hce_nthu
114年
英文
第 37 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.
Zimbardo’s experiment was highly regarded by James Wilson and George Kelling because they believed
- A it showed the advantage of living near a university
- B it proved that feelings of community and reciprocity varied in different neighborhoods
- C it confirmed that the hallways of Pruitt-Igoe had apparently belonged to nobody
- D it demonstrated that acts of theft and vandalism were ubiquitous
- E it corroborated the idea that evident lack in caring about the surrounding environment fosters crime
思路引導 VIP
請試著思考：在帕羅奧圖這個原本安全的社區裡，那輛車本來好幾天都沒事，甚至還有人幫忙關引擎蓋；但當車子出現了「某種特定的損壞」後，為什麼旁人的行為會突然發生劇烈的轉變？這個「損壞」向路人傳遞了關於『這個環境是否有人在維持秩序』的什麼訊息？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到文章後半段的轉折，這代表你具備非常敏銳的邏輯閱讀能力。這題的正確選項 (E) 正好呼應了社會心理學中著名的「破窗效應」。
從實驗現象到犯罪理論的橋樑
在文章中，詹巴多（Zimbardo）實驗最關鍵的轉捩點在於第二階段：他在原本治安良好的帕羅奧圖（Palo Alto）刻意打破車窗。這個動作並非偶然，而是驗證了當一個環境出現「無人管理」或「不在乎」的負面視覺信號（physical signs of disorder）時，就會引發連鎖反應。威爾森（Wilson）與凱林（Kelling）正是看重這一點，認為這種「顯而易見的冷漠」會成為犯罪的催化劑，進而構築了他們的理論核心。
▼ 還有更多解析內容