考研英语阅读理解中的文章，很多来自一些外刊杂志方面的题材。接下来，北京文都考研网为扩宽2020考研学子的知识面，整理了考研英语经济学人外刊:酒桌上谈生意,有着大讲究，供考生参考。
2020考研英语经济学人外刊:酒桌上谈生意,有着大讲究
Sharing a plate of food leads to more successful negotiations
共同享用一盘食物会让谈判更加成功
The psychology of eating together
一同用餐的心理学
Shrimp cocktail, grilled sirloin with pear kimchi and chocolate lava cake. Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un had the same food brought to them on individual plates during their summit on February 27th.
虾仁杯、配有韩式梨泡菜的西冷牛扒，以及巧克力熔岩蛋糕。在2月27日的金特会上，特朗普和金正恩分盘享用了同样的食物。
Psychologists think a meal like this is a good first step towards improving relations. But new work suggests there might have been a more positive outcome with a different serving arrangement.
心理学家认为，像这样的同桌共餐是改善双方关系的一个良好的开端。但新的研究表明，另一种用餐方式可能会产生更好的效果。
As Kaitlin Woolley of Cornell University and Ayelet Fishbach of the University of Chicago report in Psychological Science, a meal taken “family-style” from a central platter can greatly improve the outcome of subsequent negotiations.
正如康奈尔大学的凯特琳·伍利和芝加哥大学的阿耶莱特·菲什巴赫在《心理科学》杂志上发表的报告所述，从同一个盘子中夹菜的“家庭式”的用餐方式可以大大改善后续谈判的结果。
Having conducted previous research in 2017 revealing that eating similar foods led to people feeling emotionally closer to one another, Dr Woolley and Dr Fishbach wondered whether the way in which food was served also had a psychological effect.
伍利和菲什巴赫早在2017年进行的一项研究发现，吃同样的食物会让人们在情感上更加亲近，他们还想知道不同的用餐方式(注：指的是分盘用餐和同盘用餐)是否也会产生不同的心理影响。
They theorised that, on the one hand, sharing food with other people might indicate food scarcity and increase a notion of competition. However, they also reasoned that it could instead lead people to become more aware of others’ needs and drive co-operative behaviour as a result. Curious to find out, they set up a series of experiments.
他们推论，一方面，与他人共享食物(同盘用餐)可能表明食物的份量有限，进而会增强竞争的意识。但另一方面，她们也认为，同盘用餐会让人们更加留意他人的需求，从而推动合作的行为。为了找到答案，他们设计了一系列的实验。
For the first test they recruited 100 pairs of participants from a local café, none of whom knew each other. In return for a $3 gift card and a chance to win $50 based upon their performance during a negotiation game, the participants were sat at a table and fed tortilla chips with salsa.
在第一个实验里，他们从当地的一家咖啡馆招募了100对彼此互不相识的参与者。参与者可以获得一张价值3美元的礼品卡，并且根据在谈判游戏中的表现将有机会赢取50美元现金，他们两人一桌，享用配有辣酱的墨西哥炸玉米片。
Half the pairs were given their own basket of 20 grams of chips and a bowl of 25 grams of salsa, and half were given 40 grams of chips and 50 grams of salsa to share. As a cover for the experiment, all participants were told this snack was to be consumed before the game began.
研究者给其中50组的每个人单独一份20克的玉米片和25克的辣酱，另外50组则每组一份40克的玉米片和50克的辣酱由两人共同食用。为了掩藏实验的真实目的，研究者告诉所有参与者，在谈判游戏开始前要把这些零食先吃完。
The game required the participants to negotiate an hourly wage rate during a fictional strike. Each person was randomly assigned to represent the union or management and follow a set of rules.
游戏要求参与者在一次虚构的罢工事件中就时薪的问题进行谈判。每组都随机分配一人扮演工会代表，另一人扮演企业管理者，所有人都遵循一套规则来进行谈判。
The researchers measured co-operation by noting the number of rounds it took to reach an agreement, and found that those who shared food resolved the strike significantly faster (in 8.7 rounds) than those who did not (13.2 rounds).
研究者记录下每组参与者最终达成协议所需要的谈判轮次数，并以此作为衡量合作程度的指标，他们发现共同享用一份食物的参与者解决罢工问题的速度(8.7轮)明显快于那些各自用餐的参与者(13.2轮)。
A similar experiment was conducted with 104 participants and Goldfish crackers, this time negotiating an airline’s route prices. The results were much the same, with the food-sharers negotiating successfully 63.3% of the time and those who did not share doing so 42.9% of the time.
另一项与之类似的实验招募了104名参与者，把食物换成了金鱼饼干，谈判的内容则是关于航空公司的航线价格。实验结果大致相同，共享一份食物的参与者谈判成功率为63.3%，而各自用餐的参与者谈判成功率仅为42.9%。
To see if food-sharing among friends worked in the same way as it did among strangers, Dr Woolley and Dr Fishbach ran their strike experiment again with 240 people, partnering together two friends or two strangers.
为了研究朋友之间共享食物是否具有和陌生人同样的效果，伍利和菲什巴赫又招募了240人进行罢工谈判实验，每组的两名参与者分别为朋友或陌生人。
Regardless of whether the pairs were friends or strangers, those who shared food went into fewer rounds during the game, averaging 6.4 rounds, than those who did not share food, averaging 9.8. Friendship did have an effect, though. Whether they shared food or not, friends were generally more co-operative.
结果发现，无论各组的两名参与者是朋友还是陌生人，共享一份食物的参与者在谈判中所需的轮次数更少(平均为6.4轮)，各自用餐的参与者则平均需要9.8轮。但朋友关系也确实会对结果产生影响。无论是否共享食物，朋友间的合作程度往往更高。
Mr Trump and Mr Kim might balk at having to take turns serving themselves from platters in the centre of a table. But these results suggest that such an arrangement really could help world diplomacy.
特朗普和金正恩可能不太愿意轮流从桌子中央的盘子里夹菜食用。但这些实验的结果表明，这种用餐方式可能真的有助于国际外交。
[重难点词汇]
diplomacy [dɪ'ploməsi] n. 外交;外交手腕;交际手段
negotiation [nɪ,ɡoʃɪ'eʃən] n. 谈判;转让;顺利的通过
individual [ˌɪndəˈvɪdʒʊəl] adj. 个人的;个别的;独特的 n. 个人，个体
subsequent ['sʌbsɪkwənt] adj. 后来的，随后的
scarcity ['skɛrsəti] n. 不足;缺乏
以上是北京文都考研网给出的“2020考研英语经济学人外刊:酒桌上谈生意,有着大讲究”，希望对备考2020考研英语的考生有所帮助!祝2020考研顺利!
推荐阅读：
