From 8dafd8aec819e85fd36cbd1d6231aad24e62c31b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Holden Rohrer Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:21:57 -0400 Subject: Finished work from last semester --- stanzione/rev1.tex | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+) create mode 100644 stanzione/rev1.tex (limited to 'stanzione/rev1.tex') 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} -- cgit