作者：Elizabeth Spayd
編譯：朱弘川
原文網址：http://www.cjr.org/opinion/how_screens_make_us_feel.php
Almost since the dawn of digital media, a meta question has hovered over us: Will the power of journalism diminish as people start reading everything on their phones, tablets, and laptops?
自從網路媒體的崛起後，始終有一個問題圍繞著我們：「當人們開始使用他們的手機、平板和筆電閱讀時，紙媒的影響力是否會逐漸消失？」
Will digital readers be able to concentrate on what they read? Will they develop the same connection and level of empathy for the people and ideas in stories when they read online? Will they find the stories as compelling? Will they engage with them in the same way?
數位閱讀者是否有辦法專注於他們正在閱讀的內容呢？當他們進行線上的閱讀時，能對故事中的人物和觀點產生共鳴嗎？他們能夠感受故事中有趣的地方嗎？他們閱讀紙媒時，也會有同樣的感覺嗎？
Questions like these were at the heart of an ambitious research project that Columbia Journalism Review took on this past year. The first part of our endeavor involved an exhaustive look at past research on how readers respond to digital content versus print. One scientist, Maryanne Wolf, found that a digital reading experience often translates to less time spent on deep, focused reading—the kind that typically develops abstract, creative thinking. Other scientists argued that the internet may be altering the depth of our emotions and even our thoughts. This sounds unnerving at a time when reading on anything but a screen indicates old age or reverence for fading traditions.
這一年來，哥倫比亞新聞評論（Columbia Journalism Review）的一個研究計畫，正試圖幫我們了解這些問題。第一步要做的，是詳盡蒐集過往研究結果，了解讀者面對數位內容和紙媒時，會產生什麼不一樣的反應。科學家瑪莉安‧沃芙（Maryanne Wolf）發現，數位閱讀通常會花較短的時間，在深層的，及培養抽象、創意思考的聚焦式閱讀上，其他的科學家們則論稱，網路可能改變了人們情感的深度，甚至是人們的思想。當只能透過螢幕來閱讀時，傳統的閱讀形式已不復存在，這聽起來似乎是件令人不安的事。
Only our study produced surprising findings: digital readers who participated in our study responded to reading a story quite similarly to those who read it in print.
然而，我們的研究有令人意外的發現：參與研究的數位閱讀者們，與紙媒閱讀者們對於文章內容的回應幾近相同。
A total of 64 college-educated adults, all volunteers, participated in our experiment. One group read a lengthy magazine piece in print, and the other group read the same piece online. We found that those who read the magazine narrative on a digital screen were just as likely as the print readers to be emotionally moved after reading the story. The two groups gave similar answers to almost every question. They both remembered the same level of information about the story when quizzed afterward. Both reported being engaged in the narrative at similar levels. And both groups showed an equal inclination to act on their emotional response to the piece, either by donating time or money to a cause suggested in the story. (The complete story can be found here.)
總共有64名擁有大學教育背景的自願者參與這項實驗，其中一組閱讀一篇很冗長的雜誌文章，另一組則在線上閱讀同一篇文章。研究發現，當閱讀完成後，數位閱讀組的情感表現，與紙本閱讀組的情感表現是很相似的，兩組在每一題的答案上幾乎都相似，後續的測驗中，兩組對於文章內容的記憶也差不多，兩組所描述的文章內容也大致相同。再來，兩組對於文章內容的情感反應，也都有相同的傾向，不管是貢獻的時間或是金錢，都和文章中所提到的要點吻合。（完整的文章在此）
Why did we choose emotional engagement as the factor most crucial to examining the difference between print and digital reading? Because the strength of most journalism lies in its potential not only to inform but to drive people to action, hopefully to serve the public interest.
為什麼我們會選擇情感投入程度，做為檢驗這兩種閱讀方式差異的重要因素呢？因為絕大部分報章雜誌是靠著本身的潛質，不僅用來傳遞訊息，也可以鞭策人們付諸行動，為公共利益服務。
If our study is any gauge, the public interest remains secure. But, as with all social science research, there’s much still to learn. In our experiment, for example, the digital readers were in a quiet room, absorbing a piece they were told to read from beginning to end. A real digital user is more apt to be reading on her smartphone on a subway or walking down the hall on the way to a meeting. We hope future studies will find a way to take this into account.
假設我們的研究是正確的，那麼公共利益是無憂的。但是，就像所有的社會科學研究一樣，仍有很多不足之處。例如，在我們的實驗裡，數位閱讀者是待在一間安靜的房間裡，進行被我們告知的閱讀內容，但實際上，一個真正的數位閱讀者絕大部分都是在搭地鐵時，看著他們的手機進行閱讀，或是往開會路途上進行閱讀，我們希望未來的研究可以把這些因素都考慮進去。
Unfortunately, though, science can carry us only so far as we evaluate the virtues and perils of digital reading. And perhaps not yet, but after a point, it may become a fool’s errand. So what if we do discover that digital readers can’t concentrate? There’s no reversing the inevitable; only 23 percent of Americans said they got their news from print in the past week, compared with 75 percent who get it from digital, a new Reuters survey found. If the power of concentration is indeed worse when reading on a phone, then the goal should be to improve the phone.
不幸的是，科學目前僅能幫助我們評估數位閱讀的好處與壞處，但在未來的某個時間點，這一切也可能變得只是徒勞無功。因為，就算我們發現數位讀者不能專心閱讀又如何？數位閱讀仍是無法避免的趨勢。根據路透社（Reuters）新一期調查發現，在過去一個禮拜中，只有23%的美國人是從紙媒獲取新聞訊息，而75%的美國人是從網路上得知的。如果使用手機閱讀時的專心度確實很糟糕的話，那我們的目標也許是要改進手機。
Print will never lose its place in our heart. A folded newspaper will feel like a friend in a way a mobile phone never will. But that’s not going to bring back the paper.
紙媒在我們心中永遠不會失去它的地位，一份對折的報紙像是老朋友一般，這是手機永遠無法取代的。但即使如此，大家還是不會重拾起這位老朋友。
