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.
根据该研究的合著者、加州大学河滨分校的哲学家埃里克·施维茨格尔布（Eric Schwitzgebel）的说法，他们选择这一特定行为有三个原因：学生在这个话题上的态度具有可变性和不稳定性，行为容易被测量，而且伦理学文献普遍认为减少吃肉是好的，因为它能减少环境危害和动物痛苦。
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.
施维茨格尔布预测这种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区别，包括投票率、献血和归还图书馆书籍。
That’s actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention,” Schwitzgebel says.
施维茨格尔贝尔说：'这实际上是一个相当大的效果，来自于一个相当小的干预措施。'
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.
施维茨格尔贝尔怀疑最大的影响来自于社会影响——进行讨论的同学或助教可能分享了他们自己的素食主义，展示了它是一种可实现的或更常见的选择。
Meanwhile, Schwitzgebel—who had predicted no effect—will be eating his words.
与此同时，施维茨格尔贝尔——他曾预测没有效果——将不得不收回自己的言论。
例句取自历年考研英语真题，翻译为机器生成，仅供学习参考。