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

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