2022考研英语阅读真题 Text 4(英语二)

2022 Text 4（英语⼆）伦理学课程有⽤吗？
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 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.
The researchers investigated one class sessions' impact on eating meat.They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitzgebel, a philosopher at the , 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 .
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 50-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.
laboratory tests 尽管伦理学课程在世界各地很常⻅，但科学家们不确定其课程是否真的能改变⾏为；⽆论是哪种⽅式，证据都很薄弱，从依赖⼈为的实验室测试，到有时不可靠的⾃我报告，都是如此。

但是发表在《认知》杂志上的⼀项新研究发现，⾄少在⼀个真实世界的情况下，⼀堂伦理学课可能会产⽣持久的影响。

研究⼈员调查了⼀节课对吃⾁的影响。

University of California animal suffering 研究报告的联合作者、加州⼤学河滨分校的哲学家 Eric Schwitzgebel 表示，他们选择这种特殊的⾏为有三个原因：学⽣对这个话题的态度多变且不稳定，⾏为很容易衡量，伦理⽂献基本上同意少吃⾁是好的因为它减少了环境危害和动物痛苦。

四个⼤型哲学班的⼀半学⽣阅读了⼀篇关于⼯⼚化养殖⾁类的伦理学⽂章，选择观看了关于该主题的 11分钟视频，并参与了 50 分钟的讨论。

另⼀半则专注于慈善捐赠。

然后，在学⽣们不知道的情况下，研究⼈员研究了他们那学期匿名购买的餐卡——近 500 名学⽣的近
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, , 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.
That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention, Schwitzgebel says.
Psychologist Nina Strohminger at , 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."Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social in fluence — classmates or 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.
14000 张收据。

blood donation Schwitzgebel 预测⼲预不会有任何效果；他之前发现伦理学教授在⼀系列⾏为上与其他教授没有什么不同，包括投票率、献⾎和归还图书馆书籍。

但是，在讨论了⾁类伦理的学⽣受试者中，含有⾁类的膳⻝购买量从 52% 下降到 45%——⽽且这种效果在研究的⼏周时间⾥保持稳定。

另⼀组的购买量保持在 52%。

Schwitzgebel 说，对于⼀个⾮常⼩的⼲预来说，这实际上是⼀个相当⼤的影响。

the University of Pennsylvania 宾夕法尼亚⼤学的⼼理学家 Nina Strohminger 没有参与这项研究，她说她希望这种影响是真实的，但不能排除⼀些未知的混淆变量。

她指出，如果是真的，通过另⼀个（因素）推动，其结果也可能是可逆的：“来得容易，去得也容易。

”teaching assistants Schwitzgebel 怀疑最⼤的影响来⾃社会影响——领导讨论的同学或助教可能分享了他们⾃⼰的素⻝主义，表明素⻝主义是可以实现的或更普遍的。

Least rousing, he thinks, was , 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.其次，视频可能产⽣了情感影响。

rational argument 他认为，最不令⼈振奋的是理性的争论，尽管他的合著者说理性可能发挥了更⼤的作⽤。

现在，研究⼈员正在探究教学⻛格、助教的饮⻝习惯和学⽣的视频接触的具体影响。

同时，Schwitzgebel （他曾预测没有影响）将⾃⻝其⾔。