1 . So many things can keep you from seeing your loved ones in person, from busy schedules to long distances. Fortunately, thanks to modem technology, the people you miss are often only a phone call or a text message away. According to science, if you want to feel more connected to the people you’re talking to, you should call them instead of texting.
In a study, researchers did various experiments. In one, they asked 200 people to imagine what it would be like to reconnect with an old friend by email or by phone, and they asked people to do one or the other at random. Although people thought that a phone call would be more mortifying, it actually made the experience better. “People reported they did form a stronger bond with their old friends on the phone versus email, and they did not feel uncomfortable,” co-author Amit Kumar said.
In another experiment, researchers had strangers connect by texting, talking over video chat, or talking using only audio (音频). They found that both forms of voice communication — whether video or audio only — made the strangers feel more connected than when they communicated via text.
Sabrina Romanoff, a psychologist, says people tend to text instead of calling because of convenience, as they can organize information exactly in the way they intend without unexpected additions by the other person.
Romanoff says that in reality, texting can make it hard to determine the true meaning behind a conversation. “A phone call is actually more convenient considering the effects of the message,” she explains. “Each part is more present, and therefore, it is able to figure out the meaning behind the conversation quickly without thinking on the endless possible meanings behind words.”
1. What does the underlined word “mortifying” in Paragraph 2 mean?| A．Puzzling. | B．Exciting. | C．Embarrassing. | D．Satisfying. |
| A．It takes more patience. | B．It brings people closer. |
| C．It proves more relaxing. | D．It makes people more friendly. |
| A．They can make themselves clear without being disturbed. |
| B．They would easily keep the messages for future use. |
| C．They can freely express their good or bad feelings. |
| D．They would avoid some unpleasant topics. |
| A．It is easy to express one’s meaning through texting. |
| B．It is necessary to guess the meaning behind words. |
| C．People can understand each other more easily by phone calls. |
| D．People should use simple words to express themselves in emails. |
2 . Tips for Closing the Gaps in Relationships
Be curious, not angry
Ask in a spirit of real curiosity and openness. After you ask the question, be concerned only with understanding the other person’s story. Be ready to listen to the other person’s views and experiences.
Put body language together with intentions
Listen for understanding
Our good intentions for asking questions are not enough.
Of course, how the other person reacts will determine the conversation that follows, which may require a good deal of openness, presence, and skill. Our reaction to whatever the person says will require continued openness, trust, kindness, clarity, and honesty. As you speak, clarify the gap between your experience of the relationship and your opinion or expectations of a healthy relationship. Noticing the gaps is helpful since it defines the problem.
| A．Mind the gaps |
| B．Ask when we care |
| C．And be willing to be interested |
| D．This is a step towards settling the problem |
| E．How we ask this question makes a big difference |
| F．We express our purposes not only with our words |
| G．At the moment, our most important job is to listen carefully |
3 . We often think about relationships on a scale from positive to negative. We are drawn to loving family members, caring classmates and supportive mentors. We do our best to avoid the cruel uncle, the playground bully and the jerk boss.
But the most harmful relationships aren’t the purely negative ones. They’re the ones that are a mix of positive and negative. We often call them frenemies, supposed friends who sometimes help you and sometimes hurt you. But it’s not just friends. It’s the in-laws who volunteer to watch your kids but devalue your parenting. The manager who praises your work but denies you a promotion.
Groundbreaking research led by the psychologists Bert Uchino and Julianne Holt-Lunstad shows that ambivalent (矛盾情绪的) relationships can be damaging to your health — even more than purely negative relationships.
Even a single ambivalent interaction can cause harm. In one experiment, people talked about controversial (具有争议性的) topics in front of a friend who offered feedback. The researchers had randomly assigned the friend to give ambivalent or negative comments. Receiving mixed feedback caused higher blood pressure than pure criticism. “I would have gone about the topic differently, but you’re doing fine” proved to be more distressing than “I totally disagree with everything you’ve said.”
The evidence that ambivalent relationships can be bad for us is obvious, but the reasons can be harder to read — just like the relationships themselves.
One reason is that ambivalent relationships are unpredictable. With a clear enemy, you put up a shield when you cross paths. With a frenemy, you never know whether Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde is going to show up. Feeling unsure can break the body’s calming system and activate a fight-or-flight response. It’s unsettling to hope for a hug while also preparing for a likely quarrel.
Another factor is that unpleasant interactions are more painful in an ambivalent relationship. It’s more distressing to be let down by people you like sometimes than by people you dislike all the time. When someone stabs you in the back, it stings more if he’s been friendly to your face.
1. Which of the following can be considered as a frenemy?| A．Your neighbor’s kid who advises you to study hard but kill his own time. |
| B．Your classmate who admires your hard work at first, but doubts your intelligence later. |
| C．Your mother’s friend who encourages you to spend more time on homework but less on smart phones. |
| D．Your father’s colleague who proposes you to do a reasonable amount of homework while ensuring enough sleep. |
| A．Upsetting. | B．Satisfying. | C．Inspiring. | D．Confusing. |
| A．The negative impact of ambivalent interactions is strong. |
| B．Ambivalent relationships have a long-lasting effect on your well-being. |
| C．The common cause of high blood pressure is ambivalent relationship. |
| D．Interactions in ambivalent relationships are more painful than those in negative ones. |
| A．Negative relationships are bad for health. | B．Ambivalent relationships are unpredictable. |
| C．Ambivalent Relationships are the most harmful. | D．Positive relationships are better than negative ones. |
4 . When is a kid not a kid anymore? If you asked my 12-year-old daughter, the magical age would be 13, when you can no longer be considered a “child”. If you asked my 15-year-old niece, the age would be 16, when she will be able to drive a car and get an after-school job. According to the U. S. government, a child officially becomes an adult when they turn 18. That’s when they can vote. But even though an 18-year-old starts paying taxes, the government does not consider that person mature enough to buy a beer. Still, even a kid who can buy a beer is not old enough to rent a car.
Scientists have learned from a new study that when kids are around 18, their prefrontal cortex, which helps control impulses, solve problems, and organize behavior, is only halfway developed. That’s not to say that kids in their late teens and early 20s can’t take on these tasks, but it means that it’s harder for them to do so - at least until around age 25 or so when this area of the brain fully develops.
“What we’re really saying is that to have a definition of when you move from childhood to adulthood looks absurd,” Peter Jones from the University of Cambridge said. “It’s a much more nuanced (微妙的) change that takes place over thirty years.”
This isn’t a news flash for parents who have watched their teens take crazy risks while seeming unable to get their lives together until they’re older. But this information throws new light on the way kids without as much support are treated. In the foster (寄养的) care system, once a child turns 18, he can no longer receive state-backed support. And many people think this is too early for a teen to be on his own, especially a teen who has experienced a painful childhood. Because of this, some foster care advocates think it makes more sense for 25 to be the new legal age of adulthood.
1. What does the author want to show us in Paragraph 1?| A．Different age groups have different needs. |
| B．Becoming an adult means you can do a lot of things. |
| C．People have different opinions on becoming an adult. |
| D．Children need to learn basic life skills to become an adult. |
| A．To explain why teenagers are at risk. |
| B．To suggest a way of helping teenagers develop. |
| C．To explore the characteristics of different age groups. |
| D．To discover when the human brain is fully developed. |
| A．Impossible. | B．Invaluable. |
| C．Unreasonable. | D．Uninteresting. |
| A．It may inspire teens to be independent. |
| B．It may allow a 20-year-old to get government support. |
| C．It may drive the government to protect the foster care system. |
| D．It may encourage parents to stop supporting their children at college. |
5 . There’s a long line of research showing that when we make contact with people who’re socially different from us, we tend to feel less prejudice towards them. According to the contact theory, contact seems to work best for reducing prejudice when the contact is generally positive. But what happens when the conditions for interpersonal contact may not be ideal? For example, what if you feel threatened in some way by a group of people you see as “the other”?
Researchers from Ghent University in Belgium analyzed the results of 34 studies surveying nearly 64,000 people from 19 countries to see how intergroup contact affected their viewpoints about “outgroups” under conflict situations. For example, people were asked to report on how they viewed other groups. The researchers also had data from the surveys that measured attitudes towards outgroup members, such as how positive people felt towards them and how much they could trust them.
After analyzing the data, the researchers found strong feelings of threat were associated with more negative views of outgroup members. But having contact with outgroup members still reduced prejudice just as much under those unfavorable conditions. To Jasper Van Assche, the lead author of the paper, this suggests contact theory holds even under conflict situations.
Van Assche says that contact is so powerful probably because just being around people from an outgroup affects how we think and feel about them. As we become accustomed to even the me re presence of people from other groups, that can reduce our anxiety, especially if the encounters are positive—and that can lead to warmer feelings. Also, contact can enhance our knowledge about others’ customs and practices, so that they don’t seem so foreign or “other” to us.
Van Assche hopes his research can lead people to see the benefits of integrating the spaces where they live. This could be done through top-down methods, such as the government requiring school integration, but also from the bottom up. For example, suggests Van Assche, communities could create low-cost, low-key events that bring people together, helping to promote tolerance.
1. Why are the questions raised in paragraph 1?| A．To inspire readers’ imagination. | B．To argue against the contact theory. |
| C．To show the author’s curiosity. | D．To offer the purpose of the study. |
| A．It improves people’s adaptive capacity. | B．It increases people’s desire to socialize. |
| C．It promotes each other’s understanding. | D．It makes people emotionally stable. |
| A．Expanding communities on the whole. |
| B．Increasing chances of positive contact. |
| C．Strengthening interactions between schools. |
| D．Offering equal education opportunities to diverse groups. |
| A．People involved in equal contact are generally positive | B．Opportunities for intergroup contact are on the rise |
| C．The interventions based on contact are unhealthy | D．Interpersonal contact can help people connect |
6 . Traditionally, the number of meaningful social relationships one can maintain is around 150. This concept finds its roots in the natural development of the human brain. However, in the digital age, where our social connections extend far beyond the geographical boundaries (界限), we easily create more connections with the help of the rising online platforms. Then, a question arises: Does the digital age rewrite the rules of social connection?
A study published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking explored the effect of social media usage on the size of social circles and the closeness of relationships. The researchers found that more time spent on social media made for a larger number of online “friends,” but not a larger number of offline friends. Further, the findings were not linked to feelings of closeness towards online or offline friends.
Another study from the European Journal of Information Systems studied the link between social media usage and “social overload” — the feeling that too much of the energy for socializing is being used up by online relationships. The authors found that social media usage directly contributed to the experience of social overload, related to digital tiredness and dissatisfaction with social media.
With social media platforms rising, one’s ability to connect with people challenges the traditional concept. The brain, used to manage a limited number of relationships, now fights against the difficulties of dealing with a large number of digital connections, leading to a less attention and feeling investment (投入) in a relationship. And the online shallow connections can not develop meaningful, lasting relationships that stand the test of digital distance.
Therefore, in the digital age’s social whirlwind, instead of drowning (淹没) in a sea of weak interaction (互动), choose to engage in meaningful conversations and focus on the handful of relationships that truly fit your heart. Hug the beauty of face-to-face connections, allowing the richness of human interaction to flower beyond the digital world. By doing so, we create digital and physical spaces that truly improve our well-being.
1. Why did the author mention the traditional concept in the first paragraph?| A．To tell a story. | B．To develop the topic. |
| C．To show his sincerity. | D．To give an example. |
| A．Online relationships were closer. |
| B．Spending more time online improved one’s health. |
| C．Social media usage had no effect on one’s social circles. |
| D．The large online social circles didn’t mean the large number of offline friends. |
| A．It resulted in one’s less attention to a relationship. |
| B．It caused the brain to break down and damaged the health. |
| C．It led to expression errors when one socialized with friends. |
| D．It developed shallow connections that stand the test of distance. |
| A．It is a good choice to give up online connections completely. |
| B．Face-to-face connections are time-consuming and meaningless in digital age. |
| C．It is a must to merely concentrate on the few relationships truly fitting your heart. |
| D．It poses a challenge for the brain to deal with large numbers of digital connections. |
7 . Romantic attachment is one of the best predictors of happiness that social scientists have identified. For example, my review of the General Social Survey finds that although 27 percent of married Americans said they were “very happy” with their lives, only 11 percent of those respondents who were never married, divorced, separated, or widowed answered this way. And research in the Journal of Research in Personality has shown that marriage can protect happiness in adulthood.
These findings may help explain the well-documented decline in American happiness, especially among young adults. The percentage of adults who are currently married has fallen from almost 70 in 1960 to about 50 today. The solution to the happiness deficit (赤字) — for the nation as well as among individuals — is simply to encourage more people to pair off. However, a closer look at the singles trend suggests that the problem is not a lack of available partners, but that young adults may unintentionally be avoiding romantic attachment.
Psychologists commonly measure the health of attachment through two dimensions: anxiety and avoidance the latter meaning a resistance to intimacy (亲密). To score lower on each dimension is better. An insecure bond can involve someone being anxious but not avoidant, avoidant but not anxious, or both, while secure attachment is on the other hand. Unfortunately, insecure attachment is becoming more and more common. Over the past two decades, successive groups of studied college students have shown an increasing likelihood of experiencing one of the insecure styles. One particular insecure style-avoidance-is associated with a greater preference for singlehood. That tells us that the underlying problem is chiefly one of greater avoidance.
The popularity of avoidant attachment is a more reasonable explanation for the increase in unhappiness among young adults than their simply being uncoupled. After all, we also know that singlehood can make some people happier, and that a bad romantic partnership is clearly worse than no relationship at all. But in contrast to that mixed picture, many studies show that avoidant attachment is associated with lower satisfaction with life.
So what is causing this mass romantic avoidance? Two psychologists provided clues in a paper published in 2022 that was based on surveys of university students in Cyprus, including what led them to prefer being single. Strongly predictive of singledom, the researchers found, was not only a preoccupation with work and career but also the wide spread of so-called Dark Triad(narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). In other words, people may avoid romantic commitment if they are especially self-centered or work-focused.
1. What does the author think of the solution to happiness decline?| A．It hits the target. | B．It barks up the wrong tree. |
| C．It cuts to the chase. | D．It gets to the bottom. |
| A．It is anxious but not intimate. | B．It is both intimate and anxious. |
| C．It is neither anxious nor avoidant. | D．It is neither anxious nor intimate. |
| A．The benefits of romantic partnership. |
| B．The popularity of insecure attachment. |
| C．The explanation for avoidant attachment. |
| D．The cause for declining happiness among young adults. |
| A．pressure of job hunting | B．level of education |
| C．different occupations | D．personal characteristics |
1. What is a good topic to start a conversation at a party?
| A．Something about the host or hostess. |
| B．Good friends who are present. |
| C．A recent movie. |
| A．By looking other people in the eyes. |
| B．By using their first names. |
| C．By giving short answers. |
| A．To show their interest. |
| B．To hear the words clearly. |
| C．To create a relaxing atmosphere. |
| A．They make people feel bored. |
| B．They are difficult to understand. |
| C．They may cause disagreements. |
9 . All of us have taken an instant dislike to someone, and then felt guilty about being too judgmental. But now it seems we should place more trust in our first impressions. Most people can correctly judge a total stranger following a short meeting, according to scientists.
And in general, the more confident the people are, the more likely they are to be correct in their assumptions. Jeremy Biesanz, who led a team of researchers from the University of British Columbia, said: “Many important decisions are made after very brief encounters — which employee to hire, which person to date, which student to accept”. Although our first impressions are generally accurate, it is necessary for us to recognize where they may be not good enough.
The researchers arranged for two groups of more than 100 people to meet in a meeting. Much like speed-dating, the volunteers spoke to everyone in their group for three minutes each. At the end of each three-minute chat, they were asked to rate each other’s personalities, and how well they thought their impressions “would coincide with someone who knows this person very well”.
To find out what the person was “really” like, the scientists had his friends and family fill out his personality reports. Generally speaking, the more confident the volunteers felt in accurately rating another’s personality, the closer their ratings were to those of the other person’s friends and family, the researchers said.
However, the participants with the highest accuracy were those who rated themselves moderately(适度)accurate — those highly confident of their judgment were less successful. The scientists concluded that, although we know people are different from each other, a good judge of character knows that in many ways people are mostly alike. For example, almost everyone would prefer being kind to being unfriendly.
Therefore, while first impressions can be generally accurate, they are not conclusive in working out whether somebody really is “better” than someone else.
1. The volunteers joined a meeting which was ______.| A．interesting | B．complex | C．serious | D．brief |
| A．agree with | B．appeal to | C．get along with | D．set an example to |
①Being talkative ②Good social relationships
③A proper degree of confidence ④Knowing that people are mostly alike
| A．①② | B．②③ | C．③④ | D．④① |
| A．many important decisions are made with the help of strangers |
| B．people tend to have better impressions on friends than on strangers |
| C．we shouldn’t depend on first impressions completely to judge others |
| D．accurate judgments on others can help us make as many friends as possible |
| A．We should not doubt our ability to judge others. |
| B．Our first impressions on a stranger are usually accurate. |
| C．Confidence determines whether people can succeed or not. |
| D．It’s an important task to make a good judgment about strangers. |
10 . While scientists have many ideas, they are not certain why humans yawn(打哈欠). Still, there is one thing experts know—yawns seem to be contagious(传染)!
Have you ever caught a yawn from someone else? Most people have. In fact, a person is six times more likely to yawn after seeing someone else do so. Experts have done many studies into why yawns seem to pass from person to person. As a result, they have a few theories(理论) for the reason behind it.
One possible explanation has something to do with social mirroring, which is caused by mirror neurons(镜像神经元) in the brain. These mirror neurons help the brain notice useful behavior of others and then copy it. When one person sees another yawn, his mirror neurons observe the action and consider it to be beneficial. That may cause him to yawn, too.
Another popular theory is that yawns are contagious because of social relationships. Being social creatures, humans form friendships, families and live together in groups. That’s why many people mirror others, such as smiling when another person smiles. Yawning may be just another example of this. In fact, research has shown that one is most likely to catch yawns from another person if the two share a social relationship.
The answer could even be that yawns aren’t truly contagious at all. Instead, people yawn together simply because they’re in the same environment. Experts say many things may cause yawning, including temperature and time of day. Whatever the explanation is, experts do know that contagious yawns aren’t limited to humans. One study found that lions in South Africa also caught each other’s yawns.
1. What kind of behavior may be copied by mirror neurons?| A．Important and attractive. | B．Useful and beneficial. |
| C．Hard to understand. | D．Easy to copy. |
| A．Those who yawn a lot. | B．Those who like smiling. |
| C．Those closely connected with them. | D．Those sharing the same interest with them. |
| A．Tips on how to avoid yawning in public. |
| B．A real explanation for contagious yawning. |
| C．Other examples of animals yawning together. |
| D．Things that may cause yawning among humans. |
| A．Why yawns are contagious | B．What causes people to yawn |
| C．Who yawns more than others | D．Why humans yawn now and then |
