Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3. CBVS Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence and Difference of Proportions for CBVS Action Choices vs. CBVS Justification Choices A test for the Difference in Proportions tested the following null hypothesis: Of the children who choose Prosocial/Care Justification Choices, there is no difference in proportions between those who choose Prosocial Action Choices and those who choose Aggressive Action Choices. 90
Of the 187 responses to Prosocial/Care Justification Choices, 165 were Prosocial Action Choices (sample p = 0.882353, p = 0.000 when test of p =0.5 vs. p ≠ 0.5). The hypothesized difference in proportions of 0.5 does not lie within the 95% confidence interval (0.827312, 0.924783); therefore I conclude that 0.5 is not a plausible value for the true differences in proportions of children’s responses to Prosocial Action Choice. Additionally, the proportions of children’s Prosocial Action choice responses and children’s Aggressive Action Choice responses are different and the proportions of children’s Prosocial Action Choice responses were higher than children’s Aggressive Action Choice responses. Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis and I conclude that children who chose Prosocial/Care Justification Choices were more likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices. The results are presented in Table 12. Table 12 CBVS Test and Confidence Interval for One Proportion for Prosocial/Care Justification Choices Test of p = 0.5 vs. p not = 0.5 Sample ƒ n Sample p 95% CI Exact P-Value 1 165 187 0.882353 (0.827312, 0.924783) 0.000 N = 632 responses A test for the Difference in Proportions also tested the following null hypothesis: Of the children who choose Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices, there is no difference in proportions between those who choose Aggressive Action Choices and those who choose Prosocial Action Choices. Of the 76 Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choice responses, 42 were Prosocial Action Choices (sample p =0.552632, p = 0.422 when test of p =0.05 vs. p ≠ 0.5). The 91
Page 1 and 2:
CHILDREN’S SOCIAL REASONING IN TH
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation w
Page 7 and 8:
Victim ............................
Page 9 and 10:
Story Character Role ..............
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF TABLES 1. CBVS Sample Demog
Page 13 and 14:
30. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Ind
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROB
Page 17 and 18:
anxiety, loneliness, and self-worth
Page 19 and 20:
Research Questions and Hypotheses T
Page 21 and 22:
. Null Hypotheses: There is no rela
Page 23 and 24:
information will be helpful to prac
Page 25 and 26:
Justice/Fair Justifications. An exp
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW Chapt
Page 29 and 30:
actively involved, or as defenders
Page 31 and 32:
who are victimized themselves), and
Page 33 and 34:
Bullying often occurs within the co
Page 35 and 36:
manipulate social relationships to
Page 37 and 38:
Longitudinal studies of children en
Page 39 and 40:
Bully Bullying also damages the bul
Page 41 and 42:
for the nonbully/nonvictim. From co
Page 43 and 44:
Being victimized has been correlate
Page 45 and 46:
Linking Social Support and Bullying
Page 47 and 48:
(Bandura, 1986, 1991). Bandura (198
Page 49 and 50:
Social-cognitive learning theory ha
Page 51 and 52:
influenced and guided by informatio
Page 53 and 54: ignore him or her, or that it is be
Page 55 and 56: (Dodge, 1980a; Dodge & Frame, 1982)
Page 57 and 58: during a child’s early years and
Page 59 and 60: The reader is reminded that the pur
Page 61 and 62: CBVS is scored by comparing the dif
Page 63 and 64: Other research suggests that childr
Page 65 and 66: their behaviors, which may explain
Page 67 and 68: Aggressive) and Justification Choic
Page 69 and 70: Cohen-Posey, 1995; Coloroso, 2003;
Page 71 and 72: children’s arrival, answered ques
Page 73 and 74: esponse to either being bullied or
Page 75 and 76: Peers (7 items) and the Aggressive
Page 77 and 78: Children’s Social Experience Ques
Page 79 and 80: Standard Deviations, ranges, and Cr
Page 81 and 82: Prosocial with Peers and CBS Aggres
Page 83 and 84: Choices (e.g., Prosocial, Aggressiv
Page 85 and 86: CHAPTER IV: RESULTS The purpose of
Page 87 and 88: for Prosocial Actions and victim ch
Page 89 and 90: Table 4 Psychometric Properties for
Page 91 and 92: all four stories. Bystander charact
Page 93 and 94: Victim character / relational victi
Page 95 and 96: Table 8 Psychometric Properties for
Page 97 and 98: Prosocial/Care justification or Jus
Page 99 and 100: Figure 1. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
Page 103: Table 11 CBVS Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Te
Page 107 and 108: of children’s Prosocial Action Ch
Page 109 and 110: Table 15 Predicting Action Choices
Page 111 and 112: Table 18 Predicting Action Choices
Page 113 and 114: participant child variable such as
Page 117 and 118: A test for the Difference in Propor
Page 121 and 122: Table 24 CBVS Test and Confidence I
Page 123 and 124: Therefore, I reject the null hypoth
Page 125 and 126: Figure 6. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test f
Page 129 and 130: Justice/Fair) on bystander and vict
Page 133 and 134: of children’s Aggressive/Retribut
Page 135 and 136: Story Form of Victimization The nex
Page 139 and 140: hypothesis and I conclude that ther
Page 141 and 142: Figure 9. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test f
Page 145 and 146: Justice/Fair Justification Choice r
Page 147 and 148: Figure 10. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test
Page 149 and 150: Figure 11. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test
Page 151 and 152: Action Choices in this study varied
Page 153 and 154: CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION How people ju
Page 155 and 156:
y administering the measure in a in
Page 157 and 158:
get what they deserve.” It is lik
Page 159 and 160:
engaging in high rates of aggressiv
Page 161 and 162:
ability. The lack of variance in te
Page 163 and 164:
lie in the lack of variability in C
Page 165 and 166:
whether the story character was a b
Page 167 and 168:
Schwartz et al., 1998). These child
Page 169 and 170:
of the independent variable such as
Page 171 and 172:
strong component, which is directed
Page 173 and 174:
too long, given other curriculum-ba
Page 175 and 176:
REFERENCES Ableson, R. P. (1981). T
Page 177 and 178:
Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (20
Page 179 and 180:
Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murp
Page 181 and 182:
Dodge, K. A. (1980a). Social cognit
Page 183 and 184:
Frisch, M. B. (2000). Improving men
Page 185 and 186:
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T. R., Eitel
Page 187 and 188:
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001
Page 189 and 190:
Munoz, M. A., & Vanderhaar, J. E. (
Page 191 and 192:
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K.
Page 193 and 194:
Rogers, M. J., & Tisak, M. S. (1996
Page 195 and 196:
Smokowski, P. R., Reynolds, A. J.,
Page 197 and 198:
Turiel, E. (2006). Thought, emotion
Page 199 and 200:
APPENDICES 185
Page 201 and 202:
Date, ______________, 2009 Malvin (
Page 203 and 204:
Appendix C School Approvals 189
Page 205 and 206:
191
Page 207 and 208:
Appendix D Informed Consent Forms 1
Page 209 and 210:
195
Page 211 and 212:
197
Page 213 and 214:
⁮ Asian American ⁮ European Ame
Page 215 and 216:
Rate each reason for how good you t
Page 217 and 218:
III. Of all the actions that you ju
Page 219 and 220:
5. Talk to Mike about his feelings
Page 221 and 222:
4. Make up something about the mean
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix F Teacher Online Questionn
Page 225 and 226:
fights with peers. 1 = Never True 2
Page 227 and 228:
• Make new friends / change peer
Page 229 and 230:
• Get bullies to think about thei
Page 231 and 232:
217
show all

Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?