2023考研英語閱讀當(dāng)權(quán)者都會腐化敗壞

　　All power tends to corrupt

　　當(dāng)權(quán)者都會腐化、敗壞

　　But power without status corrupts absolutely

　　但出身卑微的當(dāng)權(quán)者敗壞的更徹底

　　DURING the second world war a new term of abuse entered the English language. To callsomeone a little Hitler meant he was a menial functionary who employed what power hehad in order to annoy and frustrate others for his own gratification. From nightclubbouncers to the squaddies at Abu Ghraib prison who tormented their prisoners for fun, littleHitlers plague the world. The phenomenon has not, though, hitherto been subject toscientific investigation.

　　二戰(zhàn)期間，有一個罵人的新詞 小希特勒 在英語國家中很盛行，如果這樣稱呼一個人意味這他是一個為了滿足自己，很會利用手里的小權(quán)力折磨、刁難其他人的位卑但權(quán)重的小人物。從夜總會的保安到阿布扎比監(jiān)獄里以折磨犯人取樂的獄警， 這樣的 小希特勒們 無處不在。但這種現(xiàn)象一直沒有被科學(xué)的分析過。

　　Nathanael Fast of the University of Southern California has changed that. He observed thatlots of psychological experiments have been done on the effects of status and lots on theeffects of power. But few, if any, have been done on both combined. He and his colleaguesNir Halevy of Stanford University and Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University, in Chicago,set out to correct this. In particular they wanted to see if it is circumstances that create littleHitlers or, rather, whether people of that type simply gravitate into jobs which allow them tobehave badly. Their results have just been published in the Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology.

　　南加州大學(xué)的 Nathanael Fast 改變了這一情況，他研究了大量的有關(guān)身份地位和有關(guān)于權(quán)力的心理學(xué)測試。但發(fā)現(xiàn)很少的測試是有關(guān)這兩項之間相關(guān)性的。他和他的同事：斯坦福大學(xué)的 Nir Halevy、芝加哥西北大學(xué)的 Adam Galinsky 決定填補這一項空白。他們想知道是大環(huán)境造就了小希特勒們?還是所從事的特定工作迫使他們行為不端?測試結(jié)果就發(fā)表在這一期的 實驗社會心理學(xué)雜志 上。

　　Dr Fast s experiment randomly assigned each of 213 participants to one of four situationsthat manipulated their status and power. All participants were informed that they weretaking part in a study on virtual organisations and would be interacting with, but not meeting,a fellow student who worked in the same fictional consulting firm. Participants were thenassigned either the role of idea producer , a job that entailed generating and working withimportant ideas, or of worker , a job that involved menial tasks like checking for typos. Apost-experiment questionnaire demonstrated that participants did, as might be expected,look upon the role of idea producer with respect and admiration. Equally unsurprisingly, theylooked down on the role of worker.

　　Fast博士將213位實驗對象隨機(jī)分配到四個代表不同情形的身份及權(quán)力的小組中。所有實驗對象都被告知他們將以小組形式參加一個研究，與另一個同樣是虛構(gòu)的顧問公司的同學(xué)進(jìn)行互動，他們彼此并不見面。一些試驗對象被賦予的角色是 拿主意的 人-需要他們制定、實施重大決策，另一些人的角色是 勞動者 -做些類似校對、打印之類的日常事務(wù)的工作。實驗后的問卷調(diào)查驗證了他們之前的推測：測試對象們對 拿主意的 角色報以尊重和贊美，同樣在他們意料之中的還有，對勞動者的角色都是輕視的態(tài)度。

　　To manipulate their power, participants were told there would be a draw for a $50 bonusprize at the end of the study and that, regardless of their role, each participant would beable to dictate which activities his partner must engage in to qualify to enter the draw.Participants that Dr Fast wanted to imbue with a sense of power were informed that oneother element of their role involved dictating which hoops their partners would have tojump through in order to qualify for the draw, and that they controlled the amount of effortthe partner had to exert in order to win the $50. They were also told that the partner didnot have any such control over them. In contrast, low-power participants were informedthat while they had the ability to determine the hoops their partner had to jump through,that partner ultimately had more control because he could remove the low- powerparticipant s name from the raffle if he did not like the hoops selected.

　　在如何運用他們的權(quán)力的實驗中，測試對象們被告知在研究結(jié)束后會進(jìn)行一個價值50 美元的抽獎活動，無論他們的角色是什么，每個參與者都有權(quán)決定他所評判的對象在完成指定動作后是否有資格參加抽獎。DrFast還賦予那些權(quán)重的測試對象的另一個角色就是，他們能決策哪些 障礙 是必須翻越之后對方才有資格抽獎，他們還控制著對方努力多少次才能贏取50美元。他們同時被告知另一方則沒有控制他們的權(quán)力。相反的，權(quán)輕的測試者則被告知他們也能決定對方必須翻越的 障礙 ，可最后，如果權(quán)重的這一方不喜歡他們要完成的動作，他們可以直接將權(quán)輕的測試對象除名。

　　Participants were then presented with a list of ten hoops and told to select as many as theyliked for their partner to jump through. Unknown to the participants,Dr Halevy and Dr Galinsky had conducted an independent test, using 58 people not involvedin the main study, to rate how demeaning, humiliating, degrading, embarrassing anduncomfortable each of the ten possible activities actually was. Five of the ten were rated asdeeply demeaning. These included things like: say I am filthy five times and bark like adog three times . The other five were not considered particularly demeaning. They included: tell the experimenter a funny joke and clap your hands 50 times .

　　之后，測試對象們收到一個代表10個 障礙 的列表，要他們說出他們選了幾個 障礙 給他們的評判對象必須翻越的。測試對象所不知道的是， Dr Halevy and Dr Galinsky 對另外沒有參加上述實驗的58個人進(jìn)行了一項獨立的測試，即，對這10項行為的貶抑、羞辱、跌份、尷尬、和難受的程度進(jìn)行打分。10項中有5項被評判為極其貶抑。比如像 說5遍我是骯臟的 和 學(xué)狗叫3次 ，其它5項不被認(rèn)為是特別的丟臉，包括 講一個笑話給對方 和 拍手50次 。

　　Participants who had both status and power did not greatly demean their partners. Theychose an average of 0.67 demeaning activities for those partners to perform. Low-power/low-status and low-power/high-status participants behaved similarly. They chose, onaverage, 0.67 and 0.85 demeaning activities. However, participants who were low in statusbut high in power-the classic little Hitler combination-chose an average of 1.12 deeplydemeaning tasks for their partners to engage in. That was a highly statistically significantdistinction.

　　那些位高權(quán)重的測試對象對都不會特別刁難他們的對手，他們讓對方所做的動作平均貶抑值為0.67。 權(quán)輕位卑 和權(quán)輕位高的測試對象所選的動作都差不多，他們所選的行動的貶抑平均值分別是0.67和0.85。但是，那些位身份卑微但手握重權(quán)的測試對象-即典型的 小希特勒 的組合體-為他們的對手選擇要完成的動作貶抑平均值高達(dá)1.12。這是數(shù)字統(tǒng)計上的明顯區(qū)別。

　　Of course, not everybody in the high-power/low-status quadrant of the experiment behavedbadly. Underlying personality may still have a role. But as with previous experiments inwhich random members of the public have been asked to play prison guard or interrogator,Dr Fast s result suggests that many quite ordinary people will succumb to bad behaviour ifthe circumstances are right.

　　當(dāng)然，在占到測試人員14人數(shù)的代表權(quán)重位卑的測試對象中，也不是每一個人都有這樣的貶抑他人的行為舉止，自身的人格特征也起到了一定的作用。但是，在先前做過的實驗中，隨機(jī)找來一些人來扮演獄警和審判官， Dr Fast 發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果環(huán)境允許，很多普通人都會去試試做個 惡人 。

　　All power tends to corrupt

　　當(dāng)權(quán)者都會腐化、敗壞

　　But power without status corrupts absolutely

　　但出身卑微的當(dāng)權(quán)者敗壞的更徹底

　　DURING the second world war a new term of abuse entered the English language. To callsomeone a little Hitler meant he was a menial functionary who employed what power hehad in order to annoy and frustrate others for his own gratification. From nightclubbouncers to the squaddies at Abu Ghraib prison who tormented their prisoners for fun, littleHitlers plague the world. The phenomenon has not, though, hitherto been subject toscientific investigation.

　　二戰(zhàn)期間，有一個罵人的新詞 小希特勒 在英語國家中很盛行，如果這樣稱呼一個人意味這他是一個為了滿足自己，很會利用手里的小權(quán)力折磨、刁難其他人的位卑但權(quán)重的小人物。從夜總會的保安到阿布扎比監(jiān)獄里以折磨犯人取樂的獄警， 這樣的 小希特勒們 無處不在。但這種現(xiàn)象一直沒有被科學(xué)的分析過。

　　Nathanael Fast of the University of Southern California has changed that. He observed thatlots of psychological experiments have been done on the effects of status and lots on theeffects of power. But few, if any, have been done on both combined. He and his colleaguesNir Halevy of Stanford University and Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University, in Chicago,set out to correct this. In particular they wanted to see if it is circumstances that create littleHitlers or, rather, whether people of that type simply gravitate into jobs which allow them tobehave badly. Their results have just been published in the Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology.

　　南加州大學(xué)的 Nathanael Fast 改變了這一情況，他研究了大量的有關(guān)身份地位和有關(guān)于權(quán)力的心理學(xué)測試。但發(fā)現(xiàn)很少的測試是有關(guān)這兩項之間相關(guān)性的。他和他的同事：斯坦福大學(xué)的 Nir Halevy、芝加哥西北大學(xué)的 Adam Galinsky 決定填補這一項空白。他們想知道是大環(huán)境造就了小希特勒們?還是所從事的特定工作迫使他們行為不端?測試結(jié)果就發(fā)表在這一期的 實驗社會心理學(xué)雜志 上。

　　Dr Fast s experiment randomly assigned each of 213 participants to one of four situationsthat manipulated their status and power. All participants were informed that they weretaking part in a study on virtual organisations and would be interacting with, but not meeting,a fellow student who worked in the same fictional consulting firm. Participants were thenassigned either the role of idea producer , a job that entailed generating and working withimportant ideas, or of worker , a job that involved menial tasks like checking for typos. Apost-experiment questionnaire demonstrated that participants did, as might be expected,look upon the role of idea producer with respect and admiration. Equally unsurprisingly, theylooked down on the role of worker.

　　Fast博士將213位實驗對象隨機(jī)分配到四個代表不同情形的身份及權(quán)力的小組中。所有實驗對象都被告知他們將以小組形式參加一個研究，與另一個同樣是虛構(gòu)的顧問公司的同學(xué)進(jìn)行互動，他們彼此并不見面。一些試驗對象被賦予的角色是 拿主意的 人-需要他們制定、實施重大決策，另一些人的角色是 勞動者 -做些類似校對、打印之類的日常事務(wù)的工作。實驗后的問卷調(diào)查驗證了他們之前的推測：測試對象們對 拿主意的 角色報以尊重和贊美，同樣在他們意料之中的還有，對勞動者的角色都是輕視的態(tài)度。

　　To manipulate their power, participants were told there would be a draw for a $50 bonusprize at the end of the study and that, regardless of their role, each participant would beable to dictate which activities his partner must engage in to qualify to enter the draw.Participants that Dr Fast wanted to imbue with a sense of power were informed that oneother element of their role involved dictating which hoops their partners would have tojump through in order to qualify for the draw, and that they controlled the amount of effortthe partner had to exert in order to win the $50. They were also told that the partner didnot have any such control over them. In contrast, low-power participants were informedthat while they had the ability to determine the hoops their partner had to jump through,that partner ultimately had more control because he could remove the low- powerparticipant s name from the raffle if he did not like the hoops selected.

　　在如何運用他們的權(quán)力的實驗中，測試對象們被告知在研究結(jié)束后會進(jìn)行一個價值50 美元的抽獎活動，無論他們的角色是什么，每個參與者都有權(quán)決定他所評判的對象在完成指定動作后是否有資格參加抽獎。DrFast還賦予那些權(quán)重的測試對象的另一個角色就是，他們能決策哪些 障礙 是必須翻越之后對方才有資格抽獎，他們還控制著對方努力多少次才能贏取50美元。他們同時被告知另一方則沒有控制他們的權(quán)力。相反的，權(quán)輕的測試者則被告知他們也能決定對方必須翻越的 障礙 ，可最后，如果權(quán)重的這一方不喜歡他們要完成的動作，他們可以直接將權(quán)輕的測試對象除名。

　　Participants were then presented with a list of ten hoops and told to select as many as theyliked for their partner to jump through. Unknown to the participants,Dr Halevy and Dr Galinsky had conducted an independent test, using 58 people not involvedin the main study, to rate how demeaning, humiliating, degrading, embarrassing anduncomfortable each of the ten possible activities actually was. Five of the ten were rated asdeeply demeaning. These included things like: say I am filthy five times and bark like adog three times . The other five were not considered particularly demeaning. They included: tell the experimenter a funny joke and clap your hands 50 times .

　　之后，測試對象們收到一個代表10個 障礙 的列表，要他們說出他們選了幾個 障礙 給他們的評判對象必須翻越的。測試對象所不知道的是， Dr Halevy and Dr Galinsky 對另外沒有參加上述實驗的58個人進(jìn)行了一項獨立的測試，即，對這10項行為的貶抑、羞辱、跌份、尷尬、和難受的程度進(jìn)行打分。10項中有5項被評判為極其貶抑。比如像 說5遍我是骯臟的 和 學(xué)狗叫3次 ，其它5項不被認(rèn)為是特別的丟臉，包括 講一個笑話給對方 和 拍手50次 。

　　Participants who had both status and power did not greatly demean their partners. Theychose an average of 0.67 demeaning activities for those partners to perform. Low-power/low-status and low-power/high-status participants behaved similarly. They chose, onaverage, 0.67 and 0.85 demeaning activities. However, participants who were low in statusbut high in power-the classic little Hitler combination-chose an average of 1.12 deeplydemeaning tasks for their partners to engage in. That was a highly statistically significantdistinction.

　　那些位高權(quán)重的測試對象對都不會特別刁難他們的對手，他們讓對方所做的動作平均貶抑值為0.67。 權(quán)輕位卑 和權(quán)輕位高的測試對象所選的動作都差不多，他們所選的行動的貶抑平均值分別是0.67和0.85。但是，那些位身份卑微但手握重權(quán)的測試對象-即典型的 小希特勒 的組合體-為他們的對手選擇要完成的動作貶抑平均值高達(dá)1.12。這是數(shù)字統(tǒng)計上的明顯區(qū)別。

　　Of course, not everybody in the high-power/low-status quadrant of the experiment behavedbadly. Underlying personality may still have a role. But as with previous experiments inwhich random members of the public have been asked to play prison guard or interrogator,Dr Fast s result suggests that many quite ordinary people will succumb to bad behaviour ifthe circumstances are right.

　　當(dāng)然，在占到測試人員14人數(shù)的代表權(quán)重位卑的測試對象中，也不是每一個人都有這樣的貶抑他人的行為舉止，自身的人格特征也起到了一定的作用。但是，在先前做過的實驗中，隨機(jī)找來一些人來扮演獄警和審判官， Dr Fast 發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果環(huán)境允許，很多普通人都會去試試做個 惡人 。