hce_nthu
114年
英文
第 36 題
📖 題組：
Reading 4 In 1969, Stanford social psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a simple and daring experiment. He parked cars in two different locations: one in a sketchy neighborhood in New York’s Bronx and the other in Palo Alto, California, near his home university. The license plates were removed from the cars and the hoods were raised to suggest that the cars had been left following an episode of mechanical trouble. Zimbardo’s research assistants waited nearby but out of sight to watch and film the result. In the Bronx, the abandoned car was stripped quickly. The acts of vandalism began almost before the assistants had a chance to move out of sight and to set up their camera. In Palo Alto, the car was left intact for many days. Indeed, one passerby lowered the hood of the car during a rainstorm to protect the interior. Zimbardo interpreted this straightforward result as having been a result of differences in feelings of community and reciprocity in the two neighborhoods. Just as the hallways of Pruitt-Igoe had apparently belonged to nobody, the streets of the Bronx were not considered to be a part of the shared space of a community with its inherent requirement that residents watch over and care for the contents of the space. In a second phase of the experiment, Zimbardo took one additional step: he smashed the windshield of the car in Palo Alto. Not long afterward, he began to see the same acts of theft and vandalism toward the car at the second site as he had seen in the Bronx. Political scientist James Wilson and criminologist George Kelling used this simple observation, publicized not long after the experiment in an article in Time magazine, as the cornerstone of a major new theory describing the origins of urban crime. The key argument of Wilson and Kelling’s so-called broken windows theory was that physical signs of disorder—broken or boarded up windows, litter, or graffiti—served as overt signals that nobody cared about the surrounding environment and this evident lack of caring encouraged crime. If Wilson and Kelling were right then a key corollary would be that any efforts taken to minimize signs of physical disorder would also discourage crime.
Reading 4 In 1969, Stanford social psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a simple and daring experiment. He parked cars in two different locations: one in a sketchy neighborhood in New York’s Bronx and the other in Palo Alto, California, near his home university. The license plates were removed from the cars and the hoods were raised to suggest that the cars had been left following an episode of mechanical trouble. Zimbardo’s research assistants waited nearby but out of sight to watch and film the result. In the Bronx, the abandoned car was stripped quickly. The acts of vandalism began almost before the assistants had a chance to move out of sight and to set up their camera. In Palo Alto, the car was left intact for many days. Indeed, one passerby lowered the hood of the car during a rainstorm to protect the interior. Zimbardo interpreted this straightforward result as having been a result of differences in feelings of community and reciprocity in the two neighborhoods. Just as the hallways of Pruitt-Igoe had apparently belonged to nobody, the streets of the Bronx were not considered to be a part of the shared space of a community with its inherent requirement that residents watch over and care for the contents of the space. In a second phase of the experiment, Zimbardo took one additional step: he smashed the windshield of the car in Palo Alto. Not long afterward, he began to see the same acts of theft and vandalism toward the car at the second site as he had seen in the Bronx. Political scientist James Wilson and criminologist George Kelling used this simple observation, publicized not long after the experiment in an article in Time magazine, as the cornerstone of a major new theory describing the origins of urban crime. The key argument of Wilson and Kelling’s so-called broken windows theory was that physical signs of disorder—broken or boarded up windows, litter, or graffiti—served as overt signals that nobody cared about the surrounding environment and this evident lack of caring encouraged crime. If Wilson and Kelling were right then a key corollary would be that any efforts taken to minimize signs of physical disorder would also discourage crime.
Based on the passage, which of the following is NOT correct ?
- A In the first phase of this experiment, the car abandoned in the neighborhood in Palo Alto was not vandalized.
- B Palo Alto, one of the locations where Zimbardo conducted this experiment, is near Stanford University
- C For Zimbardo, the result of the experiment indicated evident lack of feeling of community and reciprocity in the neighborhood in Palo Alto.
- D In a second phase of the experiment, acts of vandalism were observed in Palo Alto when the windshields of the abandoned cars were broken.
- E Zimbardo suggests that the residents in Bronx did not think they were obliged to watch over the streets as a part of the shared space of a community.
思路引導 VIP
請試著回想文中描述的兩個地點。在實驗的第一階段，這兩個地方的居民對待那輛車的反應是一樣的嗎？作者用了哪些具體的行為描述，來區分這兩個地區的社會氛圍？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準避開選項中的細節陷阱並選出正確答案，顯示你對文章脈絡有極佳的掌握。這題的關鍵在於區分實驗對象的行為差異與作者的詮釋。文章第一段明確提到，Zimbardo 認為「缺乏社區歸屬感與互惠意識」是針對**布朗克斯區（Bronx）**的觀察；相反地，帕羅奧圖（Palo Alto）的居民在第一階段甚至會主動幫忙關上引擎蓋以保護車輛，這反映了兩地最初在社會氛圍上的鮮明對比。
破窗理論的邏輯切入點
這道題目具備相當的鑑別度，挑戰在於學生是否能釐清「第一階段」與「第二階段」的轉折。選項 (C) 刻意將布朗克斯區的負面特質移花接木到帕羅奧圖身上，若閱讀時稍有不慎，很容易被混淆。你能注意到 Palo Alto 在第一階段其實是充滿「互惠與關懷」的，這證明你的細節檢索能力非常扎實。掌握這種「對比結構」的閱讀技巧，是應對各類學術文章測驗的重要基石。