close
人脈學違背了人類天性，「不經意」才會被「注意」
一篇報導引述在《Perception》期刊的研究，來自幾間學校包括CalTech的學者一起做了實驗，學者以「廣告」為例，一個常常出現的廣告，對消費者有立刻的影響力，因此許多強力廣告的效果往往是很成功的，造成「大家都去買」、「大家都在用」，因此你不得不用！台灣這邊也有所謂「西瓜偎大邊」的觀察，當一個majority出現後，它的吸眾力量就會更大，大家也更不理性的去愛一樣東西。在「初期」的效果非常強。
假如這是一場選舉，選完就算了，那這初期的效果就足以漂亮的完成使命！但，若這是一樣商品、一個電視節目、一位藝人，紅一個月沒有用，紅五年才賺得飽，這種「紅太快」的會產生一個問題，啟動人類的另一個天性。科學家還說，這個天性，其實是人類這種高等動物特有的天性──原來，人類有個機制，他在思考該「喜歡」Ａ或Ｂ之前，會先在大腦內自動計算Ａ或Ｂ會給他多大的「回饋」(payoff)，再來決定要喜歡Ａ還是Ｂ！有趣的是，人類原來還有個機制，如果他「看到」一個東西出現太多次，那表示那個東西已經太豐富了、太多了，表示這個資源比那些稀有的資源還要沒有價值，給他的「回饋」會比較少，而且，此東西由於不夠「稀有」，也因此「不急」著要在今天就先喜歡它！所以，那些瘋狂(fad)的流行，紅得這麼快，但過了一陣子，也就隕落得這麼快(flop)，反而是有些沒紅這麼快的，可以有較久的壽命，甚至是永續的壽命。那，我們要如何介定「是不是太多」？一天給他看一次，叫「多」嗎？還是一周看一次？一個月看一次？
科學家發現，有一種方式，不會在人腦內留下記錄，也就不會有「太多」的現象，這個方式就是「讓他看到，卻沒有印象看到」，讓他只在潛意識留下印象，不曾用顯意識去處理過這個資訊，那麼這條資訊就不會引發剛剛說的「警示太多」的效應。這份研究，除了對廣告業者會有一些思考外，最大的影響，應該是在「人脈學」上面──一個產品可以一窩蜂，但「人脈」這種東西千萬不能一窩蜂。所謂人脈的定義就是「長期經營」、「長期投資」，絕不能只有一個月兩個月的熱度，以後才派得上用場。
然而許多人脈學的專家，強調的是如何「在對方心中留下深刻印象」，所以，換了名片後，下一步就是特地寄信過來附上照片，而且定期寄發電子報，簽名檔都比別人放得還多資訊，這已經幾乎成為台灣這邊人脈專家的標誌動作。有趣的是，我不確定這些人脈專家本身是否真的很有人脈，但這樣「給印象」的方式至少從業界聽來都有一種勉強的感覺。給這麼多印象，反而啟動了剛剛說的「警示太多」的效應。這篇報導告訴我們，真正的人脈取得，就在不經意之間。
Email絕對是太經意了、太打擾了。
MSN也絕對太經意、太打擾了。
簡訊應該也是太經意、太打擾了？
但，在現場換張名片並不會打擾，所以那一瞬間是很重要的。過了那一瞬間，或許，轉寄一些信件也不會打擾。這些信件可能只留下一個名字和一個破破爛爛的簽名檔，完全沒有「人」的痕跡，但寄了幾次，我也會記得這個寄很多笑話的人的名字，下次再出現我也不會忘記。
「顧左右而言他」似乎是人脈學的精髓？
原來，人脈沒有刻意的經營，只有不經意的「邂逅」，自古似乎都是這樣，不會因為人際ｅ化而有丁點差別。
(摘自 Mr.6)
Madison Avenue Magic: Study Reveals Positive Effects of Unconscious Exposure to Advertisements
Findings could help marketers optimize advertising for the human mind
Fads have been a staple of American pop culture for decades, from spandex in the 1980s to skinny jeans today. But while going from fad to flop may seem like the result of fickle consumers, a new study suggests that this is exactly what should be expected for a highly efficient, rationally evolved animal.
The new research, led by cognitive scientist Mark Changizi of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, shows why direct exposure to repeated ads initially increases a consumer’s preference for promoted products, and why the most effective advertisements are the ones consumers don’t even realize they have seen.
It has long been known that repeated visual exposure to an object can affect an observer’s preference for it, initially rapidly increasing preference, and then eventually lowering preference again. This can give way to short-lived fads. But while this may seem illogical, Changizi argues that it makes perfect cognitive sense.
“A rational animal ought to prefer something in proportion to the probable payoff of acting to obtain it,” said Changizi, assistant professor of cognitive science at Rensselaer and lead author of the study, which appears in the online version of the journal Perception. “The frequency at which one is visually exposed to an object can provide evidence about this expected payoff, and our brains have evolved mechanisms that exploit this information, rationally modulating our preferences.”
A small number of visual exposures to an object typically raises the probability of acquiring the object, which enhances preference, according to Changizi.
On the other hand, Changizi says overexposure to an object provides the brain with evidence that the object is overabundant, and is likely not valuable, thereby lowering the individual’s preference for it.
“An individual’s preference for an object based on a large number of visual exposures will almost always take the shape of an inverted ‘U’, with an initial rapid rise in preference based on the enhanced probability that an object can be obtained, followed by a plateau and a gradual decrease in preference as the evidence begins to suggest that the object is overly common and thus not valuable,” Changizi said.
One of the most surprising aspects of visual exposure effects, according to Changizi, is that they are enhanced when visual exposure occurs without conscious recognition.
“This non-conscious mechanism exists because visual exposure information alone, without conscious judgment, has implications for the expected payoff of one’s actions,” Changizi said. “In many natural situations, observers potentially have both exposure schedule information and consciously accessible information about the object, in which case the predicted degree of preference modulations from visual exposure will be dampened, as the visual information is competing with the information from conscious recognition of the object and any subsequent judgment.”
These non-conscious mechanisms for rationally modulating preference are the kind animals without much of a cognitive life can engage in, and Changizi speculates that they are much more ancient.
Advertising that takes the form of apparel branded with company’s names, and products strategically placed in movies and television shows, often go unnoticed by consumers, capitalizing on our brain’s mechanisms to modulate preference based on non-conscious exposure.
Changizi’s research suggests that such advertising tactics work because they tap into our non-conscious mechanisms for optimal preferences, hijacking them for selling a company’s products. The research could hold potential for marketers interested in optimizing their advertising for the human mind, Changizi says.
Changizi conducted his research with Shinsuke Shimojo, professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology. The project was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
一篇報導引述在《Perception》期刊的研究，來自幾間學校包括CalTech的學者一起做了實驗，學者以「廣告」為例，一個常常出現的廣告，對消費者有立刻的影響力，因此許多強力廣告的效果往往是很成功的，造成「大家都去買」、「大家都在用」，因此你不得不用！台灣這邊也有所謂「西瓜偎大邊」的觀察，當一個majority出現後，它的吸眾力量就會更大，大家也更不理性的去愛一樣東西。在「初期」的效果非常強。
假如這是一場選舉，選完就算了，那這初期的效果就足以漂亮的完成使命！但，若這是一樣商品、一個電視節目、一位藝人，紅一個月沒有用，紅五年才賺得飽，這種「紅太快」的會產生一個問題，啟動人類的另一個天性。科學家還說，這個天性，其實是人類這種高等動物特有的天性──原來，人類有個機制，他在思考該「喜歡」Ａ或Ｂ之前，會先在大腦內自動計算Ａ或Ｂ會給他多大的「回饋」(payoff)，再來決定要喜歡Ａ還是Ｂ！有趣的是，人類原來還有個機制，如果他「看到」一個東西出現太多次，那表示那個東西已經太豐富了、太多了，表示這個資源比那些稀有的資源還要沒有價值，給他的「回饋」會比較少，而且，此東西由於不夠「稀有」，也因此「不急」著要在今天就先喜歡它！所以，那些瘋狂(fad)的流行，紅得這麼快，但過了一陣子，也就隕落得這麼快(flop)，反而是有些沒紅這麼快的，可以有較久的壽命，甚至是永續的壽命。那，我們要如何介定「是不是太多」？一天給他看一次，叫「多」嗎？還是一周看一次？一個月看一次？
科學家發現，有一種方式，不會在人腦內留下記錄，也就不會有「太多」的現象，這個方式就是「讓他看到，卻沒有印象看到」，讓他只在潛意識留下印象，不曾用顯意識去處理過這個資訊，那麼這條資訊就不會引發剛剛說的「警示太多」的效應。這份研究，除了對廣告業者會有一些思考外，最大的影響，應該是在「人脈學」上面──一個產品可以一窩蜂，但「人脈」這種東西千萬不能一窩蜂。所謂人脈的定義就是「長期經營」、「長期投資」，絕不能只有一個月兩個月的熱度，以後才派得上用場。
然而許多人脈學的專家，強調的是如何「在對方心中留下深刻印象」，所以，換了名片後，下一步就是特地寄信過來附上照片，而且定期寄發電子報，簽名檔都比別人放得還多資訊，這已經幾乎成為台灣這邊人脈專家的標誌動作。有趣的是，我不確定這些人脈專家本身是否真的很有人脈，但這樣「給印象」的方式至少從業界聽來都有一種勉強的感覺。給這麼多印象，反而啟動了剛剛說的「警示太多」的效應。這篇報導告訴我們，真正的人脈取得，就在不經意之間。
Email絕對是太經意了、太打擾了。
MSN也絕對太經意、太打擾了。
簡訊應該也是太經意、太打擾了？
但，在現場換張名片並不會打擾，所以那一瞬間是很重要的。過了那一瞬間，或許，轉寄一些信件也不會打擾。這些信件可能只留下一個名字和一個破破爛爛的簽名檔，完全沒有「人」的痕跡，但寄了幾次，我也會記得這個寄很多笑話的人的名字，下次再出現我也不會忘記。
「顧左右而言他」似乎是人脈學的精髓？
原來，人脈沒有刻意的經營，只有不經意的「邂逅」，自古似乎都是這樣，不會因為人際ｅ化而有丁點差別。
(摘自 Mr.6)
Madison Avenue Magic: Study Reveals Positive Effects of Unconscious Exposure to Advertisements
Findings could help marketers optimize advertising for the human mind
Fads have been a staple of American pop culture for decades, from spandex in the 1980s to skinny jeans today. But while going from fad to flop may seem like the result of fickle consumers, a new study suggests that this is exactly what should be expected for a highly efficient, rationally evolved animal.
The new research, led by cognitive scientist Mark Changizi of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, shows why direct exposure to repeated ads initially increases a consumer’s preference for promoted products, and why the most effective advertisements are the ones consumers don’t even realize they have seen.
It has long been known that repeated visual exposure to an object can affect an observer’s preference for it, initially rapidly increasing preference, and then eventually lowering preference again. This can give way to short-lived fads. But while this may seem illogical, Changizi argues that it makes perfect cognitive sense.
“A rational animal ought to prefer something in proportion to the probable payoff of acting to obtain it,” said Changizi, assistant professor of cognitive science at Rensselaer and lead author of the study, which appears in the online version of the journal Perception. “The frequency at which one is visually exposed to an object can provide evidence about this expected payoff, and our brains have evolved mechanisms that exploit this information, rationally modulating our preferences.”
A small number of visual exposures to an object typically raises the probability of acquiring the object, which enhances preference, according to Changizi.
On the other hand, Changizi says overexposure to an object provides the brain with evidence that the object is overabundant, and is likely not valuable, thereby lowering the individual’s preference for it.
“An individual’s preference for an object based on a large number of visual exposures will almost always take the shape of an inverted ‘U’, with an initial rapid rise in preference based on the enhanced probability that an object can be obtained, followed by a plateau and a gradual decrease in preference as the evidence begins to suggest that the object is overly common and thus not valuable,” Changizi said.
One of the most surprising aspects of visual exposure effects, according to Changizi, is that they are enhanced when visual exposure occurs without conscious recognition.
“This non-conscious mechanism exists because visual exposure information alone, without conscious judgment, has implications for the expected payoff of one’s actions,” Changizi said. “In many natural situations, observers potentially have both exposure schedule information and consciously accessible information about the object, in which case the predicted degree of preference modulations from visual exposure will be dampened, as the visual information is competing with the information from conscious recognition of the object and any subsequent judgment.”
These non-conscious mechanisms for rationally modulating preference are the kind animals without much of a cognitive life can engage in, and Changizi speculates that they are much more ancient.
Advertising that takes the form of apparel branded with company’s names, and products strategically placed in movies and television shows, often go unnoticed by consumers, capitalizing on our brain’s mechanisms to modulate preference based on non-conscious exposure.
Changizi’s research suggests that such advertising tactics work because they tap into our non-conscious mechanisms for optimal preferences, hijacking them for selling a company’s products. The research could hold potential for marketers interested in optimizing their advertising for the human mind, Changizi says.
Changizi conducted his research with Shinsuke Shimojo, professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology. The project was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
全站熱搜
留言列表
