Finished work from last semesterHEADmaster

7 files changed, 530 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/stanzione/Makefile b/stanzione/Makefile
index 3757fc9..e7685d4 100644
--- a/stanzione/Makefile
+++ b/stanzione/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 .POSIX:
 .SUFFIXES: .tex .pdf
 
-PDFS = mm1.pdf mm2.pdf mm3.pdf
+PDFS = mm1.pdf mm2.pdf mm3.pdf rev1.pdf rev2.pdf rev3.pdf rev4.pdf
 
 PDFLATEX = pdflatex
 BIBER = biber
@@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ clean:
 	rm -f *.bbl *.blg *.log *.aux *.pdf *.run.xml *.bcf *.out
 
 .tex.pdf:
-	$(PDFLATEX) $<
+	$(PDFLATEX) -draftmode $<
 	$(BIBER) $*
-	$(PDFLATEX) $<
+	$(PDFLATEX) -draftmode $<
 	$(PDFLATEX) $<
 
 mm1.pdf: yang.jpg
diff --git a/stanzione/mm3.tex b/stanzione/mm3.tex
index 733e178..fceb7d9 100644
--- a/stanzione/mm3.tex
+++ b/stanzione/mm3.tex
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Your friend gets a rude and distant experimenter, and they also eat
 three grasshoppers.
 A lot of people expect that after this experiment, you would like the
 grasshoppers more than your friend, but we actually see the opposite
-effect \autocite[433]{textbook}!
+effect \autocite{textbook}!
 You have the explanation ``I did it to please the nice experimenter''
 for why you ate the grasshoppers.
 But your friend has to rationalize why they ate the grasshoppers, so
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ they are more likely to rationalize that they liked the taste.
 This affect is called an ``attitude,'' a composite of the actions,
 feelings, and ideas you have on a topic, and cognitive dissonance
 usually brings these components into line with each other
-\autocite[431]{textbook}.
+\autocite{textbook}.
 
 \begin{figure}[ht]
     \begin{center}
diff --git a/stanzione/rev1.tex b/stanzione/rev1.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..44faa7d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stanzione/rev1.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+% Mastery Mailing 1
+\documentclass[12pt]{apa7}
+\usepackage[style=apa,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\setlength{\headheight}{15pt}
+
+% According to several sources, the following commands should be active
+% for an APA paper, but I just hate them.
+% \raggedright
+% \language255 % no hyphenation
+\parindent=.5in
+\linespread{2}
+
+\shorttitle{Article Review I}
+
+\addbibresource{sources.bib}
+
+\leftheader{Rohrer}
+
+\begin{document}
+\centerline{\textbf{Article Review I: A Longitudinal Study of Friendship
+Development}}
+
+Social psychologists want to understand how relationships actually
+develop.
+Researchers have already studied artificial bonding situations in
+labs with much less time for participants to form a connection between
+each other, so we don't understand what factors allow a friendship to
+progress.
+Understanding these factors is important to clinical and positive
+psychologists so we can help healthy, fulfilling relationships form.
+In 1985, Robert Hays asked these questions in a study of college
+freshmen's same-sex relationships.
+
+His work engages with existing psychological theories of relationship
+development which consider costs and benefits to be the main deciding
+factors in whether a relationship survives or not.
+However, psychological doctrine is very vague on if relationship costs
+strengthen or weaken a growing relationship, so this study investigated
+that debate too.
+The methodology was a series of surveys, spaced by 3 weeks, on various
+friendship indices (whether a relationship took up a lot of
+time/emotional energy, how intimate vs superficial interactions were,
+and various situational factors), with a 3-month followup on the
+relationship status \autocite{friendship}.
+Hays hypothesises that situational and behavioral factors will have
+outsized impacts on the success or failure of a new relationship, and
+theorizes that relationship costs have some effect on the success of the
+relationship.
+
+Relationship costs were found to have no significant effect on the
+success of the relationship.
+The study operationally defines relationship costs as factors (like time
+spent, emotional effort, aggravation) that were mostly rated negatively
+in surveys of subjects, and did not find relationship costs to be a
+differing factor between close and nonclose dyads.
+
+However, the study analyzed an array of other factors.
+Self-ratings of a relationship was one of the best predictors, with an
+$r=.78$ value even comparing a 6-weeks rating to the followup 5 months
+later.
+According to Hays, ``6 weeks may be sufficient for individuals to
+reliably estimate their friendship potential''
+\autocite[910]{friendship}
+
+Hays also investigated physical distance between the dyad's places of
+residence, the behavior categories that interactions fell into
+(superficial vs casual vs intimate interactions), self-survey
+ratings of closeness, and the sheer amount of time spent together.
+These are the independent variables of the observational study, and the
+dependent variable measured was successful development of the
+friendship, or, operationally, a high closeness rating on the followup
+survey.
+Hays predicted that the sheer amount of time spent together would
+increase the chance of a close friendship forming, but the size of the
+time-together effect was fairly small, except it had larger effects for
+already close friends and some sex differences.
+Extremely important, in fact, were self-survey ratings of closeness in
+the relationship, and secondly, the level of intimacy the dyad reached.
+Feeling close and reporting deep relationships correlated with progress
+at the final followup survey.
+
+Hays notes that the results confirm parts of social penetration theory
+and social exchange theory.
+Social penetration theory is supported by broad (large amounts of time)
+and deep (intimate/casual) interactions correlating with a progressing
+dyad.
+With respect to social exchange theory, a relationship with lots of
+benefits was much more likely to progress than one without, but costs
+(time spent, emotional effort, negative effect on self, etc.) were not
+significantly different between close and nonclose dyads.
+Finally, Hays notes that there were sex differences between dyad
+progress, but these were mostly ``stylistic rather than substantial''
+\autocite[923]{friendship}.
+For example, female dyads were much more likely to engage in casual and
+intimate affection earlier in the relationship.
+
+However, the study concludes that its results are not extremely
+generalizable.
+Other social contexts than the college dorm probably do not permit as
+intense or fast development of a relationship, the study's results don't
+necessarily generalize to other universities' social environments, so
+much further research is required in different social environments.
+
+\iffalse
+- Hypothesis
+- IV/DV
+- Results
+- Conclusions
+\fi
+
+\vfil\eject
+\printbibliography
+\end{document}
diff --git a/stanzione/rev2.tex b/stanzione/rev2.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8b88e88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stanzione/rev2.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+% Mastery Mailing 1
+\documentclass[12pt]{apa7}
+\usepackage[style=apa,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\setlength{\headheight}{15pt}
+
+% According to several sources, the following commands should be active
+% for an APA paper, but I just hate them.
+% \raggedright
+% \language255 % no hyphenation
+\parindent=.5in
+\linespread{2}
+
+\shorttitle{Article Review II}
+
+\addbibresource{sources.bib}
+
+\leftheader{Rohrer}
+
+\begin{document}
+\centerline{\textbf{Article Review II: Cognitive Control in Media
+Multitaskers}}
+
+``Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers'' is one of a family of
+studies coming out of the literature about the new impacts from
+technology on our psychology.
+Media multitasking is a new way of consuming media enabled by all the
+screens we have access to.
+Texting on a phone and watching TV or listening to music and reading an
+article are becoming more ubiquitous, but we don't fully understand how
+people's cognition adapts to handle new stimuli and switching quickly
+between tasks.
+This study is concerned with two populations as its dependent variable:
+``light'' and ``heavy'' media multitaskers, whom sit one standard
+deviation away from the norm on a self-report metric, the Media
+Multitasking Index (a proportional metric for how often subjects
+multitask)
+
+The authors hypothesize that these outlying levels of media multitasking
+exhibit a ``distinct approach to fundamental information processing''
+and a ``breadth bias'' for working memory and task performance
+\autocite{multitask}.
+The authors take several measures of each group: a filtering task, an
+AX-CPT task, and a memory task (two- and three-back tasks) and compare.
+Remarkably, the heavy media multitaskers perform worse on every task
+with ``distractors'' but their performance is otherwise statistically
+similar.
+The type of distractor depends on the test, but they are, generally,
+environmentally extraneous information to the task at hand, and heavy
+multitaskers exhibit worse ability to filter out extraneous information
+or focus their attention.
+They are also, surprisingly, worse at task-switching.
+Heavy multitaskers on the three-back test also display a third type of
+deficit: greater interference from irrelevant data stored in memory.
+Together, these may evidence heavy multitaskers' lesser ability to
+control their attention, compared to light multitaskers.
+It is unclear, however, as of this paper, which direction the causality
+of this relationship points.
+
+However, the paper doesn't conclude that heavy media multitaskers are
+only hurt by these traits and tendencies they display.
+Breadth-biased information processing means they probably have a greater
+ability to be distracted by relevant information, or ``bottom-up
+attentional control.''
+They are also biased towards ``exploratory, rather than exploitative,''
+information processing \autocite{multitask}.
+
+The authors take especial care with the metric they created, the
+Multimedia Multitasking Index.
+It is tested against many confounding variables to ensure the study is
+well-controlled.
+From a measure of a new group of participants, people high in the trait
+and low in the trait had no significant difference between SAT scores,
+creativity performance, personality traits, need for cognition, or
+differences with gender.
+The index was also normal, so the population doesn't seem to have a
+bimodal or skewed distribution of multitasking tendencies.
+Also in running the trial, all the tests were administered similarly
+across both groups, performed in the same order on the same hardware, in
+the same setting, for each participant.
+This means the participants in the trial were also controlled for across
+different tests (they were not conducted from independent populations).
+
+The first test run was a filtering task.
+An array of red and blue rectangles was displayed to each participant,
+and a second (changed or not) array was presented, and the participant
+was asked to identify whether a red rectangle had changed orientation.
+The blue rectangles were one of the distractors under which heavy
+multitaskers performed worse (they performed especially poorly, compared
+to light multitaskers, on the trial with only 2 red rectangles and 6
+blue rectangles).
+Other tests measuring the quality of information-processing and working
+memory were the two- and three-back tasks.
+Participants were presented a series of letters and asked to indicate
+whether the letter had been seen two or three letters ago, for the two-
+and three-back tasks, respectively.
+
+The third task tested task-switching ability.
+Heavy media multitaskers, surprisingly, performed slower on this task
+than light media multitaskers.
+Researchers presented a cue for the task (number or letter) and a
+digit-letter pair which the participant identified as either odd/even
+(for the number cue) or vowel/consonant (for the letter cue).
+
+Since the paper did not make conclusions on the causality of this
+relationship, I would be interested to see if any research exists now
+(this paper was published in 2009) on whether heavy multitasking trains
+the brain or if people with an existing breadth bias in
+information-processing are more prone to multitask, especially in new
+media.
+
+\iffalse
+- Hypothesis
+- IV/DV
+- Controls
+- Results
+- Conclusions
+\fi
+
+\vfil\eject
+\printbibliography
+\end{document}
diff --git a/stanzione/rev3.tex b/stanzione/rev3.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e0efdf5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stanzione/rev3.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+% Mastery Mailing 1
+\documentclass[12pt]{apa7}
+\usepackage[style=apa,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\setlength{\headheight}{15pt}
+
+% According to several sources, the following commands should be active
+% for an APA paper, but I just hate them.
+% \raggedright
+% \language255 % no hyphenation
+\parindent=.5in
+\linespread{2}
+
+\shorttitle{Article Review III}
+
+\addbibresource{sources.bib}
+
+\leftheader{Rohrer}
+
+\begin{document}
+\centerline{\textbf{Article Review III: Who's the ``Real'' Victim?
+Victim Framing and Sexual Assault}}
+
+Public opinion on rape cases continues to affect high-profile
+allegations like those in the \#MeToo movement or Brett Kavanaugh's
+case.
+Therefore, it's very important for public communicators (like reporters)
+to understand the effect from implicitly biased wording on their
+readers.
+This study, ``Who's the `Real' Victim,'' studies a rhetorical device
+called ``victim framing'' and how people's opinions differ over a case
+depending on the news they read.
+The researchers ran the study from several samples of Amazon's
+Mechanical Turk service, obtaining a ``sample of convenience.''
+About 2400 people participated in the study across four experiments.
+
+The first three of these experiments asked participants about a
+fictional rape case on a college campus, framed either neutrally (to
+create a baseline metric for opinions on sexual assault), framed with
+the accused as the victim, or framed with the assaulted as the victim.
+The framing were transparently anecdotal quotes attributed to friends of
+the protagonists, saying ``[he/she] is the real victim here''
+\autocite{assault}.
+The article samples presented to participants also vary on the amount of
+detail included (sparse vs rich descriptions of the case and campus
+opinions).
+This examines how important the level of elaboration is on persuading
+participants from their originally-held beliefs.
+
+The second experiment asked participants to cite the part of the text
+that affected their opinions of the case most.
+There was an observed significant interaction between people citing the
+quote describing victimhood and being swayed by the argument.
+
+The third experiment used very sparse language to frame its protagonist
+as a victim.
+The expansive victimhood arguments more consistently persuaded
+participants to lean on their beliefs, but even the very sparse
+descriptions mentioning one protagonist or the other as a victim biased
+readers.
+
+The fourth experiment was the true example of Brett Kavanaugh's hearing
+using the same text as the fictional case observed in previous trials.
+This trial was conducted about 10 months after his hearings.
+Victimhood language was less impactful to readers in the real case, but
+some significant effects appeared.
+
+The independent variables measured were level of detail in the story,
+level of detail in the victimhood statement, and the truth of the story.
+The dependent variable measured was Likert-scale self-report sympathy to
+the assaulted protagonist or to the accused protagonist, and (in some
+experiments) whether the reader cited language about victimhood as
+impactful in their decision.
+
+The study relates itself to existing theory about how arguments convince
+people called social-pragmatic reasoning.
+This is where biased language (like saying a basketball player ``misses
+60\%'' or ``makes 40\%'' of their shots) causes a reader to assume the
+author has a good reason to write that way.
+This inference-forming method means calling a protagonist a victim may
+activate a ``dyadic account of moral reasoning'' \autocite{assault}.
+Judging a person as a ``moral agent or patient'' in a situation causes
+observers to reduce blame for a protagonist seen as a passive actor (in
+contrast to the increased responsibility for a protagonist perceived as
+an agent).
+
+The authors controlled for demand characteristics in this study by
+portraying themselves as trying to learn public opinion on a report.
+This study was the first to confirm ``victim framing'' as a potent way
+to affect public opinion, but the results from the real case show it may
+not be so reliable.
+People who did not cite the victimhood statement as cementing their
+opinion had less sympathy for Kavanaugh when he was treated as the
+victim.
+This is probably a backfire effect against deeply-held beliefs because
+this population was much more likely to hold liberal beliefs, and
+therefore already have little sympathy towards Kavanaugh.
+
+Despite the issues this study has for generalization---it was
+conducted on Mechanical Turk, so it doesn't have a very representative
+sample---this study has implications for real-world reporting.
+Victim-framing appears, for example, when the {\it Washington Times}
+published the article ``Christine Blasey Ford is not the victim
+here---Brett Kavanaugh is.''
+Further research is still required on how exactly victim framing
+convinces people, but since it does have an impact, we need to decide on
+policy to handle this issue.
+
+\iffalse
+- Hypothesis
+- IV/DV
+- Controls
+- Results
+- Conclusions
+\fi
+
+\vfil\eject
+\printbibliography
+\end{document}
diff --git a/stanzione/rev4.tex b/stanzione/rev4.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fc2c4a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stanzione/rev4.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+% Mastery Mailing 1
+\documentclass[12pt]{apa7}
+\usepackage[style=apa,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\setlength{\headheight}{15pt}
+
+% According to several sources, the following commands should be active
+% for an APA paper, but I just hate them.
+% \raggedright
+% \language255 % no hyphenation
+\parindent=.5in
+\linespread{2}
+
+\shorttitle{Article Review IV}
+
+\addbibresource{sources.bib}
+
+\leftheader{Rohrer}
+
+\begin{document}
+\centerline{\textbf{Article Review IV: Does God Make It Real?}}
+
+We carry our beliefs and ideas with us from childhood to adulthood, but
+how do we discern what's true and what's fiction?
+Adults have very established frameworks for figuring out the truth, and
+these frameworks can start developing in childhood.
+Judeo-Christian religion is one of these frameworks.
+The study ``Does God Make It Real? Children's Belief in Religious
+Stories from the Judeo-Christian Tradition'' analyzed the epistemology
+of children between ages four and six based on their level of belief in
+fictional stories told by researchers (some stories being religious and
+others being nonreligious).
+However, this research, unlike previous literature, controlled for the
+content of the stories better (instead of using varying levels of
+fantasy/realistic elements in the story).
+Whether the story was religious or nonreligious was an independent
+variable tested in this study.
+The nonreligious stories were the same as the comparable biblical story
+except without mentioning God (ex: Matthew and the Green Sea).
+The authors also measured family religiosity (a self-report survey for
+parents on how important faith was to themselves and their children) and
+how familiar the stories were, also determined from the parents
+\autocite{god}.
+
+After telling the children the story, the researchers asked children
+whether the characters in the story really existed, whether the miracle
+from the story actually happened, and whether the miraculous event could
+happen in modern times in real life.
+Each of these questions was scored from 0 (no belief) to 4 (high
+belief) and treated as the dependent variable.
+Children were also asked to explain how the scientifically impossible
+event in the story happened, which was classed into four categories:
+a ``don't know,'' a religious explanation, a scientific explanation, or
+a magical explanation.
+Last, the children were asked questions about general principles for
+what could happen in real life related to the miracles in the stories
+they had heard (questions like ``could flour appear in a container all
+on its own?'' or ``could a pumpkin grow out of pumpkin seeds?'')
+
+The authors hypothesize that children told a religious story are more
+likely to believe it because stories about God are epistemically
+different and are less required to adhere to scientific truth.
+Authority figures like parents and trusted adults also often present
+religious stories as historically true events.
+At this age, children are learning to distinguish real versus
+fantastical events, so the lines of what's real are blurrier than for
+older children.
+This hypothesis was confirmed, as children did call the religious
+stories real more often than the nonreligious ones, but this effect was
+only significant within the 6-year-old group.
+
+Another independent variable that was analyzed was family religiosity as
+reported by parents.
+Children from religious families were significantly more likely to claim
+that religious events happened in real life, but were not significantly
+more likely to say that the event in question could happen now.
+This points to children distinguishing religious stories as a different
+class of explanation from those that apply to their lived experience.
+Then, researchers looked at religious education and familiarity with the
+religious stories.
+Level of religious education had an insignificant effect beyond
+increasing children's familiarity with the stories researchers were
+telling, which did in fact increase children's level of belief in the
+stories.
+The general principle questions also showed that children new that these
+events were impossible, so they were not misunderstanding the physical
+principles behind the miracles in the story and actually had a different
+truth-finding method in this domain.
+
+The other measured dependent variable is the reported explanations for
+the events in the tales.
+Children in the nonreligious condition were more likely to offer a
+natural explanation, and children in the religious condition were more
+likely to offer a religious explanation of the event.
+Children also offered more religious explanations as they got older (5-
+and 6-year olds had significantly more religious explanations than
+4-year-olds)
+Also, offering a religious explanation of the focal event correlated
+with higher reality status beliefs.
+
+Researchers believe that God may be an important ``reality status'' cue
+for children, engaging a different context and shifting
+reality-nonreality boundaries for participants.
+This context change may be explained, however, by general principle of
+increased familiarity (hearing a story repeatedly) or by a specific
+religious principle where hearing a story in church confers a greater
+reality status than it would otherwise have.
+
+\iffalse
+- Hypothesis
+- IV/DV
+- Controls
+- Results
+- Conclusions
+\fi
+
+\vfil\eject
+\printbibliography
+\end{document}
diff --git a/stanzione/sources.bib b/stanzione/sources.bib
index 685cab8..e5ab57a 100644
--- a/stanzione/sources.bib
+++ b/stanzione/sources.bib
@@ -80,3 +80,55 @@
   year={2019},
   publisher={Wiley Online Library}
 }
+
+@article{friendship,
+    title={A Longitudinal Study of Friendship Development},
+    author={Robert B. Hays},
+    year={1985},
+    journal={Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
+    volume={48},
+    number={4},
+    pages={909--924},
+    publisher={American Psychological Association},
+    doi={10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.909},
+}
+
+@article{multitask,
+    author = {Eyal Ophir  and Clifford Nass  and Anthony D. Wagner },
+    title = {Cognitive control in media multitaskers},
+    journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
+    volume = {106},
+    number = {37},
+    pages = {15583-15587},
+    year = {2009},
+    doi = {10.1073/pnas.0903620106},
+    URL = {https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106},
+    eprint = {https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0903620106},
+}
+
+@article{assault,
+    author = {Stephen J. Flusberg and James van der Vord and Sarah Q. Husney and Kevin J. Holmes},
+    title ={Who's the ``Real'' Victim? {How} Victim Framing Shapes Attitudes Toward Sexual Assault},
+    journal = {Psychological Science},
+    volume = {33},
+    number = {4},
+    pages = {524-537},
+    year = {2022},
+    doi = {10.1177/09567976211045935},
+    note ={PMID: 35333677},
+    URL = {https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211045935},
+    eprint = {https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211045935},
+}
+
+@article{god,
+    author = {Vaden, Victoria Cox and Woolley, Jacqueline D.},
+    title = {Does {God} Make It Real? {Children's} Belief in Religious Stories From the {Judeo-Christian} Tradition},
+    journal = {Child Development},
+    volume = {82},
+    number = {4},
+    pages = {1120-1135},
+    doi = {10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01589.x},
+    url = {https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01589.x},
+    eprint = {https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01589.x},
+    year = {2011}
+}