I'd like you to take a moment and consider what you are wearing right now.
我想请你花点时间，想想你现在穿的是什么衣服。
I have a deep, philosophical question for you.
我有一个深刻的哲学问题要问你。
Why are we not all wearing comfortable pajamas right now?
为什么我们现在都没有穿着舒适的睡衣呢？
Well, I'm a psychologist and not a mind reader, although many people think that's the same thing.
我是个心理学家，但我不会读心术，尽管很多人认为这是一回事。
I can bet you that your response is somewhere along the lines of,
我敢打赌，你的回答大概是，
"I'm expected to not wear pj's in public" or "I don't want people to think I am a slob."
“我不应该在公共场合穿睡衣”或“我不希望人们认为我是个懒汉”。
Either way, the fact that we all chose to wear business casual clothing,
无论如何，我们都选择穿商务休闲装的这个事实，
as opposed to our favorite pair of sweatpants, is not a silly coincidence.
而不是穿最喜欢的运动裤，这并不是一个愚蠢的巧合。
Instead, it reveals two defining human characteristics.
相反，它揭示了人类的两个特征。
The first is that we are cognizant of what other people value,
首先，我们知道别人看重什么，
like what they will approve or disapprove of, such as not wearing pj's to these sorts of settings.
比如他们会赞成或不赞成什么，比如不穿睡衣去类似的场合。
And two, we've readily used this information to guide our behavior.
第二，我们很容易地用这些信息来指导我们的行为。
Unlike many other species, humans are prone to tailor their behavior in the presence of others to garner approval.
与许多其他物种不同，人类倾向于在他人面前调整自己的行为，以获得认可。
We spend valuable time putting on make up, choosing the right picture and Instagram filter,
我们花了很多宝贵的时间化妆，挑选好看的照片和Instagram滤镜，
and composing ideas that will undoubtedly change the world in 140 characters or less.
以及分享一些无疑会改变世界的想法，使用不超过140个字符。
Clearly, our concern with how other people will evaluate us is a big part of being human.
很明显，生活的一个重要组成部分就是在意他人如何评价我们。
Despite this being a big human trait,
然而，尽管这是人类的一大特点，
however, we know relatively little about when and how we come to care about the opinion of others.
我们对自己从何时以及如何开始在意他人的看法却知之甚少。
Now, this is a big question that requires many studies.
这是一个需要很多研究的大问题。
But the first step to uncovering this question is to investigate when in development we become sensitive to others' evaluations.
但是揭开这个问题的第一步，是从逐渐成长的过程中调查，我们从何时对他人的评价变得敏感。
I have spent the past four years at Emory University investigating how an infant,
过去四年里，我在埃默里大学研究一个婴儿是如何
who has no problem walking around the grocery store in her onesie,
从一个穿着连体衣在杂货店里走来走去的人，
develops into an adult that fears public speaking for fear of being negatively judged.
成长为一个因害怕负面评价，而不敢在公众场合发言的成年人。
Now, this is usually a point when people ask me, "How do you investigate this question, exactly? Infants can't talk, right?"
到这步，人们通常会问我，“那你是如何调查这个问题的？婴儿不是不会说话，对吧？”
Well, if my husband were up here right now, he would tell you that I interview babies,
如果我丈夫现在在这里，他会告诉你我在采访婴儿，
because he would rather not say that his wife experiments on children.
因为他不想说他的妻子在用孩子做实验。
In reality, I design experiments for children, usually in the form of games.
其实，我为孩子们设计的实验，通常是以游戏的形式。
Developmental psychologist Dr. Philippe Rochat and I designed a "game" called "The Robot Task"
发展心理学家菲利普·罗查特博士和我，设计了一个名为“机器人任务”的“游戏”，
to explore when children would begin to be sensitive to the evaluation of others.
用以探索孩子们什么时候开始对他人的评价变得敏感。
Specifically, the robot task captures when children, like adults, strategically modify their behavior when others are watching.
具体来说，这个实验用来发现什么时候孩子们，会像成年人一样，在别人观看的时候战略性地改变他们的行为。
To do this, we showed 14 to 24-month-old infants how to activate a toy robot,
为了做到这一点，我们向14到24个月大的婴儿演示了如何激活一个玩具机器人，
and importantly, we either assigned a positive value,
重要的是，我们要么给一个正反馈，
saying "Wow, isn't that great!" or a negative value, saying, "Oh, oh. Oops, oh no," after pressing the remote.
说，“哇，真棒！”要么给一个负反馈，说，“哦，噢。天哪，不，”当按下遥控器的时候。
Following this toy demonstration, we invited the infants to play with the remote,
在这个玩具演示之后，我们邀请婴儿玩遥控器，
and then either watched them or turned around and pretended to read a magazine.
然后要么看着他们，要么转过身假装在看杂志。
The idea was that if by 24 months, children are indeed sensitive to the evaluation of others,
这个想法是，如果在24个月大的时候，孩子们确实对他人的评价敏感，
then their button-pressing behavior should be influenced not only by whether or not they're being watched
那么他们按按钮的行为不仅会受到是否被观察的影响，
but also by the values that the experimenter expressed towards pressing the remote.
还会受到实验者对按遥控器所表达的反馈的影响。
So for example, we would expect children to play with the positive remote significantly more
例如，我们发现孩子们在被观察的情况下玩积极的遥控器玩得更多，
if they were being observed but then choose to explore the negative remote once no one was watching.
但是一旦没有人看，他们就会选择探索消极的遥控器。
To really capture this phenomenon, we did three variations of the study.
为了深入了解这一现象，我们设计了三种不同的条件。
Study one explored how infants would engage with a novel toy if there were no values or instructions provided.
第一项研究探讨了如果没有反馈或指令，婴儿将如何尝试新玩具。
So we simply showed infants how to activate the toy robot, but didn't assign any values,
我们只是简单地向婴儿展示如何激活玩具机器人，但没有给他们任何反馈，
and we also didn't tell them that they could play with the remote, providing them with a really ambiguous situation.
我们也没有告诉他们可以玩遥控器，这给他们提供了一个非常模糊的情况。
In study two, we incorporated the two values, a positive and a negative.
第二项研究中，我们将两个反馈放在一起测试，一个是正的，一个是负的。
And in the last study, we had two experimenters and one remote.
在最后一项研究中，我们有两个实验者和一个遥控器。
One experimenter expressed a negative value towards pressing the remote, saying, "Yuck, the toy moved,"
一名实验者对按遥控器的行为表现出消极，说：“哎呀，玩具动了”。
while the other experimenter expressed a positive value, saying, "Yay, the toy moved."
而另一名实验者则表现出积极的反馈，说，“耶，玩具动了”。
And this is how the children reacted to these three different scenarios.
以下是孩子们对这三个不同的场景的反应。
So in study one, the ambiguous situation, I'm currently watching the child.
在研究一，在这个模糊不清的情境中，我正在观察这个孩子。
She doesn't seem to be too interested in pressing the remote.
她似乎对按遥控器不太感兴趣。
Once I turned around -- now she's ready to play.
我一转身，她就准备好要去按遥控器了。
Currently, I'm not watching the child. She's really focused. I turn around.
目前，我没有在注视这个孩子。她真的很专注。我转过身来了。
She wasn't doing anything, right?
她什么都没做，对吧？
In study two, it's the two remotes, one with the positive and one with the negative value.
在研究二中，是两个遥控器，一个带着积极的评价，一个带着消极的评价。

I'm currently observing the child. And the orange remote is a negative remote.
我正在观察这个孩子。橙色的遥控器是消极的。
She's just looking around, looking at me, hanging out.
她只是环顾四周，看着我，在外面闲逛。
Then I turn around ... That's what she's going for.
然后我转身...这就是她想要的。
I'm not watching the child. He wants the mom to play with it, right? Take a safer route.
我没在看孩子。他想让妈妈陪他玩，对吧？真是安全的选择。
I turn around ... He wasn't doing anything, either. Yeah, he feels awkward.
我回头...他也什么都没做。是啊，他觉得很尴尬。
Everyone knows that side-eyed glance, right?
每个人都看到那侧眼一瞥，对吧？
Study three, the two experimenters, one remote.
研究三，两个实验者和一个遥控器。
The experimenter that reacted negatively towards pressing the remote is watching the child right now.
实验者看着孩子时，对按遥控器表现出消极的态度。
She feels a little awkward, doesn't know what to do, relying on Mom.
她觉得有点尴尬，不知道该怎么办，全靠妈妈。
And then, she's going to turn around so that the experimenter that expressed a positive response is watching.
然后，她会转过身来让表现出积极反应的实验者看着她。
Coast is clear -- now she's ready to play.
危险已经过去--现在她准备好要玩了。
So, as the data suggests, we found that children's button-pressing behavior
因此，正如数据显示的那样，我们发现孩子们按按钮的行为
was indeed influenced by the values and the instructions of the experimenter.
确实受到了实验者的反馈和指示的影响。
Because in study one, children did not know what would be positively or negatively evaluated,
因为在第一项研究中，孩子们不知道什么是正面评价，什么是负面评价，
they tended to take the safest route and wait until I turned my back to press the remote.
他们倾向于选择最安全的路径，他们等到我转过身再去按遥控器。
Children in study two chose to press the positive remote significantly more when I was watching,
研究二的孩子们，在我看着的时候，明显更愿意按积极的遥控器，
but then once I turned my back, they immediately took the negative remote and started playing with it.
但当我一转身，他们立刻拿起消极的遥控器开始玩。
Importantly, in a control study, where we removed the different values of the remotes
重要的是，在一项对照研究中，我们把遥控器不同的反馈统统去掉，
so we simply said, "Oh, wow" after pressing either of the remotes
按遥控器后我们简单地说，“噢，哇”，
children's button-pressing behavior no longer differed across conditions,
儿童按按钮行为不再在各种条件下发生变化，
suggesting that it was really the values that we gave the two remotes that drove the behavior in the previous study.
这表明在之前的研究中，影响儿童行为的确实是我们给的两个遥控器所设定的反馈值。
Last but not least, children in study three chose to press a remote significantly more
最后但很重要的一点是，研究三的孩子们会明显地更多地按遥控器，
when the experimenter that expressed a positive value was watching, as opposed to the experimenter that had expressed a negative value.
在看到表现出积极价值的实验者和表现出消极价值的实验者时。
Not coincidentally, it is also around this age
并非巧合的是，也正是在这个年龄，
that children begin to show embarrassment in situations that might elicit a negative evaluation,
孩子们开始在可能引发负面评价的情况下表现出尴尬，
such as looking at themselves in the mirror and noticing a mark on their nose.
比如看着镜子里的自己，注意到自己鼻子上的一个标记。
The equivalent of finding spinach in your teeth, for adults.
对成年人来说，这相当于在牙齿里发现菠菜。
So what can we say, based on these findings? Besides the fact that babies are actually really, really sneaky.
基于这些发现，我们能说些什么呢？除了婴儿实际上非常狡猾之外？
From very early on, children, like adults, are sensitive to the values that we place on objects and behaviors.
从很小的时候起，孩子就像成年人一样，对我们对物体和行为的反馈很敏感。
And importantly, they use these values to guide their behavior.
重要的是，他们用这些反馈来指导他们的行为。
Whether we're aware of it or not, we're constantly communicating values to those around us.
无论我们意识到与否，我们都在不断地与周围的人交流观念。
Now, I don't mean values like "be kind" or "don't steal," although those are certainly values.
我并不是说“善良”或“不偷窃”之类的想法，尽管这些确实是价值观。
I mean that we are constantly showing others, specifically our children,
我的意思是，我们不断地向他人，尤其是我们的孩子，
what is likeable, valuable and praiseworthy, and what is not.
展示什么是可爱的、有价值的、值得称赞的，或者什么不是。
And a lot of the times, we actually do this without even noticing it.
很多时候，我们这样做时，甚至都没有注意到。
Psychologists study behavior to explore the contents of the mind,
心理学家研究行为是为了探索内心，
because our behavior often reflects our beliefs, our values and our desires.
因为我们的行为往往反映了我们的信念、价值观和我们的期望。
Here in Atlanta, we all believe the same thing.
在亚特兰大，我们都相信同样的事情。
That Coke is better than Pepsi.
可口可乐比百事可乐好。
Now, this might have to do with the fact that Coke was invented in Atlanta.
这可能与可口可乐诞生于亚特兰大有关。
But regardless, this belief is expressed in the fact that most people will chose to drink Coke.
但无论如何，大多数人会选择喝可乐这一事实表明了这一信念。
In the same way, we are communicating a value when we mostly complement girls for their pretty hair or their pretty dress,
同样地，当我们赞美女孩时，大多数时候我们会赞美她们漂亮的发型或裙子，我们也在传达一种价值观，
but boys, for their intelligence.
但是赞美男孩时却会称赞他们的聪明才智。
Or when we chose to offer candy, as opposed to nutritious food, as a reward for good behavior.
或者当我们选择用糖果，而不是有营养的食物作为表现好时的奖励。
Adults and children are incredibly effective at picking up values from these subtle behaviors.
成年人和儿童都能非常有效地从这些细微的行为中获取其中的观念。
And in turn, this ends up shaping their own behavior.
反过来，这最终塑造了他们自己的行为。
The research I have shared with you today suggests that this ability emerges very early in development,
今天我和大家分享的研究表明，表面这种能力在我们成长的早期就形成了，
before we can even utter a complete sentence or are even potty-trained.
早在我们还没能说出一个完整的句子之前，甚至在我们还没受过上厕所的训练之前。
And it becomes an integral part of who we grow up to be.
它成为我们成长过程中不可或缺的一部分。
So before I go, I'd like to invite you to contemplate on the values that we broadcast in day-to-day interactions,
在我结束之前，我想请你们思考一下，我们在日常交流中应用的价值观，
and how these values might be shaping the behavior of those around you.
以及这些价值观是如何塑造你周围人的行为的。
For example, what value is being broadcasted when we spend more time smiling at our phone than smiling with other people?
例如，当我们花更多的时间对着手机傻笑，而不是对别人微笑时，我们在传播怎样的价值取向？
Likewise, consider how your own behavior has been shaped by those around you, in ways you might not have considered before.
同样，考虑一下你自己的行为是如何被你周围的人塑造的，以你以前可能没有考虑过的方式。
To go back to our simple illustration, do you really prefer Coke over Pepsi?
回到我们简单的例子，相比百事可乐，你真的更喜欢可口可乐吗？
Or was this preference simply driven by what others around you valued?
或者这种偏好仅仅是因为旁人的观点对你的影响？
Parents and teachers certainly have the privilege to shape children's behavior.
父母和老师当然有权去塑造孩子们的行为。
But it is important to remember that through the values we convey in simple day-to-day interactions,
但重要的是要记住，通过我们在日常简单互动中传达的价值观，
we all have the power to shape the behavior of those around us. Thank you.
都能潜移默化地影响你身边人的行为。谢谢大家！