Maybe it's because I find this research area intriguing, but I did not think that this summary adequately captured the efforts of the original paper [0].
I think it was unfortunate that this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal "was to develop a temporary feeling of closeness, not an actual ongoing relationship".
Additionally, like many social psychology studies the nuances of the design and methodology are extremely valuable, yet this piece deems them as "dry" and mostly "devoid of enthusiasm". Anyone who has contributed to the design of substantial social psychology studies can tell you just how carefully each of these details is considered in design, implementation, and analysis. The original article [0] is full of detail, context, and discussion, and is definitely worth a read.
Thanks for the link. I was wondering what was going on with the ego/gender split:
"This pattern is consistent with Erikson's idea that low ego-identity individuals fear cross-sex intimacy in which they might lose their identity and thus get close only if they feel they can protect themselves from too much intimacy. For the same-sex pairings in the 45-min classroom version, the opposite interaction was found --
consistent with Erikson's idea that same-sex friendships for those who have not developed ego identity serve as identity supports, but for those who have developed an identity, they serve as sources of undesired conformity that threatens one's individuated identity."
> this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal "was to develop a temporary feeling of closeness, not an actual ongoing relationship".
The post does say this in the second paragraph:
Strangers... [report] a substantial amount of closeness in their relationship after a guided 45-minute conversation. But it's a far stretch to say that such an accomplishment truly creates reliably long-lasting relationships, regardless of the immense immediate effect.
>I think it was unfortunate that this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal
Except that they began the piece by conveying exactly that:
>But it's a far stretch to say that such an accomplishment truly creates reliably long-lasting relationships, regardless of the immense immediate effect.
I think it was unfortunate that this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal "was to develop a temporary feeling of closeness, not an actual ongoing relationship".
Additionally, like many social psychology studies the nuances of the design and methodology are extremely valuable, yet this piece deems them as "dry" and mostly "devoid of enthusiasm". Anyone who has contributed to the design of substantial social psychology studies can tell you just how carefully each of these details is considered in design, implementation, and analysis. The original article [0] is full of detail, context, and discussion, and is definitely worth a read.
[0] https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/fall...