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

Aggressive/Retribution Justification responses between physical and relational Story Forms of
Victimization. Thus, I conclude that children were as likely to choose Aggressive/Retribution
Justification Choices when the Story Form of Victimization is relational as when the Story Form of
Victimization was a physical. See Table 39.
Table 39
CBVS Test and Confidence Interval for the Proportion of Physical and the Proportion of
Relational Among Children who Selected Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices
Sample ƒ n Sample p
Physical 34 316 0.107595
Relational 42 316 0.132911
Test of p = 0 vs. p ≠ 0
Difference = p (Physical) – p (Relational)
Estimate for difference: -0.0253165
95% CI (-0.0759942, 0.0253613)
Test for difference = 0 (vs. ≠ 0): Z = -0.98 P-Value = 0.328
Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.392
N = 632 responses
A test for the Difference in Proportions tested the following null hypothesis: There is no
difference between children’s CBVS Justice/Fair Justification Choices for stories that involved
physical victimization and the proportion of children CBVS Justice/Fair Justification Choices for
stories that involve relation victimization.
Of the 316 responses to the physical Story Form of Victimization scenarios, 167 were
Justice/Fair Justification Choices (sample p = 0.528481). Of the 316 responses to the relational Story
Form of Victimization scenarios, 202 were Justice/Fair Justification Choices (sample p = 0.639241).
The estimate of the difference in the proportion of children’s Justice/Fair Justification Choice
responses when the story involved physical victimization and the proportion of children’s
130