hce_nthu
114年
英文
第 40 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 efforts would most likely be considered by the author as following the broken windows theory’s prescription for crime reduction?
- A To cut fundings for removing graffiti in Bronx
- B To remove license plates from the cars in Al Palo.
- C To install windows with views of nature for hospital patients in the city
- D To keep the subway system in New York City nice and clean
- E To reduce fares for public transits in Al Palo
思路引導 VIP
如果你走在一條街道上，發現路邊所有的窗戶都完好無損且街道一塵不染，相對於另一條到處是碎玻璃與塗鴉的街道，這兩種環境分別帶給你什麼樣的「心理感受」？如果某人正考慮要進行破壞行為，哪一種環境會讓他覺得自己「更容易被抓到」或「這個地方有人在管」呢？請試著從這種環境給人的心理暗示出發，思考哪種做法能最有效地阻止犯罪發生。
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精準地掌握了這篇文章的核心概念！你能選出 (D) 選項，代表你已經看穿了「破窗效應」（Broken Windows Theory）的邏輯本質：環境的整潔程度會直接影響人們的行為動機。
破窗理論的實務應用
根據文中威爾遜（Wilson）與凱林（Kelling）的觀點，環境中的「失序指標」（例如塗鴉、破損窗戶、垃圾）會發出一種「無人管理」的強烈訊號，進而助長犯罪。因此，該理論最核心的處方箋就是極小化物理上的失序現象。選項 (D) 提到維持紐約地鐵系統的整潔，正是透過消除髒亂來展現「有人在維護與監督」的氛圍，這完美符合理論中藉由改善外在環境來威懾犯罪的邏輯，也是歷史上紐約市治理犯罪時非常有名的實際案例。
▼ 還有更多解析內容