2022年考研英语二阅读 Text 4 原文翻译及答案解析

Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior; evidence either way is weak, relying on contrived laboratory tests or sometimes unreliable self-reports. But a new study published in Cognition found that, in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects.

尽管伦理课程在全球范围内很普遍，但科学家们不确定这些课程是否真的能改变行为；无论是支持还是反对的证据都很薄弱，依赖于人为设计的实验室测试或有时不可靠的自我报告。然而，发表在《认知》杂志上的一项新研究发现，至少在一个真实情境中，单次伦理课程可能产生了持久的影响。

The researchers investigated one class session's impact on eating meat. They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitzgebel, a philosopher at the University of California, Riverside: students’ attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good because it reduces environmental harm and animal suffering. Half of the students in four large philosophy classes read an article on the ethics of factory-farmed meat, optionally watched an 11-minute video on the topic and joined a 5O-minute discussion. The other half focused on charitable giving instead. Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester- nearly 14,000 receipts for almost 500 students.

研究人员调查了一节课对食用肉类的影响。据该研究的合著者、加州大学河滨分校的哲学家埃里克·施维茨格贝尔称，他们选择这一特定行为出于三个原因：学生对这个话题的态度多变且不稳定，行为易于测量，而且伦理文献大多认为少吃肉是有益的，因为它能减少环境危害和动物痛苦。在四个大型哲学班级中，一半学生阅读了一篇关于工厂化养殖肉类伦理的文章，可选择观看了一个11分钟的相关视频，并参加了50分钟的讨论。另一半则专注于慈善捐赠。随后，在学生不知情的情况下，研究人员研究了他们该学期匿名餐卡购买记录——近500名学生的近14,000张收据。

Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors, including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books. But among student subjects who discussed meat ethics, meal purchases containing meat decreased from 52 to 45 percent- and this effect held steady for the study's duration of several weeks. Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent.

施维茨格贝尔预测干预不会产生效果；他此前发现伦理学教授在一系列行为上与其他教授没有差异，包括投票率、献血和归还图书。但在讨论肉类伦理的学生受试者中，包含肉类的餐食购买从52%下降到45%——并且这一效果在研究持续的数周内保持稳定。另一组的购买比例保持在52%。

“That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention,,’ Schwitzgebel says. Psychologist Nina Strohminger at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable. And if real, she notes, it might be reversible by another nudge: "Easy come, easy go.”

“对于一个相当小的干预来说，这实际上是一个相当大的效应，”施维茨格贝尔说。宾夕法尼亚大学的心理学家尼娜·斯特罗明格（未参与该研究）表示，她希望这一效应是真实的，但不能排除一些未知的混杂变量。如果是真的，她指出，它可能通过另一个推动而逆转：“来得容易，去得快。”

Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence- classmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common. Second, the video may have had an emotional impact. Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co­ authors say reason might play a bigger role. Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants’ eating habits and students' video exposure. Meanwhile, Schwitzgebel- who had predicted no effect- will be eating his words.

施维茨格贝尔怀疑最大的影响来自社会影响——引导讨论的同学或助教可能分享了自己的素食主义，表明这是可实现或更常见的。其次，视频可能产生了情感影响。他认为最不激发的是理性论证，尽管他的合著者说理性可能扮演更重要的角色。现在研究人员正在探究教学风格、助教的饮食习惯和学生接触视频的具体影响。与此同时，施维茨格贝尔——曾预测没有效果——将不得不收回自己的话。

2022年 英 语 （二 ）试 题 第 ’ 页 共 1 4 页

2022年 英 语 （二 ）试 题 第 ’ 页 共 1 4 页