Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ... Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
oles. Thus, I reject the null hypothesis and I conclude that there is a significant difference in the proportions of children Aggressive Action Choice responses between bystander and victim story character roles. Thus, I conclude that children were more likely to choose Aggressive Action Choices when the story character role is a bystander than when the story character role was a victim. See Table 29. Table 29 CBVS Test and Confidence Interval for the Proportion of Bystander and the Proportion of Victim Among Children who Selected Aggressive Action Choices Sample ƒ n Sample p Bystander 86 316 0.272152 Victim 58 316 0.183544 Test of p = 0 vs. p ≠ 0 Difference = p (Bystander) – p (Victim) Estimate for difference: 0.0886076 95% CI (0.0235711, 0.153644) Test for difference = 0 (vs. ≠ 0): Z = 2.67 P-Value = 0.008 Fisher's exact test: P-Value 0.010 N = 632 responses Story Character Role and Justification Choice A Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence was used to determine whether there is a dependency between Story Character Role and children’s selections of Justification Choices. The significant Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) (2, N=632) = 8.01, p = .0182, Cramer’s V = .1126, indicates that there is a significant dependency between Story Character Role and Justification Choice. Therefore, I conclude that the frequency of Justification Choice responses is related to the Story Character Role. See Table 30. Tests for the difference in proportions were conducted to determine the frequency (ƒ) of children’s CBVS Justification Choice responses (Prosocial/Care vs. Aggression/Retaliation vs. 114
Justice/Fair) on bystander and victim Story Character Roles where n is the number of responses within a story category sample, and N is the total number of responses across four stories. Table 30 Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence between Story Character Role and CBVS Justification Choice Subscales 115 Story Character Role Count Justification Choices Count Bystander Victim Total Responses Prosocial/Care 109 78 187 Aggressive/Retribution 32 44 76 Justification/Fair 175 194 369 Total 316 316 632 Pearson Chi-Square (2, N=632) = 8.01, p = .0182 Cramer’s V = 1126
- 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 101 and 102: Figure 2. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- Page 103 and 104: Table 11 CBVS Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Te
- Page 105 and 106: Of the 187 responses to Prosocial/C
- 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 115 and 116: Figure 4. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- Page 117 and 118: A test for the Difference in Propor
- Page 119 and 120: Figure 5. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- 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 127: Table 28 CBVS Test and Confidence I
- Page 131 and 132: A test for the Difference in Propor
- Page 133 and 134: of children’s Aggressive/Retribut
- Page 135 and 136: Story Form of Victimization The nex
- Page 137 and 138: A test for the Difference in Propor
- Page 139 and 140: hypothesis and I conclude that ther
- Page 141 and 142: Figure 9. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test f
- Page 143 and 144: Table 38 CBVS Test and Confidence I
- 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
Justice/Fair) on bystander and victim Story Character Roles where n is the number <strong>of</strong> responses<br />
within a story category sample, and N is the total number <strong>of</strong> responses across four stories.<br />
Table 30<br />
Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence between Story Character Role and CBVS Justification<br />
Choice Subscales<br />
115<br />
Story Character Role Count<br />
Justification Choices Count Bystander Victim Total Responses<br />
Prosocial/Care 109 78 187<br />
Aggressive/Retribution 32 44 76<br />
Justification/Fair 175 194 369<br />
Total 316 316 632<br />
Pearson Chi-Square (2, N=632) = 8.01, p = .0182<br />
Cramer’s V = 1126
Change language