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

The estimate of the difference in the proportion of children’s Justice/Fair Justification Choice
responses when the Story Character was a bystander and the proportion of children’s Justice/Fair
Justification Choice responses when the Story Character was a Victim was -0.0601266. The
hypothesized difference in proportions of zero does lie within the 95% CI (-0.136842,
0.0165891) for the difference in proportions of children’s Justice/Fair Justification Choice
responses between the bystander and victim story character roles. Therefore, zero is a plausible
value for the difference in proportions of children’s Justice/Fair Justification Choice responses
when the story character was a bystander and when the story character was a victim. Thus, I fail
to reject the null hypothesis and I conclude that there is not a difference in the proportions of
children’s Justice/Fair Justification responses between the bystander and victim story character
roles. Thus, I conclude that children were as likely to choose Justice/Fair Justifications when the
story character role was a bystander as when the story character role was a victim. See Table 33.
Table 33
CBVS Test and Confidence Interval for the Proportion of Bystander and the Proportion of
Victims Among Children who Selected Justice/Fair Justification Choices
Sample ƒ n Sample p
Bystander 175 316 0.553797
Victim 194 316 0.613924
Test of p = 0 vs. p ≠ 0
Difference = p (Bystander) – p (Victim)
Estimate for difference: -0.0601266
95% CI (-0.136842, 0.0165891)
Test for difference = 0 (vs. ≠ 0): Z = -1.54 P-Value = 0.125
Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.146
N = 632 responses
120