[1]
❶ Although ethics classes are common around the (36) 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.❷But a new study published in Cognition found that, in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects. [2] OThe researchers investigated one class session's impact on eating meat. ❷They 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. ❷Half 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.❹The other half focused on 50 charitable giving instead. ❷Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester—nearly 14,000 receipts for almost 500 students. 500 [3] 0Schwitzgebel 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. ❷But 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. ❷Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent. [4] O"That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty (39) small intervention,M Schwitzgebel says. ❷Psychologist 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. ❷And if real, she notes, it might be reversibie by another nudge: "Easy come, easy go." [O5S]chwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from (40) social influencelassmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common・ ❷Second, the video may have had an emotional impact. ❷Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role.❹Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants9 eating habits and students' video exposure. ❷Meanwhile Schwitzgebel―who had predicted no effect—will be eating his words. qni m
📝 全文释义（点击展开）
虽然伦理课在世界各地都很普遍，但 科学家们不确定他们的课程是否能真正改变行 为；无论哪种方式的依据——依赖于人为的实 验室测试，还是有时不可靠的自我报告——都 不具有说服力。但发表在《认知》杂志上的一 项新研究发现，至少在一种现实世界的情况下， 一堂伦理课可能会产生持久的彬响。 研究人员调查了一堂课对吃肉的影响。研 究合著者、加州大学河滨分校的哲学家埃里 克•施维茨格贝尔表示，(37)他们选择(吃肉) 这种特殊行为有三个原因：学生对这个话题的 态度是多变且不稳定的，行为易于考量，以及 伦理学文献多半认为少吃肉是好的，因为它可 以减少环境危害和动物的痛苦。4个大型哲学 班中，一半的学生阅读了一篇关于工厂化养殖 肉类伦理的文章，有选择地观看了一段关于这 个话题的时长11分钟的视频，并参加了一场 分钟的讨论。另一半学生则专注于慈善捐赠。 然后，在学生们不知情的情况下，研究人员研 究了他们这一学期匿名餐卡的购买情况一近 名学生的近14000张收据。 施维茨格贝尔预测此次干预不会产生任何 影响；(38)此前，他就已经发现伦理学教授 在包括投票率、献血以及归还图书馆图书在内 的一系列行为上与其他教授没有什么不同。但 在讨论过肉类伦理的学生研究对象中，购买含 肉类食品的比例从52%下降到45%——而且 这一结果在研究持续的几周内保持稳定。另一 组学生购买肉类食品的比例保持在52%0 施维茨格贝尔说：“这实际上是一 个很小的干预产生了相当大的影响。”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,即 使这是真实的，这种影响也可能会被另一个推 力逆转：“来得容易，去得也容易。” 施维茨格贝尔觉得最大的影响来自 社会影响----主持讨论的同学或助教可能分享 了他们自己的素食主义观念，表明这是可以实 现的或更普遍的。其次，那段视频可能产生了 情感上的影响。他认为，最不振奋人心的是理 性竝」尽管他的合著者说理性可能会发挥更 大的作用。现在研究人员正在探索教学风格、 助教的饮食习惯和学生视频观看量的具体形 响。与此同时，施维茨格贝尔——他曾预测不 会产生任何影响----将会收回前言。 篇章结构 第一段：提出观点——研究表明在某些现实世界的情况下，一堂伦理课可能会产生持久的影响 第二、三段：举例论证一一 -第二段：说明研究内容—堂课对吃肉的影响，并说明研究原因、 伦理课对 借一项研究论V 研究对象和具体的研究过程 学生行为＜ 证上述观点 •第三段：表明研究发现——讨论过肉类伦理的学生购买含肉类食品 的影响 的比例有所下降，且这一结果在持续几周内保持稳定 第四 石段 粤屮牡、第四段：阐明施维茨格贝尔和施特罗明格对研究中干预产生的影响的看法 文：侍也如比［第五段：总结指出对学生的(吃肉)行为产生影响的因素是多方面的