Apple Pay?Apple Pay是什么？It is the tech company’s new, contactless way of having us pay for things.是这家科技公司新的发售的非接触式缴纳服务。How does it work?怎么用？Imagine you’ve ordered your flat white with soya milk at Pret A Manger. Normally you then have to reach for your bank card and place it on the contactless reader to pay.想象你在Pret A Manger点了一杯特豆奶的白咖啡。一般来说，接下来你要拿著银行卡，放到非接触式读卡器上展开缴纳。And now?那么现在呢？You have to reach for your iPhone 6 and place it on the contactless reader to pay.你得拿走你的iPhone6，然后把手机放到非接触式读卡器上展开缴纳。

This hardly seems to herald a “shake up” in consumer spending.这或许很难说是消费者开支将要步入“巨变”的前兆。In the world of payments, small gains in efficiency can lead to big changes in behaviour. It might not seem like much, but if it were to take one second less to take a phone out of a pocket than a card out of a wallet, then Apple Pay could become the default way to pay for more than coffee. Paying via the iWatch, Apple’s new wrist gizmo, is probably even quicker.在缴纳领域，效率的小幅提高也能引起不道德的极大转变。也许这看上去差距不是相当大，但如果从口袋里拿走手机比从钱包里拿走银行卡要慢1秒的话，那么某种程度是咖啡，Apple Pay可能会变为我们为许多东西付账的配置文件方式。

通过苹果(Apple)新的发售的腕部配件iWatch缴纳很有可能还要更加慢。I just don’t see how it makes much difference.我觉得没什么它能带给多大变化。Perhaps not. But there is more to how payment methods change behaviour than efficiency. We also need to consider what Apple Pay might do to the “pain of paying”.变化也许的确并不大。但就缴纳方式引起不道德的转变而言，问题可不只是效率。

我们还必须考虑到Apple Pay对“缴纳的伤痛”(pain of paying)有可能导致的影响。Is that the pain you feel when you think you might actually have to talk to the human behind the counter?你说道的是在想起被迫和柜台后面的人说出时所感受到的那种伤痛吗？Not quite. It is a term behavioural economists use to describe the salience of paying for something — and how that might affect what it is we are consuming.不全是这样。这是不道德经济学家用于的一个术语，用来叙述缴纳的一种引人注目特性——以及这种特性不会如何影响我们的消费。

I don’t understand.我不明白。Dan Ariely, a psychology professor at Duke University in the US, explains the idea by using pizza.美国杜克大学(Duke University)心理学教授丹縠庂里(Dan Ariely)用披萨来说明这个概念。I like pizza.我讨厌不吃披萨。

I like pizza, too. But I am more likely to like pizza when the pain of paying is low, Prof Ariely says.我也讨厌不吃。但艾瑞里教授说道，如果缴纳的伤痛更加较低，我会更喜欢不吃披萨。You mean when someone else is paying.你的意思是有别人借钱的时候。

Journalists and free food have a longstanding healthy relationship, but that is not what Prof Ariely means. He suggests considering what it would feel like if you were charged for pizza not by the full amount but by the bite. Rather than return at the end of the meal the waiter might lurk nearby and keep a tally of how many times you put the quattro formaggio in your mouth.记者向来能通过长时间的渠道取得免费事物，但这不是艾瑞里教授所说的意思。他明确提出，可以设想一下这样的情况：如果餐厅不是依据食物的全部份量，而是依据你吃的那部分来收费，你是什么感觉？侍者不是在你用餐完结时回到，而是躲藏在附近，记下你把quattro formaggio披萨放入嘴里的次数。I would consider that to be weird.我会实在那样很鬼。Exactly. It might have been cheaper for you to pay for only what you ate but the pain of paying is too high to make it worth it.正是如此。

如果按照你吃的部分来收费，也许的确低廉一些，但缴纳的伤痛过于过高昂，所以不有一点这么做到。Not to mention the pain of chewing. I would have taken very large bites.更加别提磨碎的伤痛了。我认同每一口都会不吃下很多。

Now you can eat in peace and comfort. And when you are done, you can keep the immediate pain of paying low, says Prof Ariely, by not paying in cash.现在你可以放心舒适度地用餐了。艾瑞里教授说道，吃完了以后，你可以通过不必现金支付来减少立刻来临的缴纳的伤痛。Is this because cards are quicker?这是因为用银行卡缴纳更加慢吗？Not always. But behavioural economists have consistently found that since it feels less like spending when we use a credit or debit card, we tend to spend more.不一定。

但不道德经济学家再三找到，用信用卡或者借记卡缴纳感觉不那么像花钱，这使我们偏向于花上得更加多。So if I want to spend less money, I should carry more cash?那么，如果我想要较少花钱，我应当带上更加多现金？Richard Thaler, a behavioural economist, likens spending with cash as “having one’s meter running”: there is a heightened awareness of the pain of payment. And when the meter is running, as Woody Allen showed, we are very aware of it.不道德经济学家理查德帠纳(Richard Thaler)把花现金比作“让我们的计价表并转一起”：我们不会更加反感地意识到缴纳的伤痛。就像伍迪縠伦(Woody Allen)展现出出来的，当计价表跳动的时候，我们不会十分确切地意识到这一点。

Woody Allen?伍迪縠伦？You know the scene: in Manhattan, he’s in a cab with Mary (played by Diane Keaton) and he tells her: “You look so beautiful I can hardly keep my eyes on the meter.”你告诉这一幕：在电影《曼哈顿》(Manhattan)中，伍迪縠伦和黛福蘒罗(Diane Keaton)饰演的玛丽(Mary)躺在出租车上，他对她说道：“你看上去真为美，我完全无法盯着计价表看了。”And you’re saying he wouldn’t have that problem with Apple Pay.那么，你是说道如果用Apple Pay，他就会有这个问题？For a variety of reasons, I can’t see him ever writing the line: “You look so beautiful I can hardly keep my eyes on the Apple Pay notification centre.”出于各种原因，我无法想象他不会写这样的台词：“你看上去真为美，我完全无法盯着Apple Pay的通报中心看了。”I see. So cash is salient. This is presumably why casinos have gamblers exchange money for chips.我明白了。

所以现金才是重点。毕竟这就是为什么赌场不会让赌客把钱替换成筹码。

Yes. As neuroeconomists Drazen Prelec and George Loewenstein have shown, the more payment is “decoupled” from consumption, the more we consume. We also spend on more frivolous and less healthy items when the pain of payment is lower.是的。就像神经经济学家德拉赞渠雷莱克(Drazen Prelec)和乔治勒文施泰因(George Loewenstein)所证明的，缴纳和消费越是“管理体制”，我们消费的就越少。

在缴纳的伤痛更加较低的时候，我们也不会在更为无趣和不那么身体健康的事物上花钱。The pain might be lower but it comes eventually — with interest.缴纳的伤痛有可能更加较低了，但最后它仍然不会来临——和利息一起。

That is if we remember. The academics Priya Raghubir and Joydeep Srivastava have found that we are less likely to remember purchases made by electronic means.如果我们忘记的话。普里亚拉古比尔(Priya Raghubir)和乔伊迪普斯里瓦斯塔瓦(Joydeep Srivastava)两位学者找到，我们更加无以忘记通过电子方式展开的消费。So even if Apple Pay isn’t faster, it may still change how we spend?因此就算Apple Pay并没更加慢，它还是有可能转变我们的消费方式？It is possible. This is merely an idle theory but since a phone or a watch is not normally associated with spending, people may feel even less “pain” when using it than a bank card.有可能。

这只是一个不缜密的理论，但既然我们一般来说会把用于手机或者手表与消费联系在一起，用于这种缴纳方式感受到的“伤痛”也许比用于银行卡还要较少。But I can see how I would start to hate my phone if I knew it were making me poorer.但我能预见，如果我告诉我的手机让我显得更穷，我就不会开始喜欢我的手机了。That is only if you realise what is happening. It comes down to the Woody Allen question: are your eyes on the meter, or elsewhere?除非你意识到再次发生了什么，才不会那样。

这就归结到伍迪縠伦的问题：你的眼睛是盯着计价表，还是别的地方？。

本文来源：esball-www.kmcits0785.com