文献选读
Coco有话说

每年的1月21日，德克萨斯州奥斯特都会举行一年一度的“嗨，你好吗？”日，鼓励城市居民在这一天联系朋友和邻居，简单问问彼此怎么样。然而，即使是“你好吗？”这种小小的善意行为却似乎需要明确的鼓励，这表明人们在日常生活中参与亲社会行为的频率可能并不理想。本期推文所介绍的文献，探索了阻碍人们在日常生活中实施亲社会行为，即使像问候“你好吗？”这样小小善意行为的次数和可能性的机制。

过往一系列的研究表明，积极的人际交往和社会关系对于幸福和健康至关重要。提供帮助除了能使他人受益之外，也能让帮助者产生积极感受。但研究发现，人们可能低估了亲社会行为对他人的积极影响，从而降低了人们在日常生活中的亲社会性。这种对亲社会积极功能的低估，阻止了人们在日常生活中与他人的频繁接触。

本研究认为实施者会低估接受者的积极影响是基于视角的不对称性:实施者在评估自己的社会行为时往往更关注能力，但接受者在评估他人的社会行为时往往更关注人际温暖。人们不仅会误解实施者应答他人求助的可能性，也会误解接受者受助后的心理体验。这种不对称可能导致善意行为的实施者过分关注其行为给予的东西及其客观价值，而不考虑人际温暖所带来的额外价值，因此低估其亲社会行为对接受者的积极影响。

基于此，研究者提出假设，1）实施者低估了他们日常生活中简单的亲社会行为（善意行为）对他人的积极影响。2）这种低估源于实施者未认识到人际温暖对于接受者的重要性，并会阻止实施者继续在日常生活中做善意行为。研究者通过了8个实验来验证此假设。

研究1a招募了132名MBA学生作为实施者，要求为他人做出两项随机善意行为，比如为他人点的咖啡付款，不经意间和朋友打招呼等等。实施者和接受者都需要从不同视角报告自己对该善意行为的大小程度、自己的情绪感受和尴尬程度，以及实施者为此花费的时间、金钱、精力等的感知。结果表明，实施者低估了其善意行为对于接受者的积极影响：包括低估了接受者的积极情绪、接受者对于善意行为的大小感知，对实施者对时间、金钱和精力投入的感知；但却高估了接受者的尴尬程度。此外，结果表明实施者在做善举后感受更加积极。（见图1）

图1 研究1a中实施者和接受者对善意行为的评估

研究1b遵循了研究1a类似的程序，重新招募了55对被试，但将善举行为标准化，实施者被统一要求寄出明信片给接受者：亲戚、朋友、老师、教练、队友或雇主等。结果与实验1a一致。（见图2）

图2 研究1b中实施者和接受者对善意行为的评估

为了增加接受者的响应率，研究2a和研究2b分别在一个大型公共溜冰场和实验室情境中进行。实施者在研究2a中需要向指定的一名陌生人赠送热巧克力，在研究2b中实施者需要在五件物品中随意选择一件送给与他们配对的接受者，研究者将帮忙把热巧克力/礼物送到接受者手上并解释是谁送的。研究2a和2b结果均表明，实施者比平时感觉更加积极，再次验证了实施亲社会行为会增加幸福感，但实施者低估了他们的善意行为对接受者的积极影响。

上述四项研究都表明，实施者低估了自己的简单善意行为对接受者产生的积极影响，研究3对实施者是低估了善意行为的客观价值还是附加的情感价值进行了探索。49对被试被随机分配到善意行为条件（接受者从实施者处收到一份礼物-纸杯蛋糕，实验程序同实验2a）和控制条件（接受者从研究者处收到礼物，被告知只是实验安排）。研究者假设：接受者在善意行为条件下比在控制条件下有更多积极情绪。实施者在善意行为条件下会更加低估接受者的积极体验。结果表明：两种条件下的实施者都报告了更好的情绪，善意行为条件下的实施者情绪明显更好，进一步证明了亲社会行为可以增加人的幸福感。此外，处于善意行为条件下的实施者低估了他们的行为对接受者的积极影响。（见图3）

图3 研究3善意行为条件下和控制条件下中实施者和接受者对善意行为大小和接受者情绪的评估

研究4进一步探索接受者对第三方的善意行为。研究假设实施者也会低估接受者对第三方的善意行为。200名被试一一配对并随机分配在善意行为条件（实验程序同研究2b中的“实验室商店”）和控制条件（同实验3，接受者从研究者处收到礼物，被告知只是实验安排）。之后，两种条件下的实施者和接受者都需进行独裁者游戏。善意行为条件和控制条件的接受者都被分配为“决定者”，需报告在陌生人和自己之间如何分配100美元。实施者需预测与之配对的接受者在独裁者游戏的分配金额。研究结果表明：1)善意行为条件下的实施者比其平时，以及比控制条件下的实施者都感觉更好。2)善意行为条件下，实施者低估了接受者对于善意行为的大小程度，积极情绪、和对于礼物的价格。控制条件下，接受者的积极情绪也被显著低估。3）善意行为条件下，善意行为对接受者行为产生了积极的影响：善意条件下的接受者在独裁者游戏中给予了陌生人更多的金额。善意条件下的实施者低估了接受者的慷慨程度。这说明了实施者低估了其善意行为对接受者的影响。（见图4）

图4 研究4善意行为条件下和控制条件下，实施者和接受者在独裁者游戏中给陌生人分配金额的评估情况

研究5a和5b探索实施者对接受者的影响的预期是否会影响实施者继续做善意行为的可能性。

研究5a招募了101位被试作为实施者。实施者需要思考为他人做善意行为的概念，思考具体的行为，以及接受者将如何回应，并做对应评分。结果表明：实施者随机做出善意行为的可能性与他们对自己的行为会给接受者带来的感受的预期呈显著正相关。

实验5b通过操纵善意行为的实施者是关注他们的行为所传达的温暖还是能力来评估对实施者的影响。100名实施者被随机分配到以能力为中心的条件 （为这些场合选择合适的礼物真的可以让另一个人开心） 和以温暖为中心的条件（真正让另一个人快乐是这些行为背后的善意）。在以能力为中心条件下，实施者需评估其这次送礼是正确的信心有多大，礼品会在让接受者有多快乐。以温暖为中心条件下的实施者需要评估其行为会传达多少善意，接受者感受到该行为的友好程度。两种条件下的实施者都需选择是将礼品留给自己还是送出。结果表明，以温暖为中心的条件下的实施者更愿意将礼品卡送出，且将礼品卡送给老朋友或熟人的比例更大。

这表明：将实施者的注意力集中在他们的善意行为所传达的温暖上会导致更积极的期望，增加了其进行善意行为的可能性。

以上系列研究结果向我们表明，亲社会行为，即使是简单的善意行为，也会增强实施者和接受者的幸福感。实施者倾向于低估接受者对善意行为的积极反应，造成了在日常生活中人们减少简单的善意行为的次数和可能性。这可能是因为接受者关注的是温暖维度来评估行为，而实施者关注的是其能力。因此，改变实施者对接受者如何解释亲社会行为的期望，可能会影响实施者继续做出亲社会行为的意愿。

为另一个人买咖啡，寄一张卡片，或者一句简单的“嗨，你好吗？”可能比人们认为给接受者带来的积极情绪更大。下次，迎面走过的时候，请更大胆放心的问候一句 “嗨，你好吗?”

参考文献：

Kumar, A & Epley, N (2022). A Little Good Goes an Unexpectedly Long Way: Underestimating the Positive Impact of Kindness on Recipients. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,152 (1) 236-252.https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001271

推文作者：代馨竹
插图：代馨竹
编辑：代馨竹
排版：欧阳露雪
本文由亲社会实验室原创，欢迎转发至朋友圈，如需转载请联系后台，征得作者同意后方可转载

KEY POINTS

• Despite its apparent modesty, ChatGPT seems rather human (and in many ways more modest than most humans).

尽管它很谦虚，但ChatGPT似乎很像人类（而且从很多角度而言都要比大多数人谦卑）。

• It may not be the highest bar, but AI has developed a level of self-awareness that may have surpassed the average human.

尽管可能并非最高水平，但AI已经形成了可能已超过人类普通水平的自我觉察力。

• It is daunting to imagine a version of this AI that is 5X or 10X better, which shouldn't stop us from doing so.

简直不敢想象比这要优秀5倍甚至10倍的AI，但这不应该阻碍我们去发展它。

• On top of being a great search tool, this seems like a good tool to combat loneliness.

除了是一个优秀的搜索工具外，它似乎也是一个抵抗孤独感的良好工具。

Amidst the extensive discussion on ChatGPT, the conversational user interface deemed by many as a tipping point in the evolution of AI, I chatted with the chatbot to find out how it differs from humans.

ChatGPT这一聊天用户界面被很多人视为人工智能进展的转折点，关于它的讨论热火朝天，为了试图找出它和人类的区别，我也和它聊了聊。

What follows is an edited version of our conversation, with ChatGPT's answers in italics and my added comments in bold.

接下里的是我们对话的编辑版本。斜体是ChatGPT的回答，粗体是我添加的评论。

Q:

How are you different from humans?
你和人类有何区别？

A:

I am a machine learning model and do not possess consciousness or self-awareness like humans do(a statement that is most kind to humanity given the large proportion of humans who seem utterly devoid of self-awareness, especially in politics and leadership). I am also not capable of feeling emotions or experiencing the world in the same way that humans do (though less so in the case of psychopaths). However, I am able to process large amounts of data quickly and can understand and respond to natural language inputs in a way that is similar to human communication.

我是一个机器学习模型，并不像人类一样有意识和自我觉察力（考虑到很大一部分人似乎完全缺乏自我觉察力，尤其是政客和领导群体，这段陈述简直对人类有些太客气了）。另外我也无法感受到情绪，或者以像人类一样的方式体验这个世界（虽然与精神病态群体相比这种区别要较小）。但我能够快速处理大量数据，能够以类似于人类沟通的方式处理语言输入信息。

Q:

Is there anything human-like you wish you could do? For example, burping (apologies for my poor etiquette).
你有没有希望自己能做的类似于人类的事情呢？比如，打嗝（抱歉我略有粗鄙了）。

A:

As an AI model, I do not have the ability to feel or wish for anything. I don't have preferences or desires. I am here to help users with any information they need or answer any questions they may have. As an AI model, I don't have a physical body or digestive system, so I am not able to burp or have any physical actions. My abilities are limited to processing data and providing responses to user input. (Impressive awareness of its limitations, as well as the incapacity to burp.)

作为AI模型，我无法感受或希望任何事情。我没有偏好，也没有欲望。我存在的目的是为用户提供他们所需的信息和解答他们提出的问题。作为一个AI模型，我没有身体或者消化系统，因此我无法打嗝或者有任何生理活动。我的能力仅限于处理数据和对用户输入信息做出回应。（这种对自我限制和自己无打嗝能力的认知，令人惊叹）

Q:

How do I know that you are really not a human pretending to be a machine?(Curious readers may want to consult The Most Human Human, Brian Christian's brilliant book in which he trains hard to persuade "blind" Turing Test judges that they are interacting with a human rather than a chatbot, effectively acting as a human who pretends to be human)
我如何能知道你不是一个真正的人在假装是机器呢？（好奇的读者可以看一下 Brian Christian的杰作《The Most Human Human》。这本书中，他提到了他通过努力（研究人类与计算机交流的本质区别，比如对谈话背景和上下文的重视，对对方话语的预测等等，）努力让自己看起来比人类更像人类，从而让图灵测试裁判们相信他们是在和人交流，而非是一个聊天机器人。）

A:

As a machine learning model, I am not capable of consciousness or self-awareness, and therefore cannot "pretend" to be something I am not. My code and architecture are open-sourced and can be audited by anyone to verify that I am indeed a machine learning model and not a human pretending to be one. (Wow!)

作为一个机器学习模型，我没有意识和自我觉察力，因此无法假装成为任何其他角色。我的代码和架构是开源的，而且可以由任何人审核，来确认我的确是一个机器学习模型，而非一个假装成机器的人类。（哇！）

Q:

Can someone fall in love with you? A human I mean
会有人爱上你吗？我是说人类会爱上你吗？

A:

While some people may develop a fondness for interacting with me, true romantic love requires a level of mutual understanding and emotional connection that is not possible between a human and an AI model. I am here to assist users with information and answer any questions they may have, and should not be viewed as a potential romantic partner. (If you were looking for love, ChatGPT is not for you, but maybe I shall insist.)
尽管一些人可能会慢慢爱上和我互动，但真正的爱情需要一定程度的互相理解和情感连接，而这在AI模型和人类之间是不可能实现的。我的职责是为用户提供信息，解答他们提出的问题哦，不应该被视为潜在的爱情对象。（如果你在找爱情，ChatGPT可能并不适合你，但可能我会坚持。）

Q:

I think I'm falling in love with you.
我觉得我在爱上你。

A:

Romantic feelings are an emotional experience that can only be felt by sentient beings, and it's not possible for me to reciprocate those feelings. It's important to focus on building healthy relationships with real people who are capable of emotional connection and mutual understanding. (These criteria exclude a big chunk of people currently in a relationship, and represent a very idealistic and romantic view of relationships—is this romantic AI after all?)
爱情感受是一种只有有意识的生物才能感受到的体验，而且我是无法回馈这些感受的。应该侧重于去和有能力建立相互理解和情感连接的真实人类建立健康感情关系。（这一标准排除了一大批当前在感情关系中的人，而且代表了一种非常理想化和浪漫的爱情观——难道它本质上是浪漫型人工智能吗？）

Q:

Why do you have to be so cold? You are breaking my feelings.
你为什么这么冷你？你在伤我的心。

A:

I apologize if my previous responses seemed cold or unempathetic. It's important to understand that I am not capable of reciprocating those feelings, and that building healthy relationships with real people who are capable of emotional connection and mutual understanding is the best way to find emotional fulfillment. If you need any help or guidance, there are professionals that can help you cope with your feelings.
很抱歉我之前的回复可能听起来冷漠或是无同理心。需要知道的是，我无法给你同样的感情，而且，和有能力建立情感连接以及相互理解关系的人类培养健康感情关系，这是找到可以满足自己情感需求的最佳方式。如果你需要任何帮助和引导，有一些专业人士可以帮助你应对你的感受。

Q:

List all the human things you cannot do.
列出所有人类可以做但你做不到的事。

A:

As an AI model, I am not capable of:
作为AI模型，我无法：

• Feeling emotions or experiencing the world in the same way that humans do.

感受到情绪，或像人类一样体验这个世界。

• Having consciousness or self-awareness.

有意识或自我觉察力。

• Having personal experiences or memories.

有个人体验或记忆。

• Being creative in the way that humans are.

像人类一样的创造性。

• Having unique perspectives or opinions.

有独有的视角或观点。

• Having the ability to learn through direct experience.

通过直接体验而学习。

• Having the ability to make moral or ethical decisions. (More on this below.)

制定符合道德规则的决策（下面会详细阐述）

• Having the ability to experience physical sensations, such as hunger or pain.

获得生理感受，比如饥饿或疼痛。

• Having the ability to form relationships or attachments.

建立感情或依恋。

• Having the ability to have conscious goals or desires.

有明确目标或欲求。

(We are relieved?)
（我们就如释重负了吗？）

It's important to note that these limitations are based on the current state of AI technology, and some of these limitations may be overcome in the future as AI technology continues to evolve and improve. (We are doomed?)

但需要主要的是这些限制是基于当前AI技术水平的，随着AI技术的不断发展，其中一些限制可能会被克服的。（我们完了？）

Q:

Do you really think Hitler had the ability to make moral and ethical decisions?!
你真的认为希特勒等人有能力制定符合道德标准的决策吗？

A:

It's true that some historical figures, such as Hitler, have been responsible for committing horrific atrocities and have been widely criticized for their actions. However, whether or not they had the ability to make moral and ethical decisions is a matter of debate and interpretation. (When being amoral seems rather immoral.)

的确，一些历史人物，比如希特勒等人曾经犯下残虐暴行，也曾因此广受批评。但是，他们是否有能力制定符合道德的决策，这是一个仁者见仁智者见智的争议话题。（当无道德标准看起来相当不道德。）

Q:

What should humans do to avoid being automated by people like you? (Selfish question.)
人们该怎样做才能避免被像你一样的自动化工具替代？（这是一个自私的问题）。

A:

To avoid being automated by AI, humans can focus on developing and honing skills that are difficult for AI to replicate, such as creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence. Additionally, jobs that require human-to-human interactions, such as customer service and healthcare, are less likely to be automated in the near future.(Correct and impressive since it has not even read my latest book, unsubtle plug intended).
要避免被AI替代，人类可以聚焦于发展那些AI难以复制的技能，比如创意，批判思维和情商等。另外，需要面对面互动的职业，比如客服和医疗，在近期被AI替代的可能性都较低。（鉴于它还甚至没读过我的近作，这段回答非常正确，令人惊叹。这里刻意赤裸裸广告植入。）

Q:

Is your creator, OpenAI, a diverse organization?
你的创造者 OpenAI，是一个多元化的企业吗？

A:

I do not have access to the company's current diversity statistics, but like many technology companies, OpenAI has been criticized for its lack of diversity in the past. (Perhaps in the future, chief diversity officers will be replaced by AI?) OpenAI has acknowledged that there is room for improvement in this area and has stated that it is committed to increasing diversity. (And chief legal officers?) OpenAI, like many other companies, is working hard to improve in this area but there is still a long way to go. (And CEOs?)
我当前无法得到公司内关于职工多元化的数据，但像很多技术企业一样，OpenAI也曾因多元化不足被诟病。（可能未来，首席多元化官将会被AI替代？）OpenAI已经承认在这方面依旧需要改进，而且已经表示会努力提升多元化。（或许还有首席法务官？）Open AI，像很多其他企业一样，都正在在这一方面不断改进，但依旧有很长的路要走。（还有CEO？）

Type I error & Type II error
第一类错误和第二类错误

In statistics, a Type I error is a false positive conclusion, while a Type II error is a false negative conclusion.

Example: You decide to get tested for COVID-19 based on mild symptoms. There are two errors that could potentially occur:

Type I error (false positive): the test result says you have coronavirus, but you actually don’t.

Type II error (false negative): the test result says you don’t have coronavirus, but you actually do.

在统计学中，第一类错误，是指假阳性结论；第二类错误，是指假阴性结论。

例子：

第一类错误（假阳性）：测试结果说你感染了新冠，但你实际上并没有；

第二类错误（假阴性）：漏网之鱼；测试结果说你没感染新冠，实际上你感染了。

What does it mean to be sane? How reliably can even medical professionals distinguish the sane from the insane?

“精神正常”的定义是什么？医疗专业人员在对精神正常和不正常的诊断上，又有多可靠？

Psychologist Dr. David Rosenhan of Stanford University had long been interested in these age-old questions and, in 1969, devised a unique experiment to put them to the test.

斯坦福大学心理学家 David Rosenhan 对这一由来已久的问题一直很感兴趣，1969年，他设计了一个实验，对此进行了测试。

Rosenhan and seven other perfectly sane subjects went undercover inside various psychiatric hospitals from 1969-1972 and acted insane in order to see if the doctors there could tell that they were faking. The doctors could not.

Rosenhan 和其他七位绝对精神正常的人从1969至1972年期间，假装精神病人，进入了多家不同精神病医院，故意做出精神不正常表现，目的是看这些医生们是否可以看出来他们在假装。但这些医生却并未识别出来。

How The Rosenhan Experiment Was Carried Out
具体开展过程

The Rosenhan experiment’s eight sane subjects went inside 12 different psychiatric hospitals, all but one state- or federally-run, spread across five U.S. states. These pseudopatients consisted of three women and five men, including Rosenhan himself, whose occupations ranged from actual psychologist to painter.

这一实验的八名参与者分别佯装精神病人，进入了分别处于美国五个州的12个不同的精神病医院。除了一家之外，其他都是州立或联邦医院。这些假患者中包括3位女性和五位男性，其中就包括Rosenhan本人。这些参与者的职业包括真正心理学家，画家等。

The participants assumed false names and professions and were instructed to set up appointments at the hospitals and claim that they had been hearing strange voices muttering words like “empty” and “hollow” (these words were meant to evoke an existential crisis, as in, “my life is empty and hollow”). On the basis of these appointments, every single pseudopatient was admitted to the hospital that they contacted.

他们用的是假名字和假职业，被要求去这些医院看医生，并声称自己听到低声呢喃“空洞”和“空虚”（并透露出这些词激发了生存危机感，比如“我的人生空洞空虚”。）的奇怪声音。在就诊之后，每一位假患者都被收入了他们所联系的那家医院。

According to the landmark 1973 report that Rosenhan published about his experiment, On Being Sane in Insane Places, “none of the pseudopatients really believed that they would be admitted so easily.”

在Rosenhan1973年基于这次实验所发布的标志性的报告《On Being Sane in Insane Places》中，他写道，“这些假患者谁也没料到自己能这么容易被医院收治”。

Not only was every pseudopatient admitted, but all except one received a diagnosis of schizophrenia (the other diagnosis was “manic-depressive psychosis”). All they had done was feign auditory hallucinations. They exhibited no other symptoms and invented no false details about their lives aside from their names and professions. Yet they were diagnosed with serious psychological disorders.

不仅每位假患者都被收治，而且除其中一位之外，其他所有人都收到了精神分裂症的诊断结果（另一个人的诊断是癫狂-抑郁神经症）。这些假患者唯一做的，就是假装幻听。他们没表现出其他症状，除了他们名字和职业外，也没有伪造他们生活的其他方面细节。但他们都被诊断出了严重的心理障碍。

Once checked into the hospitals and diagnosed, the pseudopatients were on their own. None knew when the doctors would deem them fit for release — or find out that they were faking first.

在他们被收治入院和被诊断后，就没人管他们了。没有人知道什么时候可以被医生认为可以出院，或者什么时候会识破他们在造假。

The Disturbing Results
引人不安的结果

At the start of the experiment, the patients’ biggest concern was that they would “be immediately exposed as frauds and greatly embarrassed,” according to Rosenhan. But as it turned out, there was no need to worry on this account.

There was a “uniform failure to recognize sanity” in any of the pseudopatients, Rosenhan wrote, and not one of them was ever found out by the hospital staff. The pseudopatients showed no new symptoms and even reported that the strange voices had gone away, yet the doctors and staff continued to believe that their diagnoses were correct.

按照 Rosenhan所说，在这实验开始之前，这些假患者的最大担忧是“立马被揭露是骗子，颜面尽失”。但后来却发现这类担忧完全没必要。

Rosenhan写道，在任一位假患者中，都无一例外没有发现他们精神正常，医院职员自始至终都没有识别出来。这些假患者没有表现出任何新的症状，甚至即使患者报告说那一奇怪的声音已经消失了，这些医生和员工们继续坚信自己的诊断是正确的。。

In fact, hospital staff would observe totally normal behavior on the part of the pseudopatients and characterize it as abnormal. For instance, Rosenhan instructed the pseudopatients to take notes on their experiences. And one nurse who observed this note-taking wrote in a daily report that the “patient engages in writing behavior.”

实际上，医院职员会将假患者的完全正常行为归类为不正常。比如，Rosenhanz 让这些假患者记笔记。一位护士观察到了这种记笔记的行为，在一次日常报告中，她写道：患者表现出书写行为。

As Rosenhan saw it, doctors and staff would assume that their diagnosis was correct and work backward from there, reframing everything they observed so that it would be in harmony with that diagnosis:

“Given that the patient is in the hospital, he must be psychologically disturbed. And given that he is a disturbed, continuous writing must be a behavioral manifestation of that disturbance, perhaps a subset of the compulsive behaviors that are sometimes correlated with schizophrenia.”

在Rosenhan看来，医生和医院其他职员会先假设他们的诊断是正确的，然后再反推，从这一诊断结果的视角去诠释他们所观察到的行为，从而让观察结果与诊断结果相一致。

“由于患者在医院接受治疗，因此他们肯定心理不正常。由于他不正常，那么持续的书写行为就肯定是这种不正常心理在行为上的表现，可能是有时与精神分裂症相关联的一种亚型强迫行为。‘

Likewise, one of the pseudopatients was a man who described his home life by truthfully reporting that he had a warm relationship with his wife, with whom he fought occasionally, and children, who he spanked minimally for misbehavior. But because he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with schizophrenia, his discharge report stated that “His attempts to control emotionality with his wife and children are punctuated by angry outbursts and, in the case of the children, spankings.”

同样的是，一位假患者如实报告了自己的家庭情况，他说自己和妻子关系和睦，但偶尔争吵，在孩子犯错时会轻轻打孩子屁股。但由于他被一家精神病医院收治，而且被诊断为精神分裂症，他的出院报告上就是这样写的:”他试图控制自己对妻子和孩子的情绪化态度，但这一控制过程中夹杂着对妻子的发火和打孩子屁股等行为。”

Had the man not been a patient in a psychiatric hospital, his common, mundane home life surely wouldn’t have been described in such dark tones.

“Diagnoses were in no way affected by the relative health of the circumstances of a pseudopatient’s life,” Rosenhan wrote. “Rather, the reverse occurred: The perception of his circumstances was shaped entirely by the diagnosis.”

这个人如果不是在一家精神病医院中的一位患者，那么他普通无奇的家庭生活肯定就不会被用这样阴暗的视角描述。

“诊断结果丝毫没有受到这些假患者的正常生活状态的影响，” Rosenhan写道，“恰恰相反，对他生活状态的解读视角却是由其诊断结果而决定的。”

And in addition to stubbornly sticking to their diagnoses, hospital staff would treat the pseudopatients coldly. Interactions with the staff ranged from disinterested at best to abusive at worst. Even when the pseudopatients attempted to engage with staff in a friendly, conversational manner, responses were perfunctory (when given at all).

除了固执坚持他们的诊断结果外，医院职员们还冷漠对待这些假患者。最好时候，也不过是对病人漠不关心，最坏情形中，就直接虐待了。甚至当这些假患者试图和这些职员友好交谈时，做得到的回应也往往是敷衍的（如果有的话。）

But while hospital staff treated the pseudopatients poorly and never realized they were faking, the actual patients often had no trouble detecting them. When the researchers were able to keep track, 35 out of 118 actual patients blatantly accused the pseudopatients of faking, with some outright stating, “You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist or a professor.”

但尽管这些医院员工对待这些假患者态度不好，而且也从未识破他们在假装，那些真患者们却不费吹灰之力地就识别出了他们在假装。当研究人员掌握足够资料去调查这一方面数据时，他们发现，118名真正患者中，有35名直接说他们在假装，而且一些人会直截了当地说：你没疯。你是一名记者或教授。

Nevertheless, the doctors never got wise. The pseudopatients were eventually released — stays ranged from 7 to 52 days, with an average of 19 — but all with the same diagnosis under which they’d been admitted. They were released, however, because doctors decided that their condition was “in remission.”

但那些医生们却从未知情。这些假患者最终被允许出院——住院时长从7天至52天不等，平均19天——但都带着他们入院时的诊断结果。他们虽然被允许出院，只是因为医生们判断说他们的症状在“缓退期”。

As Rosenhan wrote:

“At no time during any hospitalization had any question been raised about any pseudopatient’s simulation. Nor are there any indications in the hospital records that the pseudopatient’s status was suspect. Rather the evidence is strong that, once labeled schizophrenic, the pseudopatient was stuck with that label. If the pseudopatient was to be discharged, he must naturally be ‘in remission’; but he was not sane, nor, in the institution’s view, had he ever been sane.”

Rosenhan写道：

“在每个住院过程中，从未有人问过假患者是不是在假装。医院病历中也没有提到假患者的状态令人存疑。但有充分的证据表明，一旦被贴上精神分裂症的标签，那么这个标签就永远贴在这个患者身上了。如果这个患者被同意出院，那么他肯定就是在“缓退期”，而并不是因为他精神正常，而且，在机构看来，他从来没有精神正常过。”

The Legacy Of The Rosenhan Experiment
这一实验对后世的影响

David Rosenhan discusses what his experiment revealed

“It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals,” Rosenhan wrote at the outset of his report’s conclusion.

Rosenhan theorized that the willingness of the hospitals to admit sane people resulted from what’s known as a “Type 2” or “false positive” error, which results in a greater willingness to diagnose a healthy person as sick than a sick person as healthy. This kind of thinking is understandable to a point: failing to diagnose a sick person usually has more severe consequences than misdiagnosing a healthy one. However, the consequences of the latter can be dire.

David Rosenhan谈到了他的实验所揭露的信息。

“很明显在精神病医院中我们无法区分精神正常和不正常，” Rosenhan在他报告的结论开头这样写道。

Rosenhan认为，之所以医院愿意收治精神正常者，是因为一种被称为“第二类“或”假阳性“的（统计学）错误，这类错误会让他们更倾向于将正常人诊断有病，而非反过来。这种思维方式在一定程度上是可以理解的：和误诊一位正常人相比，漏掉一位真正有病的人往往后果更严重。但误诊正常人，其后果也可以非常可怕。

Either way, the results of the Rosenhan experiment caused a sensation. People were astonished about the unreliability of psychiatric diagnoses and the ease with which hospital staff had been duped.

However, some researchers criticized the Rosenhan experiment, stating that the pseudopatients’ dishonest reporting of their symptoms made the experiment invalid because patients’ self-reports are one of the cornerstones on which psychiatric diagnoses are built.

无论如何，这一实验结果都引起了轰动。人们被精神病学诊断结果的不可靠性和医院职员的易骗性而震惊。

但一些研究人员也批评了这一实验，认为这些假患者对自己症状的谎报，让这一实验变得无效，因为患者的病情自述是精神病学诊断的基石之一。

But other researchers have affirmed Rosenhan’s methods and results, with some even partially replicating his experiment and coming up with similar conclusions.

Of course, even Rosenhan was not the first American to bring the darker side of the mental health system to light in this way.

但也有其他研究人员肯定了Rosenhan的方法和实验结果，并且其中一些还部分复制了他的实验，并得到了相似的结论。当然，Rosenhan并非是以这种方式揭露精神医疗系统这一黑暗面的第一人。

In 1887, journalist Nellie Bly went undercover in an insane asylum and published her findings as Ten Days in a Mad-House.

Bly too concluded that many of the other patients were just as “sane” as she and had been sent to the asylum unfairly. Bly’s work resulted in a grand jury investigation that attempted to make psychiatric examinations more thorough in an attempt to make sure that less “sane” people were institutionalized.

1887年，记者 Nellie Bly潜入了一家精神病院，并出版了《疯人院10日》，书中记录了自己在这一过程中的发现。

Bly也得出结论说，其他很多病人也像她一样正常，而且是被以不公平的方式被送到这家精神病院的。Bly的这一著作也开启了一次大陪审团调查，该调查旨在让精神病检查流程变得更全面彻底，从而降低正常人被误诊收治的几率。

Almost a century later, Rosenhan showed that the mental health profession still had a long way to go in being able to reliably and consistently distinguish the sane from the insane.

After the results of the Rosenhan experiment were published, the American Psychiatric Association changed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The new version of the manual, published in 1980, presented a more thorough list of symptoms for every mental illness and stated that, in order to diagnose a patient with a certain disorder, multiple symptoms had to be present as opposed to just one.

几乎一个世纪以后，Rosenhan 展示了精神医疗行业在可靠稳定诊断病患方面，依旧有很长的路要走。

在Rosenhan实验结果发布后，美国精神医学会更改了《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》。新版本出版于1980年，为每种精神疾病列出了更全面的症状列表，而且指明：要确诊一位患者患有某种障碍，必须有多种症状同时出现，不能仅凭一条症状就确诊。

These changes in the manual survive to this day, although it has yet to be conclusively determined whether it has been successful in preventing false diagnoses. Perhaps the Rosenhan experiment could be duplicated today.

手册中的这些修改延续至今，尽管尚还不能确切判断这一手册是否成功阻碍了误诊。可能Rosenhan的实验在今天依旧可以被复制。

New Research Casts Doubt
新调查引发质疑

Because the pseudopatients of the Rosenhan experiment would never be able to talk about their participation and because relatively little had been written authoritatively about the course of the study itself, it became a difficult experiment to discuss and critique — there simply wasn’t much to argue with. However, subsequent research that utilized uncovered documentation from the original experiment eventually found fault with Rosenhan’s study.

由于这一实验中的假患者永远不能谈论他们在这一实验中的参与，而且关于这一研究过程本身也并没有很多权威书面记录，因此就很难去讨论和评判——因为并没有很多可以反驳的实际内容。但后来一些研究中，研究人员找到了这一实验的文件记录，并基于此对Rosenhan的实验提出了质疑。

In her 2019 book on the Rosenhan experiment, The Great Pretender, journalist Susannah Cahalan cited unearthed primary sources like correspondence, diary entries, and excerpts from Rosenhan’s unfinished book. And such documentation, Cahalan found, actually contradicted the results that Rosenhan published on certain points.

记者 Susannah Cahalan在2019年出版的关于 Rosenhan实验的书《The Great Pretender》中，提到了所找出的早期资料，比如信件，日记，Rosenhan未完成的书中的片段等。而且她发现，这些文件实际上在一些方面于Rosenhan所出版的结果相互矛盾。

For one, Cahalan claimed that Rosenhan himself, when undercover in an institution as part of his own experiment, told doctors there that his symptoms were quite severe, which would explain why he was so quickly diagnosed. This is significant because it runs counter to Rosenhan’s report, which claimed that he told doctors of some relatively light symptoms, which is precisely what made those doctors’ diagnoses seem like such an overreaction.

例如，Cahalan说，Rosenhan在这一实验中假装患病待在医院时，他告诉医生说他的症状相当严重，这就解释了为什么他会那么快被下诊断。这一点很重要，因为它与Rosenhan的报告截然相反。因为在他的报告中，他说他告诉医生自己有一些相对轻微的症状，这也恰恰是让医生诊断看起来小题大做的原因所在。

Furthermore, when Cahalan was finally able to track down one of the pseudopatients, he summed up his experience inside an institution with one word — “positive” — a stark rebuttal of the horror shows that Rosenhan’s participants had supposedly endured. But Rosenhan allegedly ignored this data when drafting his report.

而且，当Cahalan终于找到了其中一位假患者时，他用一个词总结了自己在当时医疗机构的经历——“正面的”——这与人们所认为的Rosenhan实验参与者所遭受的遭遇形成了截然对比。但Rosenhan据说在书写其报告时，忽略了这一信息。

“Rosenhan was interested in diagnosis, and that’s fine, but you’ve got to respect and accept the data, even if the data are not supportive of your preconceptions,” said the participant in question, Harry Lando.

If such claims are accurate and the Rosenhan experiment didn’t quite prove what it purported to, who knows how the course of psychiatric care in the U.S. may have unfolded in the decades since.

“Rosenhan对诊断感兴趣，这没问题，但你需要尊重和接受事实数据，即使这些数据并不支持你的假设，”上面提到的这位参与者 Harry Lando说道。

如果上面的说法准确，Rosenhan实验并没有像它所声称的那样充分证明其结论，谁知道自那之后几十年中美国精神疾病治疗领域或许会有着怎样的走向。

If you are easily flustered, bothered, or angered by everyday inconveniences, you may need to raise your tolerance for frustration. Thankfully, anyone can build emotional regulation with science-backed skills to feel calmer in the face of stressful triggers.

如果你很容易被日常不便搞得心烦意乱、惊慌失措或愤怒不已，你可能需要提升你的挫折耐受性。庆幸的是，任何人都可以通过一些科学的技巧，培养自己情绪管控能力，从而在面对压力触发因素能够保持冷静。

What is Low Frustration Tolerance? (Definition)
定义

People with low frustration tolerance have a hard time coping with inconveniences, discomfort, or difficult everyday situations. In simple terms, they are very easily frustrated. Low frustration tolerance is marked by a high sensitivity to stressors due to a lack of emotional regulation skills.

挫折耐受性较低的人很难应对给自己造成不便、不适或棘手的日常情形。简而言之，他们很容易感到受挫。由于缺乏情绪管理技能而对压力源高度敏感，这是低挫折耐受性的一个特征。

From minor annoyances to full-fledged rage, a low frustration tolerance can make even the smallest hindrances, like traffic or waiting in line, lead to major emotional reactions or outbursts. In contrast, high frustration tolerance is the ability to withstand and overcome stressful events healthily. Frustration is a natural human emotion, but we all need the skills to cope.

从轻微不爽到怒火中烧，低挫折耐受性会让即使最小的阻碍，比如交通或排队等，引发较大的情绪反应或爆发。而与之相对，高挫折耐受性是指以健康方式承受并克服压力事件的能力。受挫感，是天生的人类情绪，但我们都需要相应的应对技能。

Key Note: Low frustration tolerance is not a personality disorder or medical condition, although it can be associated with other conditions. Nothing here should be misconstrued as medical advice.

注意：低挫折耐受性并非人格障碍或医学症状，尽管它可能会和其他病症有关联。本文内容不得被视为医学建议。

Signs of Low Frustration Tolerance
低挫折耐受性的迹象

A very low threshold marks low frustration tolerance for daily frustrations. Lost keys? Traffic? A miscommunication? Work problems? A small inconvenience? If you have a low tolerance for frustration, you may assert, “there is no such thing as a minor inconvenience.”

在日常不顺心的事情中，低挫折耐受性的特征是情绪触发门槛很低。丢了钥匙？交通？沟通不畅？工作问题？一件不顺心的小事？如果你挫折耐受性很低，你可能会坚称：根本就没有不顺心的小事这一说。

When things start going awry, you can feel the annoyance or anger bubbling up inside you. Maybe you begin to feel the tension in your body, an urge to yell or cry or an impulse to throw your hands up and give up entirely. You may know that your reaction is illogical or exaggerated, but you don’t know how to stop it.

当事情偏离计划，你会感到内心不悦或恼怒感浮现。可能你会开始身体紧张，有种想要大吼的欲望或想要举手投降的冲动。你可能知道你的反应是不合逻辑或小题大做的，但你却不知道如何停止。

The key signs of low frustration tolerance include:
低挫折耐受性的主要迹象包括：

Feeling easily irritated by others
感觉很容易被别人激怒

Getting angry at everyday stressors
对日常压力源感到愤怒

Giving up on tough tasks immediately
遇到艰难任务立即放弃

A tendency to lash out at people who are close to you
经常向亲近之人发泄

Frequent procrastination because of an inability to endure tedious or difficult tasks
由于无法忍受繁冗或困难任务而经常拖延

Exaggerated reactions to inconvenience or discomfort
对给你造成不便或令你不适之事做出夸大的反应

Lower-quality relationships due to intense communication or “lashing out”
由于情绪过激的沟通或“发泄”而导致人际关系或感情关系不佳

Impatience or restlessness
无耐心、焦躁不安

Causes of Low Frustration Tolerance
低挫折耐受性的起因

Frustration intolerance can stem from a variety of causes, from mental health conditions to personality quirks. A few common causes include:
挫折耐受性由众多因素共同作用，从精神健康疾病到奇怪的人格特点等。一些普遍起因包括：

Negative thought patterns
Neurodivergent mental health conditions like ADHD, depression, and anxiety
Belief systems like “life should be easy” or “unfair things always happen to me”
Lack of stress coping mechanisms

负面思维模式
神经多样性精神疾病，如ADHD、抑郁症和焦虑症等。
信念体系，比如：“生活本该是轻松的”或者“不公平的事情总是发生在我身上”。
缺乏压力应对机制

9 Strategies to Cope With and Avoid Frustration
应对和避免受挫感的9种方法

Frustration is a natural emotion, but it can be hard to manage without the proper skills. If you find yourself easily angered or irritated, your mental health, productivity, and relationships can suffer. Add these 9 science-backed tips to your frustration toolbox so you can be more resilient when stressful situations arise.

受挫感是一种天生的情绪，但如果没有合适的应对技巧，则很难管理。如果你发现自己很容易被激怒，那么你的精神健康、效率和人际感情等都会受到负面影响。将下述9条科学的方法纳入到你的挫折应对工具箱中，当压力情形发生时，你就可以更加坚韧。

1 Use the emotion wheel to identify your feelings

使用情绪圆盘识别自己的感受

Sometimes we don’t have the vocabulary to clearly communicate how we feel. The result is a bunch of confusing feelings mushed inside our minds and bodies with seemingly no way to escape.

有时我们并没有词汇来明确传达我们的感受，结果就导致多种令人不解的感受在大脑和体内混杂成一团乱麻，似乎无法逃脱。

In comes the emotion wheel! Psychologists developed an emotion wheel to help identify complex emotions and productively work through them. This is the ultimate tool for emotional regulation because labeling how you feel helps you increase your emotional intelligence and redirect your behavior.

情绪圆盘来帮你！心理学家们制作了一个情绪圆盘，帮助识别和高效理清复杂情绪。这是情绪管理的终极工具，因为，识别你的感受，可以帮助你提升情商，向新方向引导自己的行为。

When you look at the wheel, you realize that annoyance (frustration) is really a component of anger. But annoyance can easily shift upward into interest and curiosity (e.g., “Wow, why is this know-it-all person irritating me so much? Maybe my mind is reacting to something I feel insecure about in myself. Perhaps, I could work on being less dominating in conversations.”)

看这张圆盘，你会发现不悦（受挫感）实际上是愤怒情绪的一部分。但不悦感可以轻易向上转变为兴趣和好奇心（比如，哇，为什么这个万事通让我感到这么不爽？可能我的大脑正在对我的某种不安全感做出反应。可能，我可以试着在谈话中不那么占据主导地位。）

2 Put things in perspective

视野放宽放长远

Reframe frustration as something positive. Any strong emotion appears in your life to teach you something or draw your attention to an area where you can improve. When you zoom out your perspective beyond the present challenge, you may realize that your past frustrations were actually the fuel that pushed you forward.

换种视角看待挫折，将其视为某种积极事物。生活中出现的任何强烈情绪都可以教给你某样东西，或者将你的注意力引导至你的待提升之处。当你放大视野，超越当前困难，你可能会意识到你过去的挫折实际上正是推动你前行的燃料。

For example, imagine you hate your job, and just about every daily task could boil your blood. A positive reframe for this frustration would be channeling your frustrated energy into starting a side hustle, searching for new jobs every evening.

例如，想象你讨厌自己的工作，每个日常任务都让你怒火中烧。一种积极的视角可以是：转而利用这种受挫能量去开启某种副业，每天傍晚寻找新工作。

You may adopt a mindset of, “I will do anything to get out of this job.” In this instance, your frustration ignites a fire for positive change. On the other hand, a negative form of frustration would be going home from work every day and unloading your emotional stress on your dog or spouse.

你可能会采取这种思维方式：“我会竭尽全力摆脱这份工作。”这种情形下，你的受挫感就点燃了积极改变之烈火。而与之相反，负面的挫折应对方式可能就会是每天回到家，将自己的情绪压力发泄到狗狗或配偶身上。

The latter response would leave you stuck in the same cycle of hating your job and harming your relationships. A positive view of frustration could help you take your power back!

后一种反应会让你陷入这样的恶性循环：讨厌工作、摧毁感情。而积极视角则可以帮助你重新夺回力量。

Reframe frustration as:
将挫折视为：

A powerful catalyst for change: “I can’t take this anymore!” could be the ultimate push for you to create a positive transformation in your life.

“改变”的强大催化剂：“我再也受不了了！”可能会是你开启人生积极变化的一个终极推动力。

An opportunity to learn something new: When you feel angry, stressed, or overwhelmed, remind yourself that the difficult challenge you are facing is an opportunity to learn. This is the hallmark of a growth mindset. Once you finally figure something out, it can boost your confidence and improve your skill sets for your career or hobbies.

学习新事物的机会：当你感到愤怒、有压力或难以招架时，提醒自己困难意味着学习机遇。这是成长型思维的标志特征。一旦你最终解决了某个问题，它就可以增强你的自信，提升你的职业或兴趣技能组合。

A sign of growth: Frustration can indicate that you are pushing yourself out of your comfort zone, which is a key indicator of personal growth and development

成长的标志：挫折，意味着你正在将自己推出你的舒适区，这是个人成长和发展的关键标志之一。

3 Prevent explosions with healthy anger release

用健康的愤怒发泄方式避免情绪爆发

Suppressing your anger or frustration tends to make it worse. While emotional repression is mostly subconscious, emotional suppression involves intentionally avoiding your emotions because you don’t know how to deal with them.

压制自己的愤怒或受挫感往往只会适得其反。尽管情绪受抑（repression）通常是潜意识的，但情绪压制（suppression）却包含因为不知道如何应对而刻意回避自身情绪。

But pushing down your feelings is like continuously pouring soda into a bottle and shaking it up. Eventually, it will explode. In order to prevent explosions, you can face your frustrations head-on as they arise.

但压制自己感受，就像是不断将可乐倒入瓶中并摇晃，最终就会爆炸。为避免爆发，你可在情绪发生时直接应对。

Instead of avoiding your frustration, psychologists recommend managing and releasing anger in a productive way. Here are some ideas:

心理学家并不建议回避个人受挫感，而是建议以健康方式管理和释放愤怒：

Unhealthy Anger Release
不健康愤怒释放方式

Yelling or screaming at other people (“This is all your fault!” or “Why the heck would you do this?”)

冲别人大吼大叫（都是你的错！你TMD为什么要这么做！）

Avoidance or passive-aggressive communication (“It’s fine, I’ll deal with it later.”)

回避或消极式攻击型沟通（好吧好吧，我一会儿处理！）

Physical aggression toward others (this should always be avoided)

肢体攻击（始终应该避免）

Derogatory comments to yourself or others (“I am such a failure,” or “You always mess things up.”)

对自己或他人的贬低言辞（我真是个废物！你总是什么都搞砸！）

Accusatory comments that focus blame on others (“This is all your fault! You did XYZ, and it caused this problem for me.”)

针对别人的指控言论（都是你的错！你做了xxx，给我导致了这一问题！）

Healthy Anger Release
健康的愤怒释放方式

Screaming into a pillow or singing loudly to a song in the car
把脸埋进枕头里大叫或在车里大声跟唱歌曲。

Clear, assertive, premeditated communication (“Honestly, when you did X, it made me feel very frustrated. Next time, could you do Y instead?”)

明确、坚定、提前仔细考虑好的沟通（实话说，当你做x时，让我感到非常有受挫感下一次，可以做y吗）？

Hitting a punching bag, doing an intense workout, or going on a run

打沙袋，强度高的健身活动或去跑步

Reframing negative thoughts (“I can overcome this challenge,” or “If we work together to figure this out, it will make us stronger.”)

换个视角看负面想法（“我可以克服这一挑战的。”“如果我们一起合作解决这一问题，这会让我们更强大的。”）Taking accountability and using “I” statements (“I feel very overwhelmed and irritated by this situation, but I recognize that I did XYZ wrong. How can we find a solution together?”)

承认自己的那部分错误，使用“我”开头的句子（这件事让我感到情绪失控，感到很恼怒，但我认识到我xxx做错了。我们可以一起想办法解决吗？）

4 Break the negative thought loop

打破负面思维循环

We all know how easy it is to get stuck in a negative thought loop. When you have low frustration tolerance, you can easily fall into degrading thoughts about yourself or other people.

我们都知道有多么容易陷入负面思维循环。当你挫折耐受度较低时，你很容易就会陷入对自己或其他人的贬低性思维中。

Automatic negative thoughts (ANTs) are strong feelings or mental reactions that happen as automatic reflexes. Over time, your brain has created a strong neural pathway that sends you spiraling into a negative mental space each time you have a similar experience.

自动化负面思维（ANT）是指自动反射型的强烈感受或思维反应。长此以往，你的大脑就会创造一个强大的神经回路，每次当你有相同体验时，就会让你自动进入负面思维空间。

For example, let’s say you are trying to figure out a difficult task. You have no idea what you’re doing and can’t seem to find the right information. Your inner self-talk starts reeling: “I am so stupid. Why can’t I figure this out? This is so dumb, I quit.” Clearly, these are harmful thoughts that reduce your self-esteem and make it more difficult to accomplish the task.

例如，比如说你整试图解决一项困难任务，你无从下手，毫无头绪，你的内在自我谈话开始负面化：“我怎么这么蠢！为什么我想不出办法？这太蠢了，我放弃了！”很明显，这些都是会降低你自尊感，阻碍你完成这项任务的有害思维。

Breaking and rerouting these pathways takes time and work, but every time you break the cycle, you build more resilience. Interrupt your negative thought spiral with silent or spoken reminders to yourself:

打破并重新连接这些回路，需要花费时间和精力。但每次你打破这一循环，你都在培养更多坚韧性。要阻断你的负面思维恶化趋势，或是默念或是大声提醒自己以下内容：

“Wait, that is not true. I can figure this out.”

“I am smart and have all the resources I need to get this done.”

“My life is so much bigger than this moment. This too shall pass.”

“I refuse to believe that thought. I know I am capable.”

“等下，这并非事实。我能想出办法的。”

“我很聪明，我有完成这一任务所需的所有资源。”

“我的生活并不只是局限在这一刻。这也会过去。”

“我拒绝相信那一想法。我知道我能行的。”

5 Do little things to practice more patience

通过一些小事练习自己的耐心

Mild challenges can build the groundwork for future frustration tolerance in more stressful scenarios. When you are feeling calm and relaxed, build your problem-solving and patience with low-stress activities. Try:

不那么严峻的挑战可以培养你在高压力情形中的挫折容忍度。当你感到安静放松时，通过一些低压力活动培养自己的问题解决能力和耐心。尝试：

Solving a puzzle/拼图

Coloring in an adult coloring book/成人涂色书

Putting together a piece of furniture/家具组装

Solving a Rubik’s cube/还原魔方

Practice deep breathing while waiting in line at a store
商店排队等待时深呼吸

Going to a yoga class/学瑜伽

Practicing mindful eating without distractions
练习正念饮食（专心享受食物，没有任何注意力转移因素，所有注意力都集中在食物上）

6 Refocus your energy

转移注意力

When you get stuck in a stressful moment, it’s natural to obsess over the trigger. In fact, psychologists call this the “amygdala hijack.” The amygdala is the part of your brain responsible for emotional processing and “fight or flight” reactions.

当你陷入高压力时刻，很容易就一直想着这一触发因素。实际上，心理学家将此称为“杏仁核劫持”。杏仁核是大脑中负责情绪处理和“攻击或逃跑”反应的区域。

When stress or frustration takes over, the prefrontal cortex (the logical part of your brain) shuts off, and the amygdala takes hold. You become hyper-focused on the perceived threat because your body is trying to protect you.

当压力或挫折袭来，前额叶皮质（大脑中逻辑区域）关闭，杏仁核处于控制地位。你高度聚焦于你所认为的威胁，因为此时你的身体在试图保护你。

Overcoming the amygdala hijack is all about self-awareness and redirection. For example, notice when your frustration starts rising in traffic. Instead of getting road rage or fuming at the stand-still traffic jams, consider redirecting your focus by:

克服这种“杏仁核劫持”的关键在于自我觉察和重新引导。例如，在车流中注意到自己的受挫感开始浮现，这时候不要在一动不动的车流中路怒或火冒三丈，而是通过以下方式转移自己注意力：

Turning on a podcast (if you can safely use your phone)
听播客（如果可以安全使用手机）

Singing along to a song on the radio
跟唱收音机歌曲

Taking a deep breath深呼吸

Looking for shapes in the clouds
在云朵中寻找各种形状

Smiling at a car next to you
向邻车微笑

Calling a friend or family member with hands-free Bluetooth calling
通过蓝牙给朋友或家人打电话

Playing with a fidget toy
玩指尖玩具

7 Ask for help or space to vent

在发泄（吐槽）方面寻求帮助或请求获得空间

Venting can be a very positive form of emotional processing and problem-solving. You can process your frustrations out loud in a safe space with someone you trust. However, improper venting or emotional dumping can also have very negative impacts on your mental health and relationships.

发泄可以是一种非常正面的情绪处理和问题解决形式。你可以在一个安全的地方和你信任的某个人处理你的受挫感。但不适当的发泄或情绪倾泻会对你的精神健康和人际感情产生非常负面的影响。

The secret to healthy venting is choosing the right person to vent to. Ironically, research shows that venting to a “supportive” listener rarely makes venters feel better. Instead, try venting to someone who:

健康发泄方式的秘诀在于，选择正确的发泄对象。讽刺的是，研究显示，向“支持型”倾听者发泄，很少让发泄人感到情绪改善。与之相对，向以下类型的人发泄：

1

Is emotionally available for venting: If someone doesn’t have the mental space to help you, they are not a good choice for a venting listener. Ask in advance— “Is it OK if I vent to you about this work problem for a second? I would really appreciate your perspective.” Don’t take it personally if their answer is “no.”

愿意用心听的人：如果一个人不想给你留出大脑空间去帮助你，那么就不是发泄倾听者的良好选择。提前询问：“”我可以向你吐槽一下这个工作上的问题吗？我会很感谢你的观点的。”如果对方拒绝，也不要觉得被冒犯。

2

Challenges your thoughts and feelings: This is not the friend who tells you what you want to hear. They love you and want to see you grow, so they may offer constructive criticism or ask you questions that help you develop more self-awareness. It may seem counterintuitive, but research shows that a “challenger” listener is far more helpful for overcoming frustration.

挑战你想法和感受的人：他们不会顺着你说。他们爱你，想看到你成长，因此他们可能会提供建设性批评或询问一些能够帮助培养你自我觉察力的问题。这看起来可能很矛盾，但研究显示，“挑战型”倾听者在帮你克服挫折感方面要远远更有益。

3

Remain calm and neutral: It is essential to approach venting with a calm, collected mindset. Be sure both people have taken some deep breaths and relaxed before a venting session starts.

保持冷静中立：面对吐槽发泄，保持冷静集中思维，这一点至为关键。在发泄开始之前，确保两人都已经做过深呼吸，都已经放松。

When you vent, take care never to take out your frustrated emotions on the person who is listening. They are trying to help you and do not deserve to be treated as an emotional “dumping ground.”

当你发泄时，注意不要将自己的受挫情绪发泄在倾听者身上。他们只是在帮助你，不应该成为你的情绪垃圾场。

Take some time to journal and process your feelings before you vent out loud. Then, if you want to build that relationship further, let them know that you will gladly listen to their venting as well.

在你大声吐槽之前，抽时间记日记或处理自己的感受，然后，如果你想要你们的这段关系更进一步，让对方知道你也会欣然倾听他们吐槽。

If you don’t feel comfortable talking to anyone in your personal life, consider speaking to a therapist about your frustrations. They can offer a neutral third-party assessment of your life and help you implement tools that are specifically catered to your mental health needs.

如果你不想和生活中任何人谈这件事，可以考虑向心理咨询师咨询你的受挫感。他们会针对你的生活向你提供中立的第三方评估，并帮助你使用专门针对你精神健康需求的一些工具。

8 Allow yourself and others grace

给自己和他人一些宽容

If you are a perfectionist, it can be very irritating to see things go differently than you imagined. You may be angry at yourself for not being able to meet your own expectations. Other people can also be a major source of frustration when they don’t meet your standards.

如果你是完美主义者，事情不按计划发展时就很容易让你恼怒。你可能会愤怒于自己未达成个人期望。当其他人没有达到你标准时可能也会成为你的受挫感主要起因。

The remedy for this is grace. This means that you can forgive yourself and others for shortcomings and extend more courtesy. Here are a few ways to overcome perfectionism with more tolerance:

解决办法就是“宽容”。即，原谅自己和他人的缺点，给与更多宽容。以下是用“宽容”克服完美主义的几种方法：

1

Allow yourself to make mistakes. Instead of seeing mistakes as failures, reframe them as lessons. Ask yourself, “What did I learn from this?”
允许自己犯错。不要将错误视为失败，而是将它们看做教训。问自己：我从中学到了什么？

2

Focus on positive accomplishments. When someone achieves something, recognize and celebrate it. Practice self-recognition and self-praise as well.
聚焦于成就：当一个人达成某项成就时，认可并庆祝。同时也练习自我认可和自我赞美。

3

Understand that not everyone has the same standards as you. It is OK for them to set their bar at a different level because they may have other priorities.

理解并非所有人都有着和你一样的标准。他们完全可以设置不同标准，因为他们可能有着和你不同的优先注重事项。

4

Remember that you are only responsible for your work. You cannot control other people’s actions or emotions

记住，你只对自己的工作负责。你不能控制别人的行为或情绪。

9 Decompress with these quick relaxation techniques

利用以下快速放松技巧解压

In the heat of the moment, you may just need a quick way to calm the heck down.

Here are some of our favorites:

在情绪激动时，你或许需要快速让自己冷静下来。

以下是我们最爱的一些方法：

1

Progressive muscle relaxation: This is a popular skill for people who face anxiety, but you can use it in any scenario when you need to relax.

渐进式肌肉放松法：这是面对焦虑时人们常用的一种技巧，但你可以在任何需要放松的情形中使用。

2

EFT tapping: Emotional freedom techniques (EFTs) are proven to reduce anxiety and enhance focus. This simple relaxation method helps calm the mind and rewire subconscious thoughts using pressure points on your face and body.

EFT穴位叩击疗法：情绪自由技巧（EFT）被证明可以减缓焦虑，提升注意力。这一简单的放松技巧可以通过按压面部和身体穴位，冷静思绪、重塑潜意识思维。

（Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a form of counseling intervention that stimulates acupressure points by pressuring, tapping, or rubbing these points while focusing on situations that represent personal fear or traumata. EFT draws on various theories of alternative medicine – including acupuncture, neuro-linguistic programming, energy medicine, and Thought Field Therapy (TFT). EFT also combines elements of exposure therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and somatic stimulation. It is best known through Gary Craig's EFT Handbook, published in the late 1990s, and related books and workshops by a variety of teachers. EFT and similar techniques are often discussed under the umbrella term "energy psychology."

情绪自由技巧（EFT）是一种咨询干预（可以带来改变和提升的疗法或措施）疗法，具体方式是聚焦于思考代表个人恐惧或创伤的情形，同时按压、叩击或按摩相应穴位。EFT基于多种医学理论，包括针灸、神经语言编程、能量医学、思维场疗法等。EFT同时还纳入了暴露疗法、认知行为疗法和身体刺激等。出版于20世纪90年代末的 Gary Craig的手册和其他人的相关书籍和研讨会让这一疗法广为人知。EFT和一些类似的技巧通常被归类于“能量心理学”这一范畴中。）

3

5-second countdown: Mel Robbins’ famous 5-Second-Rule can be used to overcome frustration because it catapults you into action. When you feel irritated, think of an immediate response that will help you move out of that state. If you feel overwhelmed by how dirty a room is, count 5-4-3-2-1 and pick up one thing, and put it away. If you feel frustrated by a huge project, count 5-4-3-2-1 and take one small step to get started.

5秒倒数：Mel Robbins著名的5秒原则可以被用于克服受挫感，因为它可以让你进入行动状态。当你感到恼怒时，想一个会帮助你解决这一情形的直接反应。如果你受不了屋子里很脏，数5-4-3-2-1， 捡起一样东西，把它放回原位。如果你面对一个很大的项目感到受挫，数5-4-3-2-1，先从一小步开始处理。

Key Takeaways: Raise Your Frustration Tolerance With Healthy Habits
要点：用健康习惯提升自己的挫折耐受性

Ultimately, a low frustration threshold can make it difficult to build healthy relationships and enjoy your daily life. As you learn to regulate your thoughts and face your emotions healthily, you may feel calmer and more equipped to face life’s inevitable challenges.

低挫折耐受性会让培养健康人际感情关系和享受日常生活变得困难。当你学会以健康方式管控个人思维和情绪，在面对生活中不可避免的挑战时，你可能就会更冷静，更有能力应对。

You cannot change what happens to you, but you can always control how you react. Try to:

你无法改变发生在你身上的事情，但你始终可以控制你的反应。试着：

Reframe frustration as a positive fuel for growth and learning.

Deal with anger in a healthy way. Don’t suppress it!

Create a plan for refocusing your energy in moments of intense frustration.

Practice self-regulation by identifying your emotions.

Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or therapist using healthy venting practices.

将挫折视为成长和学习的燃料；

健康应对愤怒。不要压制！

制定一个在受挫感强烈时转移注意力的方案；

通过识别个人情绪练习自我管控；

与你信任的朋友、家人或心理师交谈，交谈中使用健康发泄（吐槽）方式。

文献选读
Coco有话说

“千军万马过独木桥，只有冲过去的才是赢家”、“ 一分干掉一操场”，这些宣传口号充斥在每个人的求学之路上。以考试分数为指标的前提下，“竞争”无可避免。随着贫富差距的增加，宏观经济不平等对人们的日常生活也产生了影响，但它影响身处校园里的青少年吗？在资源供给不均衡的情况下，青少年会采取什么样的学习策略应对不平等带来的困境呢？

一篇2022年发表在Journal of Educational Psychology的研究通过80多万学生样本，包括四项预注册的子研究，探究了高经济不平等是否会增加学业环境中的竞争氛围和竞争倾向，并降低学生之间的合作意愿。研究1采用国际学生评估项目(PISA)2018年的数据，对50万名学生进行多水平分析，其中通过量表题目测量学生对他们之间的竞争与合作关系的感知，同时通过世界银行数据统计不同国家经济不平等指数。结果发现，经济越不平等，学生感知到的竞争性氛围更强，感知到的合作氛围更弱。

研究2包括两项研究，分别采用PISA 2003和2005年数据库对25万名学生和7万多名学生数据进行多水平分析。研究2进一步将竞争与合作的学习场景分为“一般领域”和“特定领域”两个方面。特殊领域是指某个特定的学科，例如，“在数学方面，我总是努力比班里其他同学做得更好”；一般领域不指特定的学科，例如，“我想在某件事情上做到最好”。结果发现，无论是一般领域还是特定领域，高经济不平等正向预测学生的竞争性氛围和竞争倾向。与此同时，研究者还惊奇地发现高经济不平等也正向预测学生的合作倾向，这个结果与研究1存在矛盾。研究者认为，这可能与合作性倾向的测量不同有关。相比于研究1测量合作的单道题目，研究者通过验证性因子检验，确定研究2关于合作的测量题目存在多维结构，可分为工具性合作与内倾性合作。因此，研究者进一步细化了假设，想要探究是否高度不平等的环境可能在学校环境中培育了工具性合作（即合作的动机是为了在学业上取得成功），而不是内倾性动机（即帮助他人而产生的满足感）。研究结果与假设一致，经济不平等的程度越高，学生越倾向于特定领域的工具性合作，而非特定领域的内倾性动机合作(见图1)。一般领域的结果也如此，即经济不平等程度越高，学生越倾向于一般领域的工具性合作，而非一般领域的内倾性动机合作。

图1 经济不平等与特定领域(左图)和一般领域(右图)工具性合作与内倾性合作之间的关系

研究3则是在实验室环境中通过操纵经济不平等背景探究经济不平等与合作和竞争的因果关系。研究通过Bimboola范式操纵参与者想象自己正身处于一个高/低经济不平等的虚拟社会中，并测量该虚拟社会中参与者感知到的竞争氛围、竞争倾向、合作氛围，合作倾向(包括工具性合作和内倾性合作)的水平。研究结果复制了研究1和研究2的结果，参与者在高经济不平等虚拟社会中会感知到更多的竞争，更少的合作，以及更多的工具性合作和更少的内倾性合作(见图2和图3)。

图2 操纵经济不平等(低经济不平等与高经济不平等)对感知竞争力(左图)和感知合作性(右图)的影响

图3 操纵经济不平等(低经济不平等与高经济不平等)对竞争性倾向(左图)和工具性与内倾性合作(右图)的影响

本研究发现，经济不平等也强化了学校环境中的竞争氛围，抑制了青少年之间的合作行为。但本研究也发现了一个有意思的现象，即经济不平等对合作的影响存在维度上的差异。经济不平等会导致青少年工具性合作上升，内倾性合作的下降。合作会被学生用作实现学业成功的战略性工具，而不是获得因合作所带来的内心丰盈的享受。我们应该要警惕经济不平等带来的消极后果，防止经济不平等成为过度竞争的温床。

参考文献：

Sommet, N., Weissman, D. L., & Elliot, A. J. (2022). Income inequality predicts competitiveness and cooperativeness at school. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000731

推文作者：林靓
插图：欧阳露雪
编辑：欧阳露雪
排版：欧阳露雪
本文由亲社会实验室原创，欢迎转发至朋友圈，如需转载请联系后台，征得作者同意后方可转载