Finished work from last semesterHEADmaster

1 files changed, 119 insertions, 0 deletions

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}