1 files changed, 113 insertions, 0 deletions
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}