MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Michael Norton 談如何買到快樂

Michael Norton: How to buy happiness

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Michael Norton

2011年11月演講,2012年4月在TEDxCambrdige上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恆

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

在TEDxCambridge中,Michael Norton分享金錢如何買到快樂的有趣研究-當你不是將錢花在自己身上時。請聆聽演講中令人驚訝的研究數據,許多有益社會的花錢方式能使你、你的工作,當然-還有其他人都受益無窮。

 

關於Michael Norton

Michael Norton藉由巧妙的研究,探索人們對買東西和花錢方式的感受。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

Michael I. Norton是哈佛商學院行銷單位行政管理副教授及Marvin Bower研究員。他於Williams大學取得心理學及英語學士學位,並於普林斯頓大學取得心理學博士學位。任職於哈佛商學院之前,Norton教授是麻省理工學院媒體實驗室及史隆管理學院研究員。他的研究發表於眾多領導學術期刊,包括《科學》、《人格與社會心理學》、《心理科學》、《心理學年度評論》,亦發表於一些媒體,如《經濟學人》、《金融時報》、《紐約時報》、《華爾街日報》和《華盛頓郵報》。

 

他的研究兩次獲選為《紐約時報雜誌》年度創意議題,包括2007年的「曖昧促進喜愛」(Ambiguity Promotes Liking)和2009年的「偽裝的自我」(The Counterfeit Self)。他的〈IKEA效應:勞動導致喜愛〉被《哈佛商業評論》選為「2009年突破性想法」。

 

Michael Norton的英語網上資料

Interesting: "The IKEA Effect"

Articles: Michael Norton at HBS

Home: Michael Norton

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Michael Norton 談如何買到快樂

 

今天我想談談金錢與快樂的關係。這是兩件讓很多人花大把時間思考的事,不是試著獲取它們,就是設法增加它們。很多人對這句話頗能產生共鳴-(金錢買不到快樂),所以我們可以在宗教和自助書籍中看見這句話-金錢買不到快樂。我今天想提出的觀點是,其實這並不正確。

 

(笑聲)

 

我是唸商學院的,這就是我們的看法。所以這並不正確。事實上,如果你這麼想,只是因為你花錢的方式不正確。因此,如果你不以習慣的方式花錢,也許如果你將錢花在不同的地方,或許會更快樂些。在我告訴你可以使你更快樂的花錢方式之前,讓我們思考一下一般人的花錢方式,事實上那不會使我們更快樂。

 

我們來看一些自然實驗。CNN在不久前發表了這篇有趣的文章,敘述人們中樂透時會發生什麼情形。人們總是認為,當他們中樂透後,生活會變得更美好;這篇文章寫的是他們的生活如何因此而變得一團糟。所以當人們中樂透後會發生的情形是:第一,他們花光了所有獎金而負債累累;第二,他們的朋友和所有他們認識的人找上門來向他們索取金錢;事實上這會毀了他們社會關係,因此他們比贏得樂透之前擁有更多的債務和更糟的朋友關係。

 

這篇文章的有趣之處在於,人們開始評論這篇文章,讀者之類的,但他們談論不是這篇文章如何讓他們意識到金錢無法帶來快樂,大家一窩蜂地開始談論:「你知道我中了樂透後會做什麼嗎?」然後開始幻想他們會做什麼。這只是其中兩則思考起來相當有趣的觀點。

 

一個人寫道,「我中樂透後,打算買座屬於自己的小山,並在山頂建一棟小屋。」(笑聲)另一個人寫道,「我會在一個大浴缸裡裝滿錢,然後跳進浴缸裡,抽著一支大雪茄,享用香檳。」接下來更糟,「然後我會照一大堆照片洗出來,任何向我索取金錢或試圖勒索我的人,除了這些照片,什麼也得不到。」(笑聲)

 

很多評論都是這一類的。當人有錢時,事實上他們會出現反社會行為。所以我說過,這會毀了他們的生活及與朋友的關係。還有,金錢通常會讓我們變得非常自私,只為了自己著想。也許金錢無法使我們快樂的原因,在於我們總是將錢花在錯誤的地方,尤其是,我們總是將錢花自己身上。

 

我們想知道,如果讓人們將錢花在別人身上,會發生什麼情形?因此,如果不是用錢使自己變得反社會,而是用錢使自己對社會有益呢?我們想,不妨讓人們實驗一下,看看會發生什麼情形。因此,我們讓一些人以習慣的方式,將錢花在自己身上,然後讓一些人將錢花在別人身上,衡量他們的快樂程度,看看是否會變得更快樂。

 

我們第一個實驗方式是,某個早晨,我們走進溫哥華卑詩大學校園,對某些人說,「你想參加一個實驗嗎?」他們說,「好啊!」我們詢問他們的快樂程度,然後給他們一個信封,其中一個信封裡有張紙條,寫著,「在今天下午五點之前,將這筆錢花在自己身上。」我們給他們一些如何花錢的例子;另一些人的紙條上寫著,「在今天下午五點之前,將這筆錢花在別人身上。」信封裡也一樣裝了些錢。我們在其中放了面額不等的錢,因此有些人拿到這張紙條和五美元,有些人拿到這張紙條和二十美元。我們讓他們自行決定如何過這一天,做他們想做的事。我們發現,他們確實遵照我們指示的方式花錢。到了晚上,我們打電話給他們,問道,「你將錢花在哪裡?你現在感覺多快樂?」

 

他們將錢花在什麼地方?好,實驗者都是大學生,所以他們將錢花在自己身上時,大多都是買耳環或化妝品之類的。一位女性說,她為侄女買了一個絨毛玩偶;有人將錢給了無家可歸的人;星巴克在此地頗受歡迎。(笑聲)所以如果你給大學生五美元,這筆錢在他們眼中相當於咖啡,他們會衝進星巴克,盡可能迅速地把錢花掉。但有些人為自己買了咖啡,這是他們通常的做法;但有些人說,他們買了咖啡請別人喝。所以,購買同樣的東西,差別只在於為自己或為別人買。這天結束後,當我們致電給他們時,有什麼發現?將錢花在別人身上的人比較快樂;將錢花在自己身上的人沒什麼改變;這並不會讓他們更不快樂,只是對他們沒什麼影響。我們觀察到的另一點是,金額多寡並不是很重要;人們認為二十美元的效果會比五美元好,事實上你花了多少錢並不重要,真正重要的是,你將錢花在別人身上而不是自己身上。

 

我們一再目睹這種情形,當我們讓人們將錢花在別人身上,而不是自己身上時。當然,實驗對象是加拿大大學生,他們並非世上最具代表性的人口,他們也相當富裕、衣食無虞等等,我們想知道這個結論是否適用於世界各地的人,或這只是富裕國家特有的現象,因此我們前往烏干達,進行一項非常類似的實驗。所以想像一下,我們不僅詢問加拿大人,「請描述最近一次你將錢花在自己或別人身上的情形,這讓你感到多快樂?」或在烏干達,「請描述最近一次你將錢花在自己或別人身上的情形。」然後同樣詢問他們,這讓他們感到多快樂。

 

我們看到相當驚人的結果-人類用錢方式的共通性及文化差異造成的不同結果。因此,例如一位來自烏干達的傢伙說,「我打電話給一個我暗戀的女孩,基本上我們是出去約會。」他說,到目前為止他還沒「得」到她。這是來自加拿大的傢伙,情況非常類似,「我請我的女友吃晚餐,我們去看電影,然後提早離開,到她房間…」-吃蛋糕,只是吃蛋糕而已。

 

人類的共通性-所以你將錢花在別人身上,善待他們,也許你有什麼目的,也許沒有,但我們看到相當大的差異。因此,看看這兩個例子。這是一位來自加拿大的女性,我們說,「請描述某次你將錢花在別人身上的情形。」她說,「我為我母親買了禮物;我開車去商場買了禮物,送給我媽媽。」相當棒的做法,送禮物給熟識的人感覺很不錯。將這件事與這位烏干達女性所做的事比較一下,「我遇見一位老朋友,她兒子得了瘧疾,他們沒錢,我給她這筆錢,讓他們去診所看病。」這不是一萬美金,而是當地貨幣。因此,事實上這是一筆小錢,但其中的動機大不相同。這個是真正的醫療需求,能救人一命的金錢付出,之前的只是-我為母親買了禮物。但我們再次看見,針對讓自己快樂這一點來說,你將錢花別人身上的具體方式,並不比你將錢花別人身上這個事實重要。

 

這確實相當重要。所以你不必做了不起的事,就能用金錢讓自己感到快樂。你可以做微不足道的事,依然能從中得到快樂。這只是兩個國家的情形,如果可以的話,我們也希望能做更廣泛的研究,觀察世上每個國家的情形,看看金錢和快樂之間有何相關性。

 

這是我們從蓋洛普機構得到的數據。你們可以從最近的政治調查中得知,他們問人們,「你最近有捐錢給慈善機構嗎?」然後再問他們,「大致來說,你的生活過得多快樂?」我們可以看出這兩件事之間的關連性。它們是正相關嗎?付出金錢讓你感到快樂;或是負相關?在這張地圖上,綠色代表它們是正相關,紅色代表示它們是負相關。你們可以看到,世界幾乎全被綠色佔領。因此,幾乎世上每一個包含在研究數據中的國家,捐錢給慈善機構的人比不捐錢給慈善機構的人快樂。我知道你們都盯著中間那個紅色國家,如果我不告訴你們那是哪個國家就太白目了,事實上那是中非共和國。你可以找些理由,也許這是出於某種不同原因;位於它右下方的是盧安達,呈現一片美妙的綠色。因此,幾乎在我們所見的每一個地方都能看出,慷慨付出比一毛不拔更能讓你感到快樂。

 

那在工作上呢?我們與家人、朋友相處之外的時間幾乎都在花在工作上。我們決定滲透到一些公司裡,進行非常類似的實驗。所以這是比利時的行銷團隊,他們以團隊方式工作,向醫生推銷藥品。因此,我們可以看看他們的業績和團隊成員之間的相關性。在某些團隊中,我們給團隊成員一些錢,然後說,「照你的意思將它花在自己身上。」就像我們對加拿大大學生所做的一樣。但我們對另一些團隊說,「這是15歐元,在這個星期內將它花在你其中一位隊友身上,為他們買份禮物,送給他們。」我們可以看到,現在有一些將錢花在自己身上的隊伍;也有一些親社會隊伍,我們給他們錢,用途是讓整個團隊變得更好。這裡出現一個可笑玩偶的原因是,其中一個團隊用他們的錢合買了這個玩偶,他們帶著玩偶四處行銷,只要搖動玩偶就會有糖果掉出來等等。這是件相當愚蠢而無聊的事,但想想這與那些沒這麼做的團隊之間的差異。他們拿了15歐元,放進口袋裡,也許為自己買了杯咖啡;而進行這種親社會體驗的團隊,他們集資買了些東西,進行團隊活動。我們看到的是,親社會團隊的銷售量比那些只將錢用在自己身上的團隊更好。思考其中差異的一個方式是,當你讓人們將15歐元花在自己身上,他們將這筆錢放進自己口袋裡,他們的行為不會產生什麼改變,你無法藉此獲得額外利益;事實上你白費了這筆錢,因為這無法激勵他們做出更好的改變。但當你給他們15歐元,花在自己隊友身上時,他們提升了團隊的表現,事實上你藉由這種投資獲得巨大的利益。

 

我瞭解,你們或許會認為這些想法都很不錯,但公共政策還有更重要的脈絡-我無法想像這行得通,基本上,如果他無法證明這行得通,我無法相信他說的任何事。我知道你們都會想到躲避球隊。(笑聲)有個針對我們的批評是,如果無法用躲避球隊證明這一點,這些論點全都是無稽之談。因此我們找了一些躲避球隊,滲透到他們當中,進行跟之前完全一樣的實驗。因此,在一些球隊中,我們給他們錢,讓他們花在自己身上;在另一些球隊中,我們給他們錢,讓他們花在隊友身上。將錢花在自己身上的球隊,獲勝率跟之前一樣;將錢花在隊友身上的球隊,整個球隊改頭換面。事實上,當球賽結束時,他們稱霸聯盟。

 

在所有不同的情況下-你的個人生活、工作生活,甚至一些愚蠢的事,像校內體育活動,我們看見,將錢花在別人身上比花在自己身上得到的回報更多。所以,我想說的是,如果你認為金錢無法買到快樂,那是因為你沒有正確的花錢。這不是指你該不該買這個或那個產品,而是讓自己更快樂的花錢方式。事實上,你應該停止思考該為自己買什麼東西,試著將一些錢用在別人身上。

 

幸運的是,我們能提供你一個機會。DonorsChoose.org是一個非營利組織,主要是幫助低收入公立學校裡的教師。他們張貼一些計畫,像是-「我想向學生介紹《頑童歷險記》,但我們沒有教材。」或「我想用顯微鏡來教學,但我們沒有顯微鏡。」我們可以為他們購買這些東西,老師會寫感謝信給你,孩子們會寫感謝信給你,有時他們會將使用顯微鏡的照片寄給你,這是件相當棒的事。進入這個網站,開始反思,同樣地,少思考一些,「我要怎麼將錢花在自己身上?」多思考一些,「如果我有5美元或15美元,我能做什麼對他人有益的事?」因為當你這麼做時,最後會發現,自己才是獲益最多的人。

 

謝謝。

 

(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this Talk

At TEDxCambridge, Michael Norton shares fascinating research on how money can, indeed buy happiness -- when you don't spend it on yourself. Listen for surprising data on the many ways pro-social spending can benefit you, your work, and (of course) other people.

About the Speaker

Through clever studies, Michael Norton studies how we feel about what we buy and spend. Full bio »

Transcript

So I want to talk today about money and happiness, which are two things that a lot of us spend a lot of our time thinking about, either trying to earn them or trying to increase them.And a lot of us resonate with this phrase. So we see it in religions and self-help books,that money can't buy happiness. And I want to suggest today that, in fact, that's wrong.(Laughter) I'm at a business school, so that's what we do. So that's wrong, and, in fact, if you think that, you're actually just not spending it right. So that instead of spending it the way you usually spend it, maybe if you spent it differently, that might work a little bit better.

And before I tell you the ways that you can spend it that will make you happier, let's think about the ways we usually spend it that don't, in fact, make us happier. We had a little natural experiment. So CNN, a little while ago, wrote this interesting article on what happens to people when they win the lottery. It turns out people think when they win the lottery their lives are going to be amazing. This article's about how their lives get ruined.

So what happens when people win the lottery is, number one, they spend all the money and go into debt, and number two, all of their friends and everyone they've ever met find them and bug them for money. And it ruins their social relationships, in fact. So they have more debt and worse friendships than they had before they won the lottery.

What was interesting about the article was people started commenting on the article, readers of the thing. And instead of talking about how it had made them realize that money doesn't lead to happiness, everyone instantly started saying, "You know what I would do if I won the lottery ... ?" and fantasizing about what they'd do. And here's just two of the ones we saw that are just really interesting to think about. One person wrote in, "When I win, I'm going to buy my own little mountain and have a little house on top."

(Laughter)

And another person wrote, "I would fill a big bathtub with money and get in the tub while smoking a big fat cigar and sipping a glass of champagne." This is even worse now: "Then I'd have a picture taken and dozens of glossies made. Anyone begging for money or trying to extort from me would receive a copy of the picture and nothing else." (Laughter)And so many of the comments were exactly of this type, where people got money and, in fact, it made them antisocial.

So I told you that it ruins people's lives and that their friends bug them. It also, money often makes us feel very selfish and we do things only for ourselves. Well maybe the reason that money doesn't make us happy is that we're always spending it on the wrong things,and in particular, that we're always spending it on ourselves. And we thought, I wonder what would happen if we made people spend more of their money on other people. So instead of being antisocial with your money, what if you were a little more prosocial with your money? And we thought, let's make people do it and see what happens. So let's have some people do what they usually do and spend money on themselves, and let's make some people give money away, and measure their happiness and see if, in fact, they get happier.

So the first way that we did this. On one Vancouver morning, we went out on the campusat University of British Columbia and we approached people and said, "Do you want to be in an experiment?" They said, "Yes." We asked them how happy they were, and then we gave them an envelope. And one of the envelopes had things in it that said, "By 5:00 pm today, spend this money on yourself." So we gave some examples of what you could spend it on. Other people, in the morning, got a slip of paper that said, "By 5:00 pm today, spend this money on somebody else."

Also inside the envelope was money. And we manipulated how much money we gave them. So some people got this slip of paper and five dollars. Some people got this slip of paper and 20 dollars. We let them go about their day. They did whatever they wanted to do. We found out that they did in fact spend it in the way that we asked them to. We called them up at night and asked them, "What'd you spend it on, and how happy do you feel now?" What did they spend it on?

Well these are college undergrads, so a lot of what they spent it on for themselves were things like earrings and makeup. One woman said she bought a stuffed animal for her niece. People gave money to homeless people. Huge effect here of Starbucks. (Laughter)So if you give undergraduates five dollars, it looks like coffee to them and they run over to Starbucks and spend it as fast as they can. But some people bought a coffee for themselves, the way they usually would, but other people said that they bought a coffee for somebody else. So the very same purchase, just targeted toward yourself or targeted toward somebody else.

What did we find when we called them back at the end of the day? People who spent money on other people got happier. People who spent money on themselves, nothing happened. It didn't make them less happy, it just didn't do much for them. And the other thing we saw is the amount of money doesn't matter that much. So people thought that 20 dollars would be way better than five dollars. In fact, it doesn't matter how much money you spent. What really matters is that you spent it on somebody else rather than on yourself. We see this again and again when we give people money to spend on other people instead of on themselves.

Of course, these are undergraduates in Canada -- not the world's most representative population. They're also fairly wealthy and affluent and all these other sorts of things. We wanted to see if this holds true everywhere in the world or just among wealthy countries.So we went, in fact, to Uganda and ran a very similar experiment. So imagine, instead of just people in Canada, we said, "Name the last time you spent money on yourself or other people. Describe it. How happy did it make you?" Or in Uganda, "Name the last time you spent money on yourself or other people and describe that." And then we asked them how happy they are again. And what we see is sort of amazing because there's human universals on what you do with your money and then real cultural differences on what you do as well.

So for example, one guy from Uganda says this. He said, "I called a girl I wished to love."They basically went out on a date, and he says at the end that he didn't "achieve" her up till now. Here's a guy from Canada. Very similar thing. "I took my girlfriend out for dinner. We went to a movie, we left early, and then went back to her room for ... " only cake -- just a piece of cake. Human universal -- so you spend money on other people, you're being nice to them. Maybe you have something in mind, maybe not.

But then we see extraordinary differences. So look at these two. This is a woman from Canada. We say, "Name a time you spent money on somebody else." She says, "I bought a present for my mom. I drove to the mall in my car, bought a present, gave it to my mom."Perfectly nice thing to do. It's good to get gifts for people that you know. Compare that to this woman from Uganda. "I was walking and met a long-time friend whose son was sick with malaria. They had no money, they went to a clinic and I gave her this money." This isn't $10,000, it's the local currency. So it's a very small amount of money, in fact. But enormously different motivations here.

This is a real medical need, literally a life-saving donation. Above, it's just kind of, I bought a gift for my mother. What we see again though is that the specific way that you spend on other people isn't nearly as important as the fact that you spend on other people in order to make yourself happy, which is really quite important. So you don't have to do amazing things with your money to make yourself happy. You can do small, trivial things and yet still get these benefits from doing this.

These are only two countries. We also wanted to go even broader and look at every country in the world if we could to see what the relationship is between money and happiness. We got data from the Gallup Organization, which you know from all the political polls that have been happening lately. They ask people, "Did you donate money to charity recently?" and they ask them, "How happy are you with your life in general?" And we can see what the relationship is between those two things. Are they positively correlated? Giving money makes you happy. Or are they negatively correlated?

On this map, green will mean they're positively correlated and red means they're negatively correlated. And you can see, the world is crazily green. So in almost every country in the world where we have this data, people who give money to charity are happier people that people who don't give money to charity. I know you're all looking at that red country in the middle. I would be a jerk and not tell you what it is, but in fact, it's Central African Republic. You can make up stories. Maybe it's different there for some reason or another. Just below that to the right is Rwanda though, which is amazingly green. So almost everywhere we look we see that giving money away makes you happier than keeping it for yourself.

What about your work life, which is where we spend all the rest of our time when we're not with the people we know. We decided to infiltrate some companies and do a very similar thing. So these are sales teams in Belgium. They work in teams; they go out and sell to doctors and try to get them to buy drugs. So we can look and see how well they sell thingsas a function of being a member of a team.

Some teams, we give people on the team some money for themselves and say, "Spend it however you want on yourself," just like we did with the undergrads in Canada. But other teams we say, "Here's 15 euro. Spend it on one of your teammates this week. Buy them something as a gift or a present and give it to them. And then we can see, well now we've got teams that spend on themselves and we've got these prosocial teams who we give money to make the team a little bit better.

The reason I have a ridiculous pinata there is one of the teams pooled their money and bought a pinata, and they all got around and smashed the pinata and all the candy fell out and things like that. A very silly, trivial thing to do, but think of the difference on a team that didn't do that at all, that got 15 euro, put it in their pocket, maybe bought themselves a coffee, or teams that had this prosocial experience where they all bonded together to buy something and do a group activity.

What we see is that, in fact, the teams that are prosocial sell more stuff than the teams that only got money for themselves. And one way to think about it is for every 15 euro you give people for themselves, they put it in their pocket, they don't do anything different than they did before. You don't get any money from that. You actually lose money because it doesn't motivate them to perform any better. But when you give them 15 euro to spend on their teammates, they do so much better on their teams that you actually get a huge win on investing this kind of money.

And I realize that you're probably thinking to yourselves, this is all fine, but there's a context that's incredibly important for public policy and I can't imagine it would work there. And basically that if he doesn't show me that it works here, I don't believe anything he said.And I know what you're all thinking about are dodgeball teams. (Laughter) This was a huge criticism that we got to say, if you can't show it with dodgeball teams, this is all stupid.

So we went out and found these dodgeball teams and infiltrated them. And we did the exact same thing as before. So some teams, we give people on the team money, they spend it on themselves. Other teams, we give them money to spend on their dodgeball teammates. The teams that spend money on themselves are just the same winning percentages as they were before. The teams that we give the money to spend on each other, they become different teams and, in fact, they dominate the league by the time they're done.

Across all of these different contexts -- your personal life, you work life, even silly things like intramural sports -- we see spending on other people has a bigger return for you than spending on yourself. And so I'll just say, I think if you think money can't buy happinessyou're not spending it right. The implication is not you should buy this product instead of that product and that's the way to make yourself happier. It's in fact, that you should stop thinking about which product to buy for yourself and try giving some of it to other people instead.

And we luckily have an opportunity for you. DonorsChoose.org is a non-profit for mainly public school teachers in low-income schools. They post projects, so they say, "I want to teach Huckleberry Finn to my class and we don't have the books," or "I want a microscope to teach my students science and we don't have a microscope." You and I can go on and buy it for them. The teacher writes you a thank you note. The kids write you a thank you note. Sometimes they send you pictures of them using the microscope. It's an extraordinary thing. Go to the website and start yourself on the process of thinking, again, less about "How can I spend money on myself?" and more about "If I've got five dollars or 15 dollars, what can I do to benefit other people?" Because ultimately when you do that, you'll find that you'll benefit yourself much more.

Thank you.

(Applause)


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入1 + 4 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

目前暫無評論,快來留言吧!

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: