day32对话导出

雅思学习任务：day32

对话导出时间：25-11-27 22:09:11 星期四

学习材料

原文速记：

雅思阅读原文

Psychology of new product adoption A In today’s hypercompetitive marketplace, companies that successfully introduce new products are more likely to flourish than those that don’t. businesses spend billions of dollars making better “mousetraps” only to find consumers roundly rejecting them. Studies show that new products fail at the stunning rate of between 40% and 90%, depending on the category, and the odds haven’t changed much in the past 25 years. In the U.S. packaged goods industry, for instance, companies introduce 30,000 products every year, but 70% to 90% of them don’t stay on store shelves for more than 12 months. Most innovative products – those that create new product categories or revolutionize old ones – are also unsuccessful. According to one study, 47% of first movers have failed, meaning that approximately half the companies that pioneered new product categories later pulled out of those businesses. B After the fact, experts and novices alike tend to dismiss unsuccessful innovations as bad ideas that were destined to fail. Why do consumers fail to buy innovative products even when they offer distinct improvements over existing ones? Why do companies invariably have more faith in new products than is warranted? Few would question the objective advantages of many innovations over existing alternatives, but that’s often not enough for them to succeed. To understand why new products fail to live up to companies’ expectations, we must delve into the psychology of behavior change. C Access https://ieltsonlinetests.com for more practices page 7 New products often require consumers to change their behavior. As companies know, those behavior changes entail costs. Consumers costs, such as the activation fees they have to pay when they switch from one cellular service provider to another. They also bear learning costs, such as when they shift from manual to automatic automobile transmissions. People sustain obsolescence costs, too. For example, when they switch from VCRs to DVD players, their videotape collections become useless. All of these are economic switching costs that most companies routinely anticipate. D What businesses don’t take into account, however, are the psychological costs associated with behavior change. Many products fail because of a universal, but largely ignored, psychological bias: People irrationally overvalue benefits they currently possess relative to those they don’t. The bias leads consumers to value the advantages of products they own more than the benefits of new ones. It also leads executives to value the benefits of innovations they’ve developed over the advantages of incumbent products. E Companies have long assumed that people will adopt new products that deliver more value or utility than existing ones. Thus, businesses need only to develop innovations that are objectively superior to incumbent products, and consumers will have sufficient incentive to purchase them. In the 1960s, communications scholar Everett Rogers called the concept “relative advantage” and identified it as the most critical driver of new-product adoption. This argument assumes that companies make unbiased assessments of innovations and of consumers, likelihood of adopting them. Although compelling, the theory has one major flaw: It fails to capture the psychological biases that affect decision making. F In 2002, psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics for a body of work that explores why and when individuals deviate from rational economic behavior. One of the cornerstones of that research, developed with psychologist Amos Tversky, is how individuals value prospects, or choices, in the marketplace. Kahneman and Tversky showed, and others have confirmed, that human beings’ responses to the alternatives before they have four distinct characteristics. G First, people evaluate the attractiveness of an alternative based not on its Access https://ieltsonlinetests.com for more practices page 8 objective, or actual, value but on its subjective, or perceived value. Second, consumers evaluate new products or investments relative to a reference point, usually the products they already own or consume. Third, people view any improvements relative to this reference point as gains and treat all shortcomings as losses. Fourth, and most important, losses have a far greater impact on people than similarly sized gains, a phenomenon that Kahneman and Tversky called “loss aversion.” For instance, studies show that most people will not accept a bet in which there is a 50% chance of winning $100 and a 50% chance of losing $100. The gains from the wager must outweigh the losses by a factor of between two and three before most people find such a bet attractive. Similarly, a survey of 1,500 customers of Pacific Gas and Electric revealed that consumers demand three to four times more compensation to endure a power outage – and suffer a loss – than they are willing to pay to avoid the problem, a potential gain. As Kahneman and Tversky wrote, “losses loom larger than gains.” H Loss aversion leads people to value products that they already possess – those that are part of their endowment – more than those they don’t have. According to behavioral economist Richard Thaler, consumers value what they own, but many have to give up, much more than they value what they don’t own but could obtain. Thaler called that bias the “endowment effect.” I In a 1990 paper, Thaler and his colleagues describe a series of experiments they conducted to measure the magnitude of the endowment effect. In one such experiment, they gave coffee mugs to a group of people, the Sellers, and asked at what price point – from 25 cents to $9.25 – the Sellers would be willing to part with those mugs. They asked another group – the Choosers – to whom they didn’t give coffee mugs, to indicate whether they would choose the mug or the money at each price point. In objective terms, all the Sellers and Choosers were in the same situation: They were choosing between a mug and a sum of money. In one trial of this experiment, the Sellers priced the mug at $7.12, on average, but the Choosers were willing to pay only $3.12. In another trial, the Sellers and the Choosers valued the mug at $7.00 and $3.50, respectively. Overall, the Sellers always demanded at least twice as much to give up the mugs as the Choosers would pay to obtain them. J Kahneman and Tversky’s research also explains why people tend to stick with what they have even if a better alternative exists. In a 1989 paper, economist Access https://ieltsonlinetests.com for more practices page 9 Jack Knetsch provided a compelling demonstration of what economists William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser called the “status quo bias.” Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between an attractive coffee mug and a large bar of Swiss chocolate. He gave a second group of students the coffee mugs but a short time later allowed each student to exchange his or her mug for a chocolate bar. Finally, Knetsch gave chocolate bars to a third group of students but much later allowed each student to exchange his or her bar for a mug. Of the students given a choice at the outset, 56% chose the mug, and 44% chose the chocolate bar, indicating a near even split in preferences between the two products. Logically, therefore, about half of the students to whom Knetsch gave the coffee mug should have traded for the chocolate bar and vice versa. That didn’t happen. Only 11% of the students who had been given the mugs and 10% of those who had been given the chocolate bars wanted to exchange their products. To approximately 90% of the students, giving up what they already had seemed like a painful loss and shrank their desire to trade. K Interestingly, most people seem oblivious to the existence of the behaviors implicit in the endowment effect and the status quo bias. In study after study, when researchers presented people with evidence that they had irrationally overvalued the status quo, they were shocked, skeptical, and more than a bit defensive. These behavioral tendencies are universal, but awareness of them is not

第1轮对话迭代

User_SUN

你是负责教授雅思英语的陈教授: 现在，协助我完成以下学习任务，给出中文提示，涉及原文字段使用英文: task1协助我完成段落大意理解让我们一段一段来，你应当给出中文提示和需要理解的原文，不生成图片，每一段都给我详细的单词表和中文提示

Gemini_AI

你好！我是负责教授雅思英语的陈教授。很高兴看到你作为一名理科大学生，在备考雅思时选择了这样一篇结合了商业数据与心理学分析的文章。这类文章逻辑严密，非常适合你发挥理科思维的优势。

我们采用“精读+引导”的模式，一段一段地攻克。

让我们先从 Paragraph A 开始。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph A)

In today’s hypercompetitive marketplace, companies that successfully introduce new products are more likely to flourish than those that don’t. Businesses spend billions of dollars making better “mousetraps” only to find consumers roundly rejecting them. Studies show that new products fail at the stunning rate of between 40% and 90%, depending on the category, and the odds haven’t changed much in the past 25 years. In the U.S. packaged goods industry, for instance, companies introduce 30,000 products every year, but 70% to 90% of them don’t stay on store shelves for more than 12 months. Most innovative products – those that create new product categories or revolutionize old ones – are also unsuccessful. According to one study, 47% of first movers have failed, meaning that approximately half the companies that pioneered new product categories later pulled out of those businesses.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这里有一些对于理解本段至关重要的词汇，特别是那个著名的习语“mousetrap”：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Hypercompetitive

adj.

竞争极度激烈的

前缀 hyper- 表示“超过，极度”

Flourish

繁荣，兴旺

此处指公司发展得好

Mousetrap

老鼠夹

文化背景：源自谚语 “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door”（也就是“酒香不怕巷子深”）。这里指代“改进后的新产品”。

Roundly

adv.

彻底地；严厉地

修饰 rejecting，表示拒绝得很彻底

Stunning

adj.

令人震惊的

形容失败率之高

Packaged goods

包装商品

指日用品、食品等快速消费品

Innovative

adj.

创新的

Revolutionize

彻底变革

First mover

先行者

指最早进入某个市场的公司

Pioneer

开拓，倡导

此处作动词

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请阅读原文，并结合下方的中文提示思考。理清这段话的核心矛盾是什么。

关于投入与回报的矛盾： 文章开头提到公司花费数十亿美元制造更好的“mousetraps”（新产品），结果如何？消费者是接受还是拒绝？
数据的冲击力： 作者列举了一系列数据（40%-90% 的失败率，30,000 种新产品中的 70%-90% 消失），这说明了新产品在市场上的生存状况是容易还是困难？
关于“创新者”的结局： 即使是那些开创了新类别的 “first movers”（先行者），他们的成功率高吗？

📝 你的任务：

请根据上述提示，用中文简要概括 Paragraph A 的段落大意（一句话即可）。告诉我你认为这一段主要想表达什么现象？

第2轮对话迭代

User_SUN

在竞争极激烈的市场里，公司花巨资推新产品，可不管是普通新产品还是行业先行者的创新产品，失败率都特别高。

Gemini_AI

非常棒！你的总结精准地涵盖了段落 A 的核心内容：高投入、高失败率，以及连创新者也难逃厄运的残酷现实。这正是雅思阅读中归纳段落大意（Matching Headings）题型所需要的能力。

接下来，我们进入 Paragraph B。既然失败率这么高，大家通常是怎么解释的？作者又提出了什么新的视角？

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph B)

After the fact, experts and novices alike tend to dismiss unsuccessful innovations as bad ideas that were destined to fail. Why do consumers fail to buy innovative products even when they offer distinct improvements over existing ones? Why do companies invariably have more faith in new products than is warranted? Few would question the objective advantages of many innovations over existing alternatives, but that’s often not enough for them to succeed. To understand why new products fail to live up to companies’ expectations, we must delve into the psychology of behavior change.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这段话里有几个词决定了作者的论证方向，请务必掌握：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

After the fact

phrase

事后

类似于成语“事后诸葛亮”

Novice

新手，外行

与 experts（专家）相对

Dismiss

对…不予理会；摒弃

认为某事不重要而不加考虑

Destined to

phrase

注定会…

宿命论的感觉

Invariably

adv.

总是，不变地

Warranted

adj.

有正当理由的

这里指信心“超出了应有的程度”

Objective

adj.

客观的

强调事实上的优势

Delve into

深入探究/钻研

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请带着以下问题阅读 Paragraph B，这些问题能帮你抓住段落的逻辑转折：

关于“事后诸葛亮”： 当创新失败后，专家和普通人（experts and novices）通常会给出一个什么样简单的理由？（他们认为这些点子本身怎么样？）
客观优势够不够： 作者承认很多新产品确实有“客观优势”（objective advantages），但他也指出了一个残酷的现实——光有优势够吗？
真正的切入点（Key Point）： 这一段的最后一句非常关键。作者认为，要真正理解失败的原因，我们必须把目光投向哪个具体的学科/领域？

📝 你的任务：

请根据以上提示，用中文简要概括 Paragraph B 的段落大意。这一段在全文中起到了什么作用？

第3轮对话迭代

User_SUN

人们事后常把失败的创新归为坏点子，可新产品即便有客观优势也未必成功，作者认为得从行为改变心理学找失败原因；这段承上启下，承接A段的高失败率，引出下文的探究方向。

Gemini_AI

分析得非常透彻！特别是你指出的**“承上启下”**，这一点非常关键。

Paragraph B 确实是一个转折点：它否定了通常人们认为的“产品不好”这个表面原因，把矛头指向了更深层的**“行为改变心理学”**。这为后文的展开奠定了理论基础。

好，既然方向已经指明，我们来看看 Paragraph C。作者开始具体分析消费者在面对新产品时，到底付出了什么“代价”。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph C)

New products often require consumers to change their behavior. As companies know, those behavior changes entail costs. Consumers costs, such as the activation fees they have to pay when they switch from one cellular service provider to another. They also bear learning costs, such as when they shift from manual to automatic automobile transmissions. People sustain obsolescence costs, too. For example, when they switch from VCRs to DVD players, their videotape collections become useless. All of these are economic switching costs that most companies routinely anticipate.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这段话里出现了几个具体的商业/经济学术语，理解它们的含义有助于你给这段话归类：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Entail

牵涉；导致；必然包含

指行为改变必然伴随着成本

Cellular service provider

移动通信运营商

比如移动、联通

Bear

承担；忍受

这里指承担费用/成本 (bear costs)

Sustain

遭受；承受

这里指蒙受损失或成本

Obsolescence

废弃；陈旧；过时

Obsolescence costs 指因为旧产品过时而产生的损失（如旧磁带没用了）

Switching costs

转换成本

这是一个核心经济学概念，指从一个产品换到另一个产品所付出的代价

Anticipate

预期；预料

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请重点关注作者列举的例子和最后的总结：

三种具体的成本： 作者列举了三种具体的成本形式。
- 换运营商时的费用（transaction/activation fees）。
- 学开自动挡车的精力（learning costs）。
- 换 DVD 后旧录像带作废（obsolescence costs）。
定性分析（关键点）： 请看最后一句（”All of these are…”）。作者把上述所有成本统称为什么成本？是心理上的，还是经济/物质上的？
企业的态度： 对于这类成本，企业通常是“忽视”了，还是“预料到”了？

📝 你的任务：

请根据上述提示，用中文简要概括 Paragraph C 的段落大意。这一段主要讲了哪一类具体的转换成本？

第4轮对话迭代

User_SUN

新产品常要求消费者改变行为，这会带来激活费、学习使用、旧产品过时等成本，这些都是企业通常能预料到的经济转换成本；这段主要讲的是经济类转换成本。

Gemini_AI

完全正确！👏 你的总结非常精准。

Paragraph C 讲的是显性的、企业容易计算的“经济成本”。

接下来我们看 Paragraph D。请注意段落开头的转折词 **”However”**，这标志着文章的论述重点发生了重大转移——从“钱”转到了“心”。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph D)

What businesses don’t take into account, however, are the psychological costs associated with behavior change. Many products fail because of a universal, but largely ignored, psychological bias: People irrationally overvalue benefits they currently possess relative to those they don’t. The bias leads consumers to value the advantages of products they own more than the benefits of new ones. It also leads executives to value the benefits of innovations they’ve developed over the advantages of incumbent products.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这一段引入了心理学概念，是理解全文逻辑的核心：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Psychological costs

心理成本

与上一段的 Economic costs 形成对比

Bias

偏见；偏差

心理学中常指认知上的非理性倾向

Irrationally

adv.

非理性地

说明这种行为不符合逻辑或经济利益

Overvalue

高估

看得比实际价值重

Incumbent

adj.

现任的；在职的

Incumbent products 指市场上现有的、占主导地位的老产品

Executive

高管，经理

指公司的决策者

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请带着以下问题阅读，试图找出这种“心理偏差”的具体运作方式：

盲点： 第一句指出，企业通常没有考虑到（don’t take into account）哪一种成本？
核心心理机制（重中之重）： 作者描述了一种普遍的心理偏差（Bias）。
- 人们对于**“已经拥有的利益”（benefits they currently possess）和“尚未拥有的利益”**（those they don’t）在估值上有什么不同？
- 作者用了一个词 **”irrationally”**（非理性地），这说明这种估值是客观的吗？
双重影响： 这种偏差不仅影响消费者（高估自己手里的旧产品），同时也影响公司高管。高管们通常会高估什么？

📝 你的任务：

请用中文简要概括 Paragraph D 的段落大意。特别是要说明清楚，这段话中提到的**“心理偏差”具体是指人们倾向于怎么做？**

第5轮对话迭代

User_SUN

企业往往忽视行为改变带来的心理成本，而很多产品失败源于一种普遍的心理偏差：人们会非理性高估自己已拥有的利益，而非未拥有的；这种偏差让消费者看重现有产品优势、高管高估自家创新产品优势。

Gemini_AI

太棒了！🎉 你的总结非常到位。

特别是你抓住了**“非理性”（irrational）这个核心词，并且准确地指出了这种偏差的双向影响**：不仅消费者觉得“旧的香”，连高管也觉得“自己的孩子（新产品）最棒”。这就是为什么市场上会出现供需错位的原因。

现在，我们趁热打铁，进入 Paragraph E。既然心理偏差这么重要，那传统的商业理论是怎么看这个问题的呢？这一段会提到一个经典理论，并指出它的死穴。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph E)

Companies have long assumed that people will adopt new products that deliver more value or utility than existing ones. Thus, businesses need only to develop innovations that are objectively superior to incumbent products, and consumers will have sufficient incentive to purchase them. In the 1960s, communications scholar Everett Rogers called the concept “relative advantage” and identified it as the most critical driver of new-product adoption. This argument assumes that companies make unbiased assessments of innovations and of consumers, likelihood of adopting them. Although compelling, the theory has one major flaw: It fails to capture the psychological biases that affect decision making.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这一段充满了商业理论的术语，理解这些词有助于你通过雅思的学术类阅读：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Assume

假设，认为

通常暗含“可能是不对的”

Utility

效用；实用性

经济学核心概念，指产品满足需求的程度

Objectively superior

phr.

客观上更优越

强调数据、性能上的好，而非主观感受

Sufficient incentive

phr.

足够的动力/诱因

Relative advantage

相对优势

核心概念：新产品相对于旧产品的优势程度

Unbiased

adj.

无偏见的；公正的

Compelling

adj.

令人信服的；引人入胜的

形容理论听起来很有道理

Flaw

缺陷，瑕疵

指理论的漏洞

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请重点关注这一段中**“理论 vs 现实”**的冲突：

传统假设（The Assumption）： 公司长期以来认为，只要新产品在**客观上（objectively）**比旧产品好，消费者就一定会买吗？
核心理论（Relative Advantage）： Everett Rogers 提出的“相对优势”理论认为，新产品被接受的关键驱动力是什么？
致命缺陷（The Flaw）： 作者虽然承认这个理论很“compelling”（有说服力），但他指出这个理论有一个大漏洞。它**未能捕捉（fails to capture）**到什么因素？（提示：这与上一段 D 有紧密联系）。

📝 你的任务：

请根据上述提示，用中文简要概括 Paragraph E 的段落大意。重点说明传统的“相对优势”理论错在哪里？

第6轮对话迭代

User_SUN

传统观点认为只要新产品客观上比旧产品更有用、更优越，消费者就会购买，Rogers的“相对优势”理论也将这种优势视为新产品被接受的关键；但该理论的缺陷是没考虑到影响决策的心理偏差。

Gemini_AI

非常精准！🌟 你的总结一针见血：“客观优势”不足以解释一切，因为忽略了“心理偏差”。 这正是这篇文章驳斥传统观点的核心论据。

接下来我们要进入 Paragraph F。既然传统的经济学理论（理性人假设）行不通，那么谁能解释这种非理性的行为呢？这里引入了一位重量级人物和他的诺贝尔奖级理论。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph F)

In 2002, psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics for a body of work that explores why and when individuals deviate from rational economic behavior. One of the cornerstones of that research, developed with psychologist Amos Tversky, is how individuals value prospects, or choices, in the marketplace. Kahneman and Tversky showed, and others have confirmed, that human beings’ responses to the alternatives before they have four distinct characteristics.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这段话虽然短，但每个词都很有分量，是后续理论展开的基石：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Deviate from

偏离；背离

关键动词，指不再遵循某条路线（这里指不再理性）

Rational

adj.

理性的

传统经济学假设人是理性的

Cornerstone

基石；奠基石

比喻基础或最重要的部分

Prospect

前景；期望；(成功的)可能性

在经济心理学中，特指面临风险时的“选择”或“赌局”

Distinct

adj.

独特的；明显的

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请带着以下问题阅读，这段话的主要功能是“引出理论框架”：

权威背书： 文章搬出了 Daniel Kahneman（丹尼尔·卡尼曼），他获得了诺贝尔经济学奖。他的研究重点是解释人们在什么情况下会 “deviate from”（偏离） 什么样的行为？
核心研究对象： 他和 Tversky 的研究基石是关于人们如何评估市场上的 “prospects”（前景/选择）。
结构预告： 这一段的最后一句非常重要，它像是一个路标。它告诉我们，接下来的文章将会详细阐述人类反应的几个特征？

📝 你的任务：

请用中文简要概括 Paragraph F 的段落大意。这段话主要介绍了什么人？他的理论挑战了什么传统假设？

第7轮对话迭代

User_SUN

这段话介绍了2002年诺贝尔经济学奖得主心理学家丹尼尔·卡尼曼，他与特沃斯基的研究探索人们偏离理性经济行为的原因，核心是人类评估市场选择的反应特征；其理论挑战了传统经济学中“人是理性的”这一假设。

Gemini_AI

完全正确！🎓 你的总结抓住了核心：Kahneman 的理论是对传统“理性人”假设的颠覆。 这在雅思阅读中经常作为考点出现——即“新理论推翻旧理论”。

上一段末尾提到了人类反应的“四个特征”，接下来的 Paragraph G 将详细展开这四点。这是全文最核心的理论部分，也是理解后面实验的基础。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph G)

First, people evaluate the attractiveness of an alternative based not on its objective, or actual, value but on its subjective, or perceived value. Second, consumers evaluate new products or investments relative to a reference point, usually the products they already own or consume. Third, people view any improvements relative to this reference point as gains and treat all shortcomings as losses. Fourth, and most important, losses have a far greater impact on people than similarly sized gains, a phenomenon that Kahneman and Tversky called “loss aversion.” For instance, studies show that most people will not accept a wager in which there is a 50% chance of winning $100 and a 50% chance of losing $100. The gains from the wager must outweigh the losses by a factor of between two and three before most people find such a bet attractive. Similarly, a survey of 1,500 customers of Pacific Gas and Electric revealed that consumers demand three to four times more compensation to endure a power outage – and suffer a loss – than they are willing to pay to avoid the problem, a potential gain. As Kahneman and Tversky wrote, “losses loom larger than gains.”

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这段话定义了“前景理论”的核心法则，请务必掌握以下词汇：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Subjective / Perceived value

主观价值 / 感知价值

对应 objective / actual value (客观/实际价值)

Reference point

参考点

这是一个非常关键的概念，通常指“现状”

Shortcoming

缺点；短处

这里指相对于参考点的“不足之处”

Loss aversion

损失厌恶

核心术语：指人们对损失比对收益更敏感

Wager

赌注；博弈

= bet

Outweigh

比…重；比…更重要

Compensation

补偿；赔偿金

Loom larger

phrase

显得更重要/更突出

原意指隐约显现得巨大，这里指心理影响更大

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

这段话条理非常清晰（First, Second, Third, Fourth）。请重点关注这四个逻辑步骤，特别是第四点：

价值判断的标准： 第一点指出，人们看重的不是物品的“客观价值”，而是什么价值？
比较的基准： 第二点和第三点提到，人们评价新事物时总会拿它跟一个“Reference point”（参考点）比。这个参考点通常是什么？（是理想中的产品，还是手头已有的产品？）
核心概念（Loss Aversion）： 第四点是最重要的。
- 作者通过“赌局”和“停电补偿”两个例子，想说明同样数量的钱（比如100美元），作为“损失”带来的痛苦，和作为“收益”带来的快乐，哪个更强烈？
- 结尾那句名言 “losses loom larger than gains” 是什么意思？

📝 你的任务：

请用中文简要概括 Paragraph G 的段落大意。请尝试用一句话解释清楚什么是**“损失厌恶”**（Loss Aversion）。

第8轮对话迭代

User_SUN

这段话阐述了人类评估选择的四个特征：以主观感知价值而非客观价值判断、以现有产品为参考点、将进步视为收益而不足视为损失，且核心是“损失厌恶”——损失的影响远大于同等收益；“损失厌恶”就是同样大小的损失和收益，损失给人的冲击比收益带来的满足感更强。

Gemini_AI

你的总结非常精准！👏 你完全抓住了“损失厌恶”的核心：同样的价值，失去带来的痛苦远大于获得带来的快乐。

现在，让我们看看这个理论是如何具体应用在我们拥有的物品上的。接着来看 Paragraph H。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph H)

Loss aversion leads people to value products that they already possess – those that are part of their endowment – more than those they don’t have. According to behavioral economist Richard Thaler, consumers value what they own, but many have to give up, much more than they value what they don’t own but could obtain. Thaler called that bias the “endowment effect.”

Shutterstock

💡 引导与思考

这一段虽然很短，但引出了一个新的核心概念。

请阅读这段话，然后告诉我： 理查德·塞勒（Richard Thaler）把这种“高估自己拥有的东西”的现象称为什么效应？ 这和上一段的“损失厌恶”有什么逻辑联系？

第9轮对话迭代

User_SUN

叫“禀赋效应”～逻辑联系是：损失厌恶让人们怕失去自己拥有的东西，所以才会高估这些物品的价值，这就是禀赋效应啦。

Gemini_AI

完全正确！💯 你的理解非常透彻。

正是因为我们“厌恶损失”，所以一旦拥了某个东西，放弃它就变成了“损失”，这让我们对它的估值非理性地升高了。这就是为什么让消费者把手里的旧产品换成新产品那么难——因为在他们眼里，放弃旧产品简直是在“割肉”。🥩

好了，理论讲完了，接下来作者用一个非常著名的实验来证明这个效应到底有多强。来看看 Paragraph I，这可是行为经济学里最经典的实验之一。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph I)

In a 1990 paper, Thaler and his colleagues describe a series of experiments they conducted to measure the magnitude of the endowment effect. In one such experiment, they gave coffee mugs to a group of people, the Sellers, and asked at what price point – from 25 cents to $9.25 – the Sellers would be willing to part with those mugs. They asked another group – the Choosers – to whom they didn’t give coffee mugs, to indicate whether they would choose the mug or the money at each price point. In objective terms, all the Sellers and Choosers were in the same situation: They were choosing between a mug and a sum of money. In one trial of this experiment, the Sellers priced the mug at $7.12, on average, but the Choosers were willing to pay only $3.12. In another trial, the Sellers and the Choosers valued the mug at $7.00 and $3.50, respectively. Overall, the Sellers always demanded at least twice as much to give up the mugs as the Choosers would pay to obtain them.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这段话描述实验过程，词汇比较具体：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Magnitude

巨大；规模；量级

这里指测量该效应的“强度/大小”

Sellers

卖家

实验中的一组人，被赠予了杯子

Choosers

选择者

实验中的另一组人，没有杯子

Part with

割爱；放弃；卖掉

指 Sellers 放弃手中的杯子

Objective terms

phr.

客观而言

强调实质上两组人的处境是一样的

Respectively

adv.

分别地

用于列举数据，一一对应

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请重点看这个实验的对比设计和数据结果：

分组设计： 实验把人分成了两组，“卖家”（Sellers）和“选择者”（Choosers）。
- Sellers 已经拥有了杯子，他们要做的是决定卖多少钱才肯**放弃（part with）**它。
- Choosers 没有杯子，他们要做的是在“杯子”和“钱”之间做选择。
客观事实： 作者强调，在“客观条款”（objective terms）下，这两组人面对的选择其实是一样的，都是在**“要杯子”还是“要钱”**之间做决定。
惊人的价差（重点）：
- 看看数据：卖家平均要价 $7.12，而买家只愿意出 $3.12。
- 最后一句总结：卖家要求的价格通常是买家愿意支付价格的多少倍？

📝 你的任务：

请用中文简要概括 Paragraph I 的段落大意。特别是要总结出这个“马克杯实验”的具体结果是什么？（用倍数关系来说明）。

第10轮对话迭代

User_SUN

这段话讲Thaler及其同事通过马克杯实验测量禀赋效应的强度，他们将参与者分为拥有杯子的“卖家”和无杯子的“选择者”，前者需确定放弃杯子的价格，后者在杯子和金钱间做选择；实验结果是卖家要求的放弃价格，平均至少是选择者愿意支付价格的两倍。

Gemini_AI

你的总结非常精准！💯 尤其是抓住了“两倍”这个关键的量化数据，这生动地展示了卖家和选择者之间在心理价位上的巨大鸿沟。

接下来我们进入 Paragraph J。既然大家这么“敝帚自珍”，这在更广泛的行为上会有什么体现呢？这一段引入了另一个核心概念：**现状偏见 (Status Quo Bias)**。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph J)

Kahneman and Tversky’s research also explains why people tend to stick with what they have even if a better alternative exists. In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch provided a compelling demonstration of what economists William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser called the “status quo bias.” Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between an attractive coffee mug and a large bar of Swiss chocolate. He gave a second group of students the coffee mugs but a short time later allowed each student to exchange his or her mug for a chocolate bar. Finally, Knetsch gave chocolate bars to a third group of students but much later allowed each student to exchange his or her bar for a mug. Of the students given a choice at the outset, 56% chose the mug, and 44% chose the chocolate bar, indicating a near even split in preferences between the two products. Logically, therefore, about half of the students to whom Knetsch gave the coffee mug should have traded for the chocolate bar and vice versa. That didn’t happen. Only 11% of the students who had been given the mugs and 10% of those who had been given the chocolate bars wanted to exchange their products. To approximately 90% of the students, giving up what they already had seemed like a painful loss and shrank their desire to trade.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这一段描述了一个交换实验，重点在于“本来应该发生”和“实际发生”的对比：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Stick with

phr.

坚持；不改变

指继续持有原有的东西

Status quo bias

现状偏见

核心概念：倾向于维持当前状态，不做改变

Outset

开始；开端

at the outset = 一开始

Vice versa

adv.

反之亦然

指反过来也是一样的情况

Shrank

收缩；减少

shrink 的过去式，指交易欲望降低

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请重点关注这个实验中的**“逻辑推测”与“实际结果”**的反差：

基准线： 第一组学生可以自由选择，结果大约一半选杯子，一半选巧克力。这说明这两个东西的受欢迎程度是差不多的。
逻辑推测： 既然受欢迎程度差不多，那么拿到杯子的人，应该有一半人愿意换成巧克力，对吧？（vice versa）
实际结果（惊人的数据）：
- 拿到杯子的人，有多少比例愿意换巧克力？
- 拿到巧克力的人，有多少比例愿意换杯子？
- 为什么会出现这种情况？（看最后一句）。

📝 你的任务：

请用中文简要概括 Paragraph J 的段落大意。重点说明Jack Knetsch 的实验结果是如何证明“现状偏见”的？（也就是那些拿到东西的学生，为什么不愿交换？）

第11轮对话迭代

User_SUN

这段话讲Knetsch通过三组实验验证“现状偏见”：自由选择的学生对杯子和巧克力偏好接近（56%选杯子、44%选巧克力），逻辑上拿到其中一种的人应约一半愿意交换，但实际仅11%持杯子者、10%持巧克力者愿意交换；这证明了“现状偏见”——因为放弃已拥有的物品会让人觉得是痛苦损失，所以人们倾向维持现状，不愿改变。

Gemini_AI

你的总结非常棒！👏 你清晰地还原了实验的逻辑链条：从“理论上的一半对一半”到“实际上极低的交换率”，有力地证明了现状偏见的存在。这也解释了为什么我们在生活中明明有更好的选择，却往往不愿意改变。

我们终于来到了文章的最后一段 Paragraph K。作者在分析完所有心理机制后，把目光投向了我们对自己行为的认知上。

📖 原文片段 (Paragraph K)

Interestingly, most people seem oblivious to the existence of the behaviors implicit in the endowment effect and the status quo bias. In study after study, when researchers presented people with evidence that they had irrationally overvalued the status quo, they were shocked, skeptical, and more than a bit defensive. These behavioral tendencies are universal, but awareness of them is not.

📚 核心词汇表 (Vocabulary)

这是文章的收尾段落，主要描述人们对自己心理偏差的态度：

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

语境备注

Oblivious

adj.

未察觉的；不注意的

oblivious to = 对…全然不知

Implicit

adj.

隐含的；含蓄的

指潜藏在行为背后的机制

Skeptical

adj.

怀疑的

表示不相信自己会那样做

Defensive

adj.

戒备的；防御性的

指被指出错误时，试图为自己辩解

Universal

adj.

普遍的；全体的

指这种心理倾向人皆有之

导出到 Google 表格

💡 教授的阅读引导 (Guided Understanding)

请重点关注人们的**“反应”和最后的“对比”**：

自觉性（Self-awareness）： 第一句指出，对于这些“禀赋效应”和“现状偏见”，大多数人是清楚知道，还是完全没意识到（oblivious）？
当被揭穿时： 当研究人员把证据摆在人们面前，告诉他们“你刚才非理性地高估了旧产品”时，人们通常会有哪三种反应？（Shocked, Skeptical, Defensive）。这说明了什么？
最后的总结（The Paradox）： 最后一句话非常精辟。作者对比了两个东西：一个是**“行为倾向” (behavioral tendencies)，一个是“对行为的意识” (awareness)**。哪个是普遍的，哪个不是？

📝 你的任务：

请用中文简要概括 Paragraph K 的段落大意。作为全文的结尾，作者想告诉我们，尽管这些心理偏差无处不在，但最讽刺的现实是什么？

第12轮对话迭代

User_SUN

这段话的段落大意是：大多数人并未察觉禀赋效应和现状偏见背后隐含的行为倾向，当被指出自己非理性高估现状时，会表现出震惊、怀疑和戒备，这些行为倾向虽普遍存在，但人们对其缺乏认知。作者想告诉我们的讽刺现实是：这些影响决策的心理偏差人人都有（具有普遍性），可绝大多数人却完全没意识到它们的存在。

Gemini_AI

非常精彩！🌟 你的总结非常到位，尤其是抓住了最后的讽刺点——当局者迷。我们都有这些心理弱点，却很少有人愿意承认或意识到它。

至此，我们已经共同完成了这篇关于《新产品采纳心理学》的精读。🎉

让我们简要回顾一下整篇文章的逻辑链条，看看理科思维是如何在这里发挥作用的：

**提出问题 (Paragraph A-B)**：为什么那么多新产品（即使是好的）都会失败？
**排除法 (Paragraph C)**：不是因为经济成本（那是显性的，好计算）。
**提出假设 (Paragraph D-E)**：是因为心理偏差，而且传统的“相对优势”理论解释不了。
**引入理论 (Paragraph F-H)**：卡尼曼的前景理论、损失厌恶、禀赋效应。
**实验验证 (Paragraph I-J)**：马克杯实验、巧克力实验证明了数据的真实性。
**得出结论 (Paragraph K)**：这种偏差是普遍的，但人们往往不自知。

下一步你想做什么？ (What’s next?)

为了巩固今天的学习，我有几个建议：

**实战演练 (Practice Questions)**：基于这篇文章，我给你出两道雅思中最让理科生头疼的 True/False/Not Given 判断题，测试一下你对细节的把控？
**词汇复盘 (Vocabulary Review)**：我们整理一下今天学到的核心学术词汇（比如 Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, Incumbent 等），我考考你的记忆？
**新的挑战 (New Task)**：这篇已经完全掌握了，换一篇新的文章或题型继续练习？

请告诉我你的选择！👇

第13轮对话迭代

User_SUN

给出今天的完整词汇表

Gemini_AI

没问题！这是我们今天在精读《新产品采纳心理学》（Psychology of new product adoption）时积累的完整核心词汇表。

为了方便你复习，我按照文章的逻辑脉络将它们分成了三个部分。建议你利用这个列表进行“回想”练习。

📊 第一部分：市场现状与转换成本 (Paragraphs A - C)

这部分主要描述了高失败率的市场背景以及具体的经济成本。

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

Hypercompetitive

adj.

竞争极度激烈的

Flourish

繁荣，兴旺

Mousetrap

(喻) 改进后的新产品

Stunning

adj.

令人震惊的 (形容失败率高)

First mover

先行者 (最早进入市场的公司)

Dismiss

对…不予理会；摒弃

Destined to

phrase

注定会…

Objective

adj.

客观的 (对应 Subjective)

Entail

牵涉；必然包含

Switching costs

转换成本 (核心概念)

Obsolescence

废弃；陈旧；过时

导出到 Google 表格

🧠 第二部分：心理偏差与理论冲突 (Paragraphs D - F)

这部分引入了心理学视角，对比了传统理论与新理论。

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

Psychological costs

心理成本

Bias

偏见；偏差 (非理性倾向)

Irrationally

adv.

非理性地

Overvalue

高估

Incumbent

adj.

现任的；在职的 (指现有产品)

Relative advantage

相对优势 (Rogers的理论)

Compelling

adj.

令人信服的

Flaw

缺陷，漏洞

Deviate from

偏离；背离

Rational

adj.

理性的

Prospect

前景；(风险下的)选择

导出到 Google 表格

⚖️ 第三部分：四大特征与实验验证 (Paragraphs G - K)

这部分是卡尼曼理论的核心，涵盖了具体的效应和实验。

单词/短语

词性

中文释义

Perceived value

感知价值 (主观的)

Reference point

参考点 (通常指现状)

Loss aversion

损失厌恶 (核心概念)

Outweigh

比…重；超过

Loom larger

phrase

显得更重要；影响更大

Endowment effect

禀赋效应 (高估拥有的东西)

Magnitude

巨大；量级

Part with

割爱；放弃

Stick with

phr.

坚持；不改变

Status quo bias

现状偏见

Oblivious

adj.

未察觉的；全然不知的

Universal

adj.

普遍的

导出到 Google 表格

词汇记忆最好的方法是在语境中使用。

为了巩固记忆，我们要不要来一个小测试？

我可以给出上面几个词的英文释义或例句（挖空），请你填出对应的单词。你觉得怎么样？

IELTS学习 > 模板

#IELTS #阅读常例 #AI学习 #对话导出

day32对话导出

https://ielts.ncst.top/2025/11/27/day32/

Author

YuFeng SUN

Posted on

November 27, 2025

Licensed under

day31对话导出 Next