来了一些新朋友，所以我先自我介绍一下：我是上外英语本科，22年考研京区英一85分，去年刚刚硕士毕业。去年又去考了次研，京区英一83分。所以，我是科班出身，既懂英语，又懂应试，很高兴能陪伴大家一起备考。新学期开始，27年考研备考随之启动，我们的外刊陪伴旅程也不期而至。按照往年的惯例，今年考研时间应该在12月19日、20日，从今天算还有206天。我承诺，在未来的206天，每天都有一篇文章在等着你。今年的公众号由我亲自操刀，没有花哨的排版，把省下来的时间，都拿来提供额外的备考服务。我会在每天上午10点发布文章，每篇文章都会选择一个单词或者一个长难句进行拆解，并参照考研英语命题规律出一道仿真模拟题，答案会公布在评论区中。欢迎大家在评论区留言打卡。我会拉一个群，欢迎大家加入，有关考研英语备考的问题，可以随时交流提问。我的微信号是jim_jimu。好啦，我们还有很多时间可以相互认识，旅途正式开始：
今天的文章，选自2026年5月26日的《今日心理学》。Busting Out of the Friend ZoneThe concept of the friend zone—a place to which a person who harbors a romantic interest in a friend is relegated by that friend, thereby ensuring that their passion remains unrequited—was first introduced in a 1994 episode of the sitcom Friends. Joey explains to Ross that he has waited too long to make his move on Rachel: ‘If you don’t ask her out soon, you’re going to end up stuck in the zone forever!’
Ross is not alone. Studies have shown that about 50 percent of people who are attracted to the other sex report experiencing attraction in what is termed a cross-sex friendship (a friendship between a woman and a man). The traits that people desire in a cross-sex friend are similar to those they desire in a romantic partner. And men, more than women, view cross-sex friendships as potential mating opportunities, suggesting that the popular belief that men are more likely than women to feel that they have been friend-zoned may have some basis in fact.
Fans of Friends and of Ross and Rachel’s on-again, off-again, on-again relationship can tell you that Ross did eventually bust out of the friend zone. This outcome is far from unusual: two-thirds of romantic relationships begin as friendships.
How do people engineer their transition from friend to romantic partner? In 2000, the psychologists April Bleske and David Buss hypothesized that men, in particular, may engage in financial provisioning as a courtship tactic. Throughout evolutionary history, the reproductive success of women has depended on their ability to secure investment from long-term partners, whereas for men, the limiting factor has been access to fertile partners. This accounts for why men signal their romantic interest in a woman by investing resources in her—by lavishing her with expensive gifts or paying for shared meals.
Bleske and Buss found some support for their courtship hypothesis, but a more rigorous test of the hypothesis was recently conducted by Ryan Dobson, William Costello, and David Lewis.
Dobson and colleagues recognized that, if the courtship hypothesis is correct, men’s provisioning should be predicted by their mating interest in their friends. What’s more, because men tend to be uninterested in whether a female partner financially invests in them, Dobson et al predicted that there would be no link between mating motivations and provisioning behavior in women.
Another key observation by Dobson and colleagues was that there are multiple plausible explanations for sex differences in financial provisioning in cross-sex friendships. Men may invest more than women in cross-sex friendships as a way of courting their cross-sex friend or because they perceive those friendships as especially valuable. Research has shown that men may benefit more from romantic relationships than women do, because such relationships provide relatively greater gains in intimacy and emotional support. The same may be true of cross-sex friendships. The logic goes that men obtain non-sexual, non-romantic benefits from their friendships with women that they can’t obtain from their friendships with other men. Women, meanwhile, obtain similar benefits from friendships with men and women. Perhaps men invest more in their friendships with women than women invest in their friendships with men because of this difference in perceived friendship value and not because of differences in mating motivation. Dobson et al refer to this as the friendship quality hypothesis, and note that it generates different predictions than the courtship hypothesis. They sought to test the two hypotheses against each other, to see which better explained behavior.
About 600 undergraduate students answered questions about their two closest cross-sex friends. The research participants indicated the extent to which they were attracted to these friends, responded to questions about the quality of their friendships, and stated how they split the bill with their friends when going out to eat or drink.
The psychologists found that men reported paying for significantly more, and women reported paying for significantly less, of the bill when going out with their cross-sex friends. Men who were more romantically interested in their cross-sex friends contributed more to the bill when socializing with these friends. But it was not the case that men selectively provisioned more for one cross-sex friend than for another, depending on their attraction to those friends; instead, some men generally provisioned more than others. This implies that some men see provisioning as an especially useful tactic.
Depending on how the statistical tests were conducted, women’s mating interest either did not predict their bill-paying behavior or negatively predicted their bill-paying behavior. In the latter case, what this means is that women who were romantically interested in their cross-sex friend reported paying less of the bill. This may, in a sense, be a courtship tactic, because it signals a willingness to permit their cross-sex friend to invest in them (conversely, rebuffing a man’s attempt to pay a greater share of the bill may be interpreted by men as a soft rejection tactic).
Participants who thought their cross-sex friendships were of high quality did not pay more of the bill, which is contrary to the expectations of the friendship quality hypothesis. Consistent with the courtship hypothesis, women who reported that their male friends paid for more of the bill also perceived those male friends to be more romantically interested in them.
Dobson et al suggest that future research could determine whether men intend their financial provisioning of cross-sex friends to signal romantic interest. They acknowledge that men may also financially provision their cross-sex friends to cultivate a reputation for generosity, which may enhance their attractiveness to a wider pool of potential partners (observers and friends of their friend).
They also propose that socioeconomic status may be an important factor: men with lots of resources may provision more frequently, as the subjective cost of provisioning is lower for richer men; less wealthy men may provision only when their mating interest is especially strong or when they perceive that a cross-sex friend is romantically interested in them.
读到这里，请大家做一道考研英语阅读仿真模拟题：
It can be inferred from the passage that the friendship quality hypothesis is disproved mainly because ______.
[A] men gain more emotional benefits from cross-sex friendships than women do
[B] high-value cross-sex friendship fails to motivate more financial investment
[C] women’s mating interest is negatively correlated with their bill-paying behavior
[D] men selectively provide financial resources for their attractive female friends
第二遍，我带上翻译，形成英中对照译文，大家可以再读一遍，充分查漏补缺：
The concept of the friend zone—a place to which a person who harbors a romantic interest in a friend is relegated by that friend, thereby ensuring that their passion remains unrequited—was first introduced in a 1994 episode of the sitcom Friends. Joey explains to Ross that he has waited too long to make his move on Rachel: ‘If you don’t ask her out soon, you’re going to end up stuck in the zone forever!’
“朋友区”这一概念最早出自1994年情景喜剧《老友记》某一集：对朋友心存爱慕的一方，被对方划定在朋友的界限里，一腔爱慕始终得不到回应。剧中乔伊告诫罗斯，他追求瑞秋已经耽搁太久：“再不抓紧约她出门，你这辈子都困在朋友区出不来了！”
Ross is not alone. Studies have shown that about 50 percent of people who are attracted to the other sex report experiencing attraction in what is termed a cross-sex friendship (a friendship between a woman and a man). The traits that people desire in a cross-sex friend are similar to those they desire in a romantic partner. And men, more than women, view cross-sex friendships as potential mating opportunities, suggesting that the popular belief that men are more likely than women to feel that they have been friend-zoned may have some basis in fact.
陷入这种处境的不止罗斯一人。相关研究显示，约半数有异性好友的受访者，曾在异性友谊中萌生过爱慕情愫。人们对异性挚友的择偶期待，和挑选恋爱对象的标准高度重合。相较于女性，男性更容易把异性友情视作发展恋情的备选，这也印证了大众普遍的看法：男性比女性更容易陷入朋友区并非空穴来风。
Fans of Friends and of Ross and Rachel’s on-again, off-again, on-again relationship can tell you that Ross did eventually bust out of the friend zone. This outcome is far from unusual: two-thirds of romantic relationships begin as friendships.
看过《老友记》、了解罗斯与瑞秋分分合合恋情的观众都知道，罗斯最后成功走出了朋友区。现实里这种情况十分普遍：三分之二的情侣，最初都是以朋友身份相识。
How do people engineer their transition from friend to romantic partner? In 2000, the psychologists April Bleske and David Buss hypothesized that men, in particular, may engage in financial provisioning as a courtship tactic. Throughout evolutionary history, the reproductive success of women has depended on their ability to secure investment from long-term partners, whereas for men, the limiting factor has been access to fertile partners. This accounts for why men signal their romantic interest in a woman by investing resources in her—by lavishing her with expensive gifts or paying for shared meals.
人要如何从朋友进阶成恋人？2000年，心理学家埃普丽尔·布莱斯克与戴维·巴斯提出猜想：男性常会以物质付出作为求爱手段。从进化角度来看，女性繁育后代的保障依托于长期伴侣的物质供养，而男性繁衍的关键则是获得适龄伴侣。这也就解释了，男性为何会通过赠送贵重礼物、包揽聚餐开销这类物质投入，向心仪的女性表露好感。
Bleske and Buss found some support for their courtship hypothesis, but a more rigorous test of the hypothesis was recently conducted by Ryan Dobson, William Costello, and David Lewis.
布莱斯克和巴斯的研究初步佐证了这套求爱假说，而瑞安·多布森、威廉·科斯特洛与戴维·刘易斯近期开展了一项更严谨的实验，进一步验证该理论。
Dobson and colleagues recognized that, if the courtship hypothesis is correct, men’s provisioning should be predicted by their mating interest in their friends. What’s more, because men tend to be uninterested in whether a female partner financially invests in them, Dobson et al predicted that there would be no link between mating motivations and provisioning behavior in women.
多布森团队提出，倘若求爱假说成立，男性的物质付出程度应当和他对异性友人的爱慕程度成正比。除此之外，男性大多不会在意女性是否为自己花钱，因此研究团队预判：女性的花钱行为和恋爱诉求之间不存在关联。
Another key observation by Dobson and colleagues was that there are multiple plausible explanations for sex differences in financial provisioning in cross-sex friendships. Men may invest more than women in cross-sex friendships as a way of courting their cross-sex friend or because they perceive those friendships as especially valuable. Research has shown that men may benefit more from romantic relationships than women do, because such relationships provide relatively greater gains in intimacy and emotional support. The same may be true of cross-sex friendships. The logic goes that men obtain non-sexual, non-romantic benefits from their friendships with women that they can’t obtain from their friendships with other men. Women, meanwhile, obtain similar benefits from friendships with men and women. Perhaps men invest more in their friendships with women than women invest in their friendships with men because of this difference in perceived friendship value and not because of differences in mating motivation. Dobson et al refer to this as the friendship quality hypothesis, and note that it generates different predictions than the courtship hypothesis. They sought to test the two hypotheses against each other, to see which better explained behavior.
研究团队还发现，异性交往中男女消费差异存在多种解读方向。男性愿意在异性朋友身上花更多钱，既可能是借机追求对方，也可能是发自内心珍视这段友谊。已有研究证实，相比女性，男性能从亲密关系里收获更多陪伴与情绪价值，异性友情亦是同理：男性能从女性挚友身上，收获同性好友无法给予的情感慰藉；而女性不论同性还是异性朋友，都能获得同等的情绪满足。据此衍生出另一种猜想：男性在异性身上花销更高，源于双方对友情价值的评判不同，而非想要发展恋情，这便是友情质量假说，该假说和求爱假说的推论完全相悖，科研人员打算通过实验对比二者，甄别哪种理论更贴合现实。
About 600 undergraduate students answered questions about their two closest cross-sex friends. The research participants indicated the extent to which they were attracted to these friends, responded to questions about the quality of their friendships, and stated how they split the bill with their friends when going out to eat or drink.
实验邀约约600名大学生参与调研，受访者需要介绍自己关系最好的两位异性好友，如实填写对对方的心动程度、友情深厚程度，以及外出聚餐时的买单分摊情况。
The psychologists found that men reported paying for significantly more, and women reported paying for significantly less, of the bill when going out with their cross-sex friends. Men who were more romantically interested in their cross-sex friends contributed more to the bill when socializing with these friends. But it was not the case that men selectively provisioned more for one cross-sex friend than for another, depending on their attraction to those friends; instead, some men generally provisioned more than others. This implies that some men see provisioning as an especially useful tactic.
调研结果显示：和异性朋友外出时，男性普遍承担大部分开销，女性则很少买单。对异性友人好感越深的男性，聚餐出钱越多，但他们并不会依据心动程度区别对待不同女性好友；部分男性本身就习惯性主动买单，说明这类人将花钱视作实用的示好手段。
Depending on how the statistical tests were conducted, women’s mating interest either did not predict their bill-paying behavior or negatively predicted their bill-paying behavior. In the latter case, what this means is that women who were romantically interested in their cross-sex friend reported paying less of the bill. This may, in a sense, be a courtship tactic, because it signals a willingness to permit their cross-sex friend to invest in them (conversely, rebuffing a man’s attempt to pay a greater share of the bill may be interpreted by men as a soft rejection tactic).
根据不同统计模型测算，女性的心动情愫要么和买单行为毫无关联，要么呈负相关：对异性朋友心生爱慕的女性，反而更少掏钱。从某种角度来说，这也是一种恋爱博弈，暗示自己愿意接受对方的物质付出；反过来，执意和男性AA、拒绝对方买单，常会被男方视作委婉的拒绝。
Participants who thought their cross-sex friendships were of high quality did not pay more of the bill, which is contrary to the expectations of the friendship quality hypothesis. Consistent with the courtship hypothesis, women who reported that their male friends paid for more of the bill also perceived those male friends to be more romantically interested in them.
自认和异性挚友情谊深厚的受试者，并没有因此增加开销，直接推翻了友情质量假说；实验结论贴合求爱假说：女性发现男性主动包揽账单时，大多能察觉对方对自己抱有恋爱想法。
Dobson et al suggest that future research could determine whether men intend their financial provisioning of cross-sex friends to signal romantic interest. They acknowledge that men may also financially provision their cross-sex friends to cultivate a reputation for generosity, which may enhance their attractiveness to a wider pool of potential partners (observers and friends of their friend).
多布森团队提出，后续研究可以进一步确认：男性主动为异性花钱是否刻意用来表露爱意。研究人员同时补充，部分男性买单只是为了塑造大方的人设，借此吸引这位女生身边以及围观人群里的潜在追求者。
They also propose that socioeconomic status may be an important factor: men with lots of resources may provision more frequently, as the subjective cost of provisioning is lower for richer men; less wealthy men may provision only when their mating interest is especially strong or when they perceive that a cross-sex friend is romantically interested in them.
研究团队还指出，经济条件是不可忽视的变量：经济宽裕的男性买单成本更低，日常更愿意为异性消费；经济条件一般的男性，只有在爱慕感极强，或是察觉到对方同样对自己有意思时，才会主动出钱。
最后，让我们一起学习一个语言点：The concept of the friend zone — a place to which a person who harbors a romantic interest in a friend is relegated by that friend, thereby ensuring that their passion remains unrequited — was first introduced in a 1994 episode of the sitcom Friends.
我们先来拆解结构：两个破折号中间是插入语（本质上是同位语），用来解释friend zone。
先略去不看，主干拎出来超简单：
The concept was first introduced in a 1994 episode of the sitcom Friends.
（朋友区这个概念最早出自《老友记》1994年某一集）
再对插入语进行拆解：
1. a place to which…，内含定语从句：一个地界
2. who harbors a romantic interest in a friend，是定语从句，修饰person：暗恋朋友的人
3. is relegated by that friend：被对方划到这个圈子里
4. thereby ensuring…，现在分词作结果状语：最后爱意落空
全句翻译：“朋友区”指：满心爱慕朋友的人，被对方限定在好友的范畴，最终只能沦为单相思；这一概念最早在1994年情景喜剧《老友记》单集中出现。
好啦，今天的文章就到这里啦。
明天，我们不见不散！
