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

Justice/Fair Justification Choice responses when the story involved relational victimization was -
0.110759. The hypothesized difference in proportions of zero does not lie within the 95% CI (-
0.187132, -0.0343873). Therefore, zero is not a plausible value for the difference in proportions of
children’s Justice/Fair Justification Choice responses between physical and relational Story Forms of
Victimization. Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis and I conclude that there is a significant
difference in the proportions children’s Justice/Fair Justification Choices. Thus, I conclude that
children were more likely to choose Justice/Fair Justification Choices when the Story Form of
Victimization was relational than when the Story Form of Victimization was physical. See Table 40.
Table 40
CBVS Test and Confidence Interval for the Proportion of Physical and the Proportion of
Relational Among Children who Selected Justice/Fair Justification Choices
Sample ƒ n Sample p
Physical 167 316 0.528481
Relational 202 316 0.639241
Test of p = 0 vs. p ≠ 0
Difference = p (Physical) – p (Relational)
Estimate for difference: -0.110759
95% CI (-0.187132, -0.0343873)
Test for difference = 0 (vs. ≠ 0): Z = -2.84 P-Value = 0.004
Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.006
N = 632
The last section addresses Bully/Victim Group Membership influence on CBVS Action
and Justification Choices. These analyses test whether children’s membership in a Bully/Victim
group (Nonbully/Nonvictim vs. Victim vs. Bully vs. Bully/Victim) makes a difference in
selecting an Action Choice (prosocial vs. aggressive) or Justification Choices (Prosocial/Care vs.
Aggressive/Retribution vs. Justice/Fair).
131