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.
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 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.
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.
“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.”
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.
1. Scientists generally believe that the effects of ethics classes are ________.
2. Which of the following is a reason for the researchers to study meat-eating?
3. Eric Schwitzgebel’s previous findings suggest that ethics professors ________.
4. Nina Strohminger thinks that the effect of the intervention is ________.
5. Eric Schwitzgebel suspects that the students’ change in behavior ________.
问题1选项
A.hard to determine
B.narrowly interpreted
C.difficult to ignore
D.poorly summarized
问题2选项
A.It is common among students.
B.It is a behavior easy to measure
C.It is important to students' health
D.It is a hot topic in ethics classes
问题3选项
A.are seldom critical of their students
B.are less sociable than other professors
C.are not sensitive to political ssues
D.are not necessarily ethically better
问题4选项
A.permanent
B.predictable
C.uncertain
D.unrepeatable
问题5选项
A.can bring psychological benefits
B.can be analyzed statistically
C.is a result of multiple factors
D.is a sign of self-development
第1题:A
第2题:B
第3题:D
第4题:C
第5题:C
第1题:
【选项释义】
Scientists generally believe that the effects of ethics classes are ________. 科学家们普遍认为,道德课程的效果________。
A. hard to determine A. 难以确定
B. narrowly interpreted B. 狭义解释
C. difficult to ignore C. 难以忽视
D. poorly summarized D. 归纳得很差
【答案】A
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词ethics classes可以定位到文章第一段第一句“尽管伦理课程在世界各地都很普遍,但科学家们不确定(unsure)他们的课程是否真的能改变人们的行为”,说明科学家们很难确定伦理课的效果。因此A选项“难以确定”正确。
【干扰项排除】B选项“狭义解释”,C选项“难以忽视”和D选项“归纳得很差”在文中均不能体现,属于无中生有。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following is a reason for the researchers to study meat-eating? 以下哪项是研究者研究肉食的原因?
A. It is common among students. A. 在学生中很普遍。
B. It is a behavior easy to measure. B. 是一种容易测量的行为。
C. It is important to students’ health. C. 对学生的健康很重要。
D. It is a hot topic in ethics classes. D. 是伦理课上的一个热门话题。
【答案】B
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词reason可以定位到文章第二段第二句“他们选择这种特殊行为有三个原因(three reasons):学生对这个话题的态度是多变和不稳定的,行为很容易衡量,伦理文献基本上同意少吃肉是好的,因为它减少了环境伤害和动物的痛苦”,说明容易测量属于研究人员研究吃肉这一行为的原因之一。因此B选项“是一种容易测量的行为。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“在学生中很普遍。”,C选项“对学生的健康很重要。”和D选项“是伦理课上的一个热门话题。”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
Eric Schwitzgebel’s previous findings suggest that ethics professors ________. 埃里克•施维茨格贝尔先前的发现表明伦理学教授________。
A. are seldom critical of their students A. 很少批评他们的学生
B. are less sociable than other professors B. 比其他教授更不善于交际
C. are not sensitive to political issues C. 对政治问题不敏感
D. are not necessarily ethically better D. 在道德方面不一定更好
【答案】D
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词previous findings可以定位到文章第三段第一句“此前,他发现伦理学教授(ethics professors)在投票率、献血、还书等行为上与其他教授没有什么不同(do not differ from)”,说明埃里克•施维茨格贝尔以前的发现表明伦理学教授在道德方面并不比其他教授更好。因此D选项“在道德方面不一定更好”正确。
【干扰项排除】A选项“很少批评他们的学生”,B选项“比其他教授更不善于交际”和C选项“对政治问题不敏感”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
Nina Strohminger thinks that the effect of the intervention is ________. 尼娜•施特罗明格认为干预的效果是________。
A. permanent A. 永久性的
B. predictable B. 可预测的
C. uncertain C. 不确定的
D. unrepeatable D. 不可重复的
【答案】C
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Nina Strohminger可以定位到文章第四段第二句“宾夕法尼亚大学的心理学家尼娜•施特罗明格没有参与这项研究,她说她希望研究结果是真实的,但不能排除一些未知的混淆变量(cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable)”,说明尼娜•施特罗明格认为一些混淆变量可能和干预手段一起影响了实验结果,因此干预手段的效果是不确定的。因此C选项“不确定的”正确。
【干扰项排除】A选项“永久性的”,B选项“可预测的”和D选项“不可重复的”在文中均不能体现,属于无中生有。
第5题:
【选项释义】
Eric Schwitzgebel suspects that the students’ change in behavior ________. 埃里克•施维茨格贝尔怀疑学生在行为上的改变________。
A. can bring psychological benefits A. 可以带来心理上的好处
B. can be analyzed statistically B. 可以进行统计学的分析
C. is a result of multiple factors C. 是多种因素作用的结果
D. is a sign of self-development D. 是自我发展的一个标志
【答案】C
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Schwitzgebel suspects可以定位到文章第五段第二句“施维茨格贝尔怀疑最大的影响来自社会影响(social influence)——领导讨论的同学或助教可能分享了他们自己的素食主义,表明这是可以实现的或更普遍的”,再结合第二句“视频可能产生了情感方面的影响(emotional impact)”和第三句“最不激动人心的是理性讨论(rational argument)”可知,施维茨格贝尔提到了社会影响、视频、理性讨论等多种影响因素,说明他怀疑学生的行为改变是多种因素共同作用的结果。因此C选项“是多种因素作用的结果”正确。
【干扰项排除】A选项“可以带来心理上的好处”,B选项“可以进行统计学的分析”和D选项“是自我发展的一个标志”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。