In the 1960s and 1970s, classic social psychological studies were conducted

游客2023-08-04  25

问题     In the 1960s and 1970s, classic social psychological studies were conducted that provided evidence that even normal, decent people can engage in acts of extreme cruelty when instructed to do so by others. However, in an essay published November 20 in the open access journal PLOS Biology, Professors Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher revisit these studies’ conclusions and explain how awful acts involve not just obedience, but enthusiasm too—challenging the long-held belief that human beings are "programmed" for conformity.
    This belief can be traced back to two landmark empirical research (实证研究) programs conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo in the 1960s and early 1970s. Milgram’s "Obedience to Authority" research is widely believed to show that people blindly conform to the instructions of an authority figure, and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is commonly understood to show that people will take on abusive roles uncritically.
    However, Professor Haslam, from the University of Queensland, argues that tyranny does not result from blind conformity to rules and roles. Rather, it is a creative act of followership, resulting from identifying with authorities who represent vicious (恶意的) acts as virtuous (善良的).
    "Decent people participate in horrific acts not because they become passive, mindless functionaries (公职人员) who do not know what they are doing, but rather because they come to believe—typically under the influence of those in authority—that what they are doing is right," Professor Haslam explained.
    Professor Reicher, of the University of St Andrews, added that it is not that they were blind to the evil acts they were committing, but rather that they knew what they were doing, and believed it to be right.
    These conclusions were partly informed by Professors Haslam and Reicher’s own prison experiment, conducted in 2002 in collaboration with the BBC. The study generated three findings. First, participants did not conform automatically to their assigned role; second, they only acted in terms of group membership to the extent that they identified with the group; and finally, group identity did not mean that people simply accepted their assigned position—it also empowered them to resist it.
    Although Zimbardo and Milgram’s findings remain highly influential, Professor Haslam argues that their conclusions do not hold up well under close empirical scrutiny.
    Professor Reicher concludes that tyranny does not flourish because offenders are helpless and ignorant; it flourishes because they are convinced that they are doing something worthy. [br] How does Professor Haslam think Milgram and Zimbardo’s findings?

选项 A、They are classic studies and should not be doubted.
B、They cannot stand a strict test.
C、They need to follow the current trend.
D、They have to be revised and testified.

答案 B

解析 细节题。根据题干可定位到原文倒数第二段,该段提到,虽然津巴多和米尔格拉姆的研究仍具有很大影响力,哈斯拉姆教授认为他们的结论禁不住严格的实证审查,hold upwell是“禁得住”的意思,与stand同义,scrutiny与test同义,都是“检查”的意思,故选B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2897500.html
最新回复(0)