If you were told that a particularly delicious-looking ice-cream cone contai

游客2024-05-02  12

问题     If you were told that a particularly delicious-looking ice-cream cone contained dangerous chemicals, then told soon after that it was safe to eat after all, would you still choose it? So far, studies by behavioural economists have suggested that people have a hard time forgetting what they have previously been told. In mock trials, jurors(陪审员)are frequently unable to disregard evidence they are later told is unacceptable. But Uri Simonsohn, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Marketing suggesting that some consumers are indeed capable of letting go of wrong information.
    Mr. Simonsohn started by having to dismiss wrong information himself. In early 2007, shortly after he had bought a car seat for his first child, Consumer Reports magazine published a ranking of car seats according to safety. Unfortunately, the magazine had messed up its usually thorough testing procedure, with cars being crashed at much higher speeds than advertised. Two weeks later, Consumer Reports issued a retraction(收回): several car seat brands(including Mr. Simonsohn’s)were safer than the original rankings suggested.
    Mr. Simonsohn tracked online auctions of car seats after both the initial rankings and the retractions. The car seats falsely charged with poor performance saw their prices drop, then rebound quickly. The car-seat buyers were apparently able to disregard the flawed rankings and pay attention to the correct information. "I was shocked," he says. "Because if there’s one product where I would expect people to be overly emotional, it would be child safety."
    The results have led Mr. Simonsohn to rethink the earlier tests of seemingly stubborn consumers. Perhaps the mock jurors refused to give up previous information not out of stubbornness or ignorance but because the experimenters failed to give them sufficient reason to change their minds. Car-seat buyers, in contrast, were willing to accept new information and discard old data because they trusted Consumer Reports.
    This would have implications for more than just behavioural economics. Parents who refuse to vaccinate(给......注射疫苗)their children for fear of autism(孤独症)are also concerned about child safety, but have discounted the strong evidence that no link exists. The problem, Mr. Simonsohn suggests, might lie not with the new information but with the source: few health agencies inspire as much trust as Consumer Reports. [br] Parents refuse to vaccinate their children because they are afraid that it will bring ______ to the children.

选项

答案 autism/harm

解析 文章提到,许多家长害怕孩子患上孤独症而不给他们接种疫苗。因而空格处可填入表示具体症状的autism.也可填抽象概括的harm。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3580539.html
最新回复(0)