Directions:
You are going to read a list of headings and a text about preparing in the academic community. Choose the most suitable heading from the list A-F for each numbered paragraph (41-45). The first and last paragraphs of the text are not numbered. There is one extra heading which you do not need to use. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
[A] Many studies conclude that children with highly involved fathers, in relation to children with less involved fathers, tend to be more cognitively and socially competent, less inclined toward gender stereotyping, more empathic, and psychologically better adjusted. Commonly, these studies investigate both paternal warmth and paternal involvement and find-using simple correlations-that the two variables are related to each other and to youth outcomes.
[B] Boys seemed to conform to the sex-role standards of their culture when their relationships with their fathers were warm, regardless of how “masculine” the fathers were, even though warmth and intimacy have traditionally been seen as feminine characteristics. A similar conclusion was suggested by research on other aspects of psychosocial adjustment and on achievement: Paternal warmth or closeness appeared beneficial, whereas paternal masculinity appeared irrelevant.
[C] The critical question is: How good is the evidence that fathers’ amount of involvement, without taking into account its content and quality, is consequential for children, mothers, or fathers themselves? The associations with desirable outcomes found in much research are actually with positive forms of paternal involvement, not involvement per se. Involvement needs to be combined with qualitative dimensions of paternal behavior through the concept of “positive paternal involvement” developed here.
[D] Commonly, researchers assessed the masculinity of fathers and of sons and then correlated the two sets of scores. Many behavioral scientists were surprised to discover that no consistent results emerged from this research until they examined the quality of the father-son relationship. Then they found that when the relationship between masculine fathers and their sons was warm and loving, the boys were indeed more masculine. Later, however, researchers found that the masculinity of fathers per se did not seem to make much difference after all. As summarized by:
[E] The second domain in which a substantial amount of research has been done on the influence of variations in father love deals with father involvement, that is, with the amount of time that fathers spend with their children (engagement), the extent to which fathers make themselves available to their children (accessibility), and the extent to which they take responsibility for their children’s care and welfare (responsibility).
[F] It is unclear from these studies whether involvement and warmth make independent or joint contributions to youth outcomes. Moreover, “caring for” children is not necessarily the same thing as “caring about” them. Indeed, Lamb concluded from his review of studies of paternal involvement that it was not the simple fact of paternal engagement (i.e., direct interaction with the child), availability, or responsibility for child care that was associated with these outcomes. Rather, it appears that the quality of the father-child relationship made the greatest difference. J. H. Pleck reiterated this conclusion when he wrote:
[G] Research by Veneziano and Rohner supports these conclusions. In a biracial sample of 63 African American and European American children, the authors found from multiple regression analyses that father involvement by itself was associated with children’s psychological adjustment primarily insofar as it was perceived by youths to be an expression of paternal warmth (acceptance).
[H] Many studies looking exclusively at the influence of variations in father love deal with two topics: (a) gender role development and (b) father involvement. Studies of gender role development emerged prominently in the 1940s and continued through the 1970s. This was a time when fathers were considered to be especially important as gender role models for sons.
Order:
H→41.( )→42. ( )→43. ( )→A→44. ( )→45. ( ) →G
答案
41.D 42.B 43.E 44.F 45.C
總體分析
本文是一篇介紹父愛對孩子成長的影響的說明文。全文共八段，是由總到分的結構，即結論(H段)-分述1(D、B、E段)-分述2(A、F、C、G段)。 試題精解
(一)快速瀏覽各選項段落，概括各段大意。
[A] 研究發現父親的參與性與父親情感溫暖相關，而且和青少年的成長結果相關。
[B] 決定男孩是否遵循所在文化中有關性別角色的標準(即有男子氣概)的因素不是父親的男子氣概，而是父子間關系是否親密。
[C] 除了考慮父親的參與性，還要考慮其參與的內容和質量。
[D] 決定男孩子是否男性化的因素是父子間關系是否溫暖而關愛。父親本身有無男子氣概不是決定性因素。
[E] 第二個對父愛差異的影響進行了大量研究的領域是關于父親的主動參與性。它包括投入性、可接近性和責任性。
[F] 參與性與情感溫暖這兩個變量中哪一個影響青少年的成長結果還不確定。萊姆認為父子關系的質量而非參與性是決定因素。
[G] 在黑白種族抽樣中發現，參與性本身與孩子的心理調試相關，是因為年輕人將它看作是父親情感溫暖的一種表達方式。
[H] 許多專門考慮父愛影響的研究涉及兩大主題：性別角色的發展;父親的參與。
(二)將選項重新組合歸類，結合已知段落，把握文章主旨和結構。
由選項可知全文主旨是父親對男孩子成長的影響。根據內容，可將這8個選項分成三組，第一組是[B]和[D]，它們的內容幾乎重合，都是論述父子關系決定男孩是否具有男子氣概;第二組是[A]、[C]、[E]、[F]、[G]項，它們都提到了“父親的參與性”;特別的一組是[H]項，它提到了以上兩組的共同內容。
已經給出位置的段落是[A]、[G]和[H]段。首先，由于[H]段是首段，因此可知文章的結構是總——分結構，[H]項是概括，其余各段進行分述。那么接下來要判斷，是先論述哪一組的內容。其次，由于[A]段在文章中間部分，[G]段是文章末段，而[A]和[G]段都屬于第二組的內容，因此可判斷，文章后面五段應是第二組選項的內容，即論述父親的參與性對孩子成長的影響。而第二、三段是第一組選項的內容，即論述父親對于孩子性別角色的影響。
(三)留意各段中的特征詞，結合文章主旨和結構，理順各段的邏輯順序
首先，要判斷第一組選項[B]和[D]的前后順序。由于它們的主旨內容相同，這時需要注意的是段落中的細節。[D]段的最后兩句提到，“研究者發現，父親本身有無男子氣概根本不是(男孩有無男子漢氣概的)決定性因素。總結如下。”顯然，后面的內容應繼續圍繞這一觀點展開論述。而符合要求的只有[B]項。因此[D]在前，[B]在后。
其次，排列第二組選項的順序。這一組中，除了[A]和[G]段的位置已知，[E]段的內容比較特殊。[E]段提出，第二個研究父愛影響的領域是父親的主動參與性。因此[E]段不僅是第二組內容的總結，而且是兩組內容間的過渡段。它應該置于[B]段后，作為第二組內容的開始段。然后，再判斷[C]和[F]段的前后順序。這兩段的內容很相似，都強調除了父親的參與性，還要考慮父子關系的質量。而由[F]段的末句“普拉克重申這種說法時寫到”可知，后面的內容繼續圍繞這一話題展開論述，因此[F]在前，[C]在后。
至此，得出問題的初步答案，即[H]-[D]-[B]-[E]-[A]-[F]-[C]-[G]。通讀全文，檢查這種排列方式是否使這些段落構成了
一篇通順、完整的文章。
核心詞匯與超綱詞匯
(1)involved(a.)耗費很多時間的，關注的，如an involved father(很投入的父親);復雜難解的，如an involved sentence(復雜的句子)
(2)cognitively(ad.)認知地，感知地;cognitive(a)
(3)stereotype(n.)陳腔濫調，老套;gender stereotyping 性別陳規定型觀念
(4)paternal(a.)父親的，像父親的
(5)masculine(a.)男性的，男子氣概的
(6)per se本身，就其本身而言
(7)psychosocial adjustment社會心理調適 全文翻譯
許多專門考慮父愛影響的研究涉及兩大主題：性別角色的發展;父親的參與。性別角色發展的研究在20世紀40年代開始很突出，一直持續到70年代。這段時期里，父親被認為是兒子非常重要的性別角色的典范。
一般情況下，研究者分別評估父親和孩子的男性特征，然后將兩套數值聯系起來。許多行為科學家驚訝地發現從這種研究中得不出一致性的結果，直到他們檢查了父子關系的質量。接著他們發現當有男子氣概的父親和他們的兒子間的關系溫暖而關愛時，男孩子確實會更男性化一些。然而，研究者后來發現，父親本身有無男子氣概似乎根本不是定性因素。總結如下：
如果男孩們和父親的關系很和睦，那么無論他們的父親男子氣概是多是少，他們似乎都會遵循所在文化中有關性別角色的標準。雖然，情感溫暖和親密傳統上被視為女性特征。在心理調整的其他方面及成就的研究中也得出了相似的結論：看來，父親的情感溫暖和親密是有益的，而父親的男子氣概是不相關的。
第二個對父愛差異的影響進行了大量研究的領域是關于父親的主動參與性。也就是說，父親和孩子呆在一起的時間量(投入性)，父親讓孩子接近的程度(可接近性)，父親負責孩子的照顧和福利的程度(責任性)。
許多研究認為父親主動參與性強的孩子，與父親參與性弱的孩子相比，其認知和社會能力往往更強，不傾向于接受性別陳規定型觀念，更富有同情心，心理調試也更好。這些研究一般都用簡單的相關性，調查了父親情感溫暖和父親參與性兩個變量，結果發現它們之間相互關聯，而且都和青少年的成長結果相關。
從這些研究中還不清楚的是參與性與情感溫暖這兩個變量是分別還是一起影響青少年的成長結果。而且，“照顧”孩子不一定就是“關心”他們。萊姆在他關于父親參與性研究的評論中指出，和這些成長結果相關的不是父親參與性(與孩子的直接交互)、易近性或照顧孩子的責任性的簡單事實，而好像是父子關系質量決定了一切。普拉克重申這種說法時寫到：
關鍵問題是：如果不考慮內容和質量，父親的參與程度對孩子、母親或他們自己影響重大的證據是否可信?在很多研究中發現，與滿意的結果相關聯的實際上是正面形式的父親參與，而不是參與本身。通過在此提出的“正面父職參與”的概念，參與性需要和父親行為的定性維度結合起來。
威尼采亞諾和羅內爾支持這些結論。在有63名非裔美國人和歐裔美國人的孩子參與的黑白種族抽樣中，作者從多元回歸分析中發現，目前來說父職參與性本身與孩子的心理調試相關，主要是因為年輕人將它看作是父親情感溫暖的一種表達方式(接納性)。
|
