经济学人下载:约翰逊语言专栏--和冠状病毒有关的信息传达(2)

How can this inform effective communication over covid-19? It may be tempting for governments to stress the negative: “If you go out you may get sick.” No one wants a bad thing—but neither do they want to be stuck at home with no food, toilet paper or fun. Faced with two bad options—one certain (no fun), the other (becoming ill) worse but only hypothetical—many people will take the risk. They might be pushed in the opposite direction by stressing the good thing they have in hand: “Stay safe” rather than “Stop coronavirus spreading”. Most countries seem to be using both tactics.
这如何影响covid-19的有效沟通？对政府来说，强调负面消息可能很有诱惑力:“如果出门，可能会得病。”没有人想要糟糕的事情——但他们也不想被困在家里，没有食物，没有卫生纸，没有娱乐活动。面对两种糟糕的选择——一种是肯定的(没有乐趣)，另一种(变得更糟)，但只是假设的——许多人会冒这个险。他们可能会被推向相反的方向，强调可控的益处:“保持安全”而不是“阻止冠状病毒传播”。 大多数国家似乎都在使用这两种策略。

Another research finding, tested in the real world, uses social psychology. Britain’s tax office added a single line to reminder notices telling overdue filers that most people pay their taxes on time, and that the recipient was one of the few who had not. That raised prompt filings by five percentage points. This kind of social shame might work for the virus, too.
另一项研究发现是在现实世界中使用社会心理学测试的。英国税务办公室在提醒申报人的通知上加了一行，提醒大多数人都按时交税，而收税人是少数没有按时交税的人之一。这使即时申报增加了5个百分点。这种社会羞耻感可能对病毒也有作用。

But good framing is not enough. Leaders must also be clear and firm. Denmark, which has imposed a lockdown, is a fine example. “Cancel Easter lunch,” its government told citizens in no uncertain terms. “Postpone family visits. Don’t go sightseeing around the country.” As the Local, a Swedish news website, noticed, that injunction contrasts starkly with the language in Sweden, which (so far) has taken a much softer approach to containing the disease. Its government said: “Ahead of the breaks and Easter, it is important to consider whether planned travel in Sweden is necessary.”
但良好的框架是不够的。领导人还必须明确和坚定。丹麦就是一个很好的例子，该国已经实施了隔离封锁。“取消复活节午餐，”政府明确告知市民。“推迟拜访亲友。不要到全国各地去观光。”正如瑞典新闻网站the Local所注意到的，这一禁令与瑞典的语言形成了鲜明的对比，瑞典(到目前为止)采取了温和得多的方式来遏制这种疾病。瑞典政府表示:“在假期和复活节之前，考虑是否有必要计划在瑞典旅行是很重要的。”

The Danish instructions seem to be working; police report few violations of the rules. As Orla Vigso, a Danish professor of language in Gothenburg, Sweden, says, the strictures are well-calibrated. Danes consider themselves “the anarchists of the Nordic countries”. To be made to comply they need to be told directly. But there is a wider lesson. Recommendations that sound more advisory than mandatory seem to presume rational adults will do the right thing with accurate information. The central insight of behavioural economics is that they do not, at least not reliably.
丹麦的指示似乎起作用了；警方报告很少有违反规则的行为。瑞典哥德堡的丹麦语言教授奥拉•维格索称，这些限制是经过精心校准的。丹麦人认为自己是“北欧国家的无政府主义者”。要使他们服从，就必须直接告诉他们。但还有一个更广泛的教训。那些听起来更像是建议而不是强制的建议，似乎是假定理性的成年人会用正确的信息做正确的事情。行为经济学的核心观点是，它们不会，至少不可靠。

Rule number one in crisis communications, says Mr Vigso, is coherence. Mixed messages allow people to follow their biases and believe whatever they want. America is hobbled in two regards here. Its federal structure means a president, 50 governors and countless mayors are saying different things. And it has a president who said he wanted to see “packed” churches at Easter, then decided otherwise. You’re much more likely to tell people what they want to hear if you can’t make up your own mind.
维格索表示，危机沟通的首要原则是连贯性。混合信息让人们跟随自己的偏见，相信自己愿意相信的一切。美国在这两个方面步履蹒跚。美国的联邦结构意味着一位总统、50位州长和数不清的市长会说不同的话。还有一位总统说他想在复活节看到“拥挤”的教堂，然后又决定不去了。如果你不能自己做决定，你更有可能告诉别人他们想听的话。