diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'stanzione')
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/Makefile | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/mm3.tex | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/rev1.tex | 113 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/rev2.tex | 122 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/rev3.tex | 119 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/rev4.tex | 119 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | stanzione/sources.bib | 52 |
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} +} |