備人格化？

By Matthew Hutson

The number of devices you can talk to is multiplying—first it was your phone， then your car， and now you can boss around1 your appliances. Children are likely to grow up thinking everything is sentient， or at least interactive： One app developer told The Washington Post that after interacting with Amazons Alexa2， his toddler started talking to coasters. But even without chatty gadgets， research suggests that under certain circumstances， people anthropomorphize3 everyday products.

Sometimes we see things as human because were lonely. In one experiment， people who reported feeling isolated were more likely than others to attribute free will and consciousness to various gadgets. In turn， feeling kinship with objects can reduce loneliness. When college students were reminded of a time theyd been excluded socially， they compensated by exaggerating their number of Facebook friends—unless they were first given tasks that caused them to interact with their phone as if it had human qualities. The phone apparently stood in for real friends.

智能手機(jī)、汽車、家電的出現(xiàn)讓我們可以與物品以人與人的交流方式進(jìn)行互動(dòng)。這種對電子設(shè)備的人格化傾向反映了當(dāng)代人精神層面的孤獨(dú)狀態(tài)，還會(huì)讓人更加難以和這些設(shè)備說再見。我們?yōu)槭裁匆@么做？我們又是怎樣將人的特征賦予物品的？

At other times， we personify products in an effort to understand them. One study found that three in four respondents cursed at their computer—and the more their computer gave them problems， the more likely they were to report that it had “its own beliefs and desires.”

When we personify products， they become harder to cast off. After being asked to evaluate their cars personality， people were less likely to say they intended to replace it soon. And anthropomorphizing objects is associated with a tendency to hoard4.

So how do people assign traits to an object？ In part， we rely on looks. On humans， wide faces are associated with dominance. Similarly， people rated cars， clocks， and watches with wide faces as more dominant-looking than narrow-faced ones， and preferred them—especially in competitive situations（like confronting a former bully at a school reunion）. An analysis of car sales in Germany found that cars with grilles that were upturned like smiles and headlights that were slanted like narrowed eyes sold best.5 The purchasers saw these features as increasing a cars friendliness and aggressiveness， respectively.

Its little wonder so many companies use mascots to bring brands to life. A taxonomy of 1，151 brand characters found symbols that were human or humanlike to be prevalent： People （the Marlboro Man） were most popular， accounting for 21 percent of mascots， followed by birds （Twitter）， domesticated animals （Morris the Cat）， wild animals （Tony the Tiger）， and various plants （Mr. Peanut）.6

Personifying products and brands can backfire7， however. When a coffee maker was anthropomorphized in an ad （“I am Aroma” versus just “Aroma”）， men—but not women—felt betrayed by increases in its price. Now that speech-enabled coffee makers are on the market， maybe the machines can sweet-talk their way back into mens hearts.

能夠和你說話的設(shè)備正變得越來越多——首先是你的手機(jī)，然后是你的車，現(xiàn)在你可以隨意使喚你的家用電器。現(xiàn)在的孩子們可能會(huì)覺得任何東西都是有感知能力的，或至少是可以互動(dòng)的：一位應(yīng)用程序開發(fā)人員對《華盛頓郵報(bào)》記者說，他剛剛學(xué)會(huì)走路的孩子在跟亞馬遜公司的智能語音助手Alexa有過互動(dòng)之后，開始跟杯墊說話了。但是即便是沒有能夠和人聊天的電子設(shè)備，研究表明，在某些情況下，人們也會(huì)將日常物品人格化。

有時(shí)候，我們把東西看成人是因?yàn)槲覀兒芄陋?dú)。在一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)中，那些說自己感到孤獨(dú)的人會(huì)比其他人更有可能將自由意志和意識(shí)賦予不同的設(shè)備。反過來說，與這些事物有親密關(guān)系會(huì)減少孤獨(dú)的感覺。當(dāng)大學(xué)生們回憶起以前在社交過程中被排擠的時(shí)候，他們會(huì)通過夸大臉書好友數(shù)量來進(jìn)行心理上的補(bǔ)償——除非他們先被要求做一些與手機(jī)進(jìn)行互動(dòng)的任務(wù)，在這些任務(wù)中，他們要把手機(jī)當(dāng)做具有人類特性的東西。很明顯，手機(jī)代替了真正的朋友。

在其他時(shí)候，我們將物品人格化是為了努力理解它們。一項(xiàng)研究表明，有3/4的被調(diào)查者會(huì)咒罵他們的電腦——他們的電腦出的問題越多，這些被調(diào)查者越有可能說電腦有“它自己的信仰和想法。”

當(dāng)我們賦予產(chǎn)品人性的時(shí)候，舍棄他們會(huì)變得更加困難。當(dāng)人們被要求去評估他們汽車的個(gè)性之后，他們打算近期換車的可能性會(huì)降低。將物品人格化會(huì)導(dǎo)致囤積的傾向。

那么我們是如何將人的特性賦予物品的呢？在一定程度上，我們是依靠外貌。拿人類的例子來說，大臉常常代表著權(quán)威。類似地，人們常常會(huì)認(rèn)為那些有著“大臉”的車、時(shí)鐘和手表比“小臉”的更加霸氣，也會(huì)更加青睞前者—— 尤其是在那些火藥味很濃的情況下（比如在同學(xué)聚會(huì)上碰到了以前的霸凌者）。德國的一個(gè)對汽車銷售的分析表明，那些前保險(xiǎn)杠向上翹像是在微笑，或是車頭燈傾斜像是瞇著眼的汽車賣得最好。消費(fèi)者會(huì)覺得前者能增加汽車的友善度，后者則會(huì)增加汽車的霸氣感。

所以許多公司會(huì)使用吉祥物來給品牌賦予活力就不足為奇了。一個(gè)對1，151個(gè)品牌代言形象的類別分析表明，拿人類或者像人類的形象作廣告吉祥物是普遍的現(xiàn)象：人（比如萬寶路牛仔）是最常見的，占全部商標(biāo)的21%，其次是鳥的形象（比如推特）、家養(yǎng)的動(dòng)物（比如莫里斯貓）、野生動(dòng)物（比如東尼虎）以及各種植物（比如花生先生）。

然而，將產(chǎn)品和品牌人格化也會(huì)產(chǎn)生事與愿違的結(jié)果。當(dāng)一個(gè)咖啡機(jī)在廣告中被人格化時(shí)（廣告詞是“我是阿羅馬”而不是“阿羅馬”時(shí)），男人——而不是女人——會(huì)對它漲價(jià)產(chǎn)生被背叛的感覺。如今，既然能夠說話的咖啡機(jī)已經(jīng)在市場上銷售了，也許這些機(jī)器可以用甜言蜜語贏回男人們的心。

1. boss around： 頤指氣使，發(fā)號施令。

2. Alexa： 亞馬遜公司開發(fā)的一款智能助手軟件，可以通過語音與用戶互動(dòng)。

4. hoard： 貯藏，囤積。

5. grille： 網(wǎng)格狀護(hù)欄，此處指汽車前保險(xiǎn)杠；slant： 使傾斜。

6. taxonomy： 分類學(xué)，分類法；Marlboro Man：萬寶路香煙廣告中的牛仔形象，體現(xiàn)其粗獷的男性化訴求；Morris the Cat： 一只橘色虎斑貓，是美國9Lives牌貓糧的吉祥物；Tony the Tiger： 美國Kellogg麥片吉祥物；Mr. Peanut： 美國卡夫食品公司（Kraft Foods）旗下零食品牌Planters的吉祥物。

7. backfire： 回火，產(chǎn)生事與愿違的后果。