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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 7. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence and Difference of Proportions for CBVS Justification Choices vs. Story Character Role 116
A test for the Difference in Proportions tested the following null hypothesis: There is no difference between children’s CBVS Prosocial/Care Justification Choices for stories that involved bystander story characters and the proportion of children CBVS Prosocial/Care Justification Choices for stories that involve victim story characters Of the 316 responses to the Bystander Story Character scenarios, 109 were Prosocial/Care Justification Choices (sample p = 0.344937). Of the 316 responses the Victim Story Character scenarios, 78 were Prosocial/Care Justification Choices (sample p = 0.246835). The estimate of the difference in the proportion of children’s Prosocial/Care Justification Choice responses when the Story Character was a bystander and the proportion of children’s Prosocial/Care Justification Choice responses when the Story Character was a Victim was 0.0981013. The hypothesized difference in proportions of zero does not lie within the 95% CI (0.0273424, 0.168860) for the difference in proportions of children’s Prosocial/Care Justification Choice responses between the bystander story character role and victim story character role. Therefore, zero is not a plausible value for the difference in proportions of children’s Prosocial/Care Justification Choice responses between victim bystander character roles and victim story character roles. Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis and I conclude that there is a difference in the proportion of children’s Prosocial/Care Justification responses for bystander story character role and the proportion of children’s Prosocial/Care Justification responses for victim story character role. Thus, I conclude that children were more likely to choose Prosocial/Care Justification Choices when the story character role was a bystander than when the story character role is a victim. See Table 31. 117
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 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 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: 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 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 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?