Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ... Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
Summary of Results To summarize the findings, there is a dependency between children’s Actions Choices and Justification Choices. Children who selected Prosocial/Care Justification Choices were more likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices. Children who chose Aggressive/Retribution Justification were just as likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices as Aggressive Action Choices. Children who chose Justice/Fair Justification Choices were more likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices. This study found that neither teacher-reposts of CBS Prosocial with Peers nor CBS Aggressive with Peers were predictive of CBVS Action Choice subscales (Prosocial vs. Aggressive). Additionally, neither teacher-reports on CBS Prosocial with Peers nor teacher- reports on CBS Aggressive with Peers were useful predictors of children’s Justification Choices. Findings in this study indicated that neither Action Choices nor Justification Choices varied across Intellectual Ability groups. Other findings from this study indicated that the frequency of children’s Action Choices did not vary across the gender of participant children. Males were as likely to select Prosocial Actions as females. Males were as likely to select Aggressive Action Choices as females. With regard to Story Character role, this study found that there was a difference between the proportion of children who select Prosocial Action Choices when the story character role was a bystander and when the story character role was a victim. Children were more likely to select Prosocial Action Choices when the story character role was a victim when the story character role was a bystander. Children were more likely to select Aggressive Action Choices when the story character role was a bystander than when the story character role was a victim. 136
Action Choices in this study varied across Story Form of Victimization. Children were more likely to select Prosocial Action Choices when the Story Form of Victimization was physical bullying than when the Story Form of Victimization was relational bullying. However, children were more likely to select Aggressive Action Choices when the Story Form of Victimization was relational bullying than when the Story Form of Victimization was physical bullying. This study found that Justification Choices varied across the Gender of participant children. Females were as likely to select Prosocial/Care Justification Choices as males. Males were more likely to select Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices than females. Females were more likely to select Justice/Fair Justification Choices than males. Story Character Roles in this study varied across Justification Choices. Children were more likely to select Prosocial/Care Justification Choices when the story character role was a bystander than when the story character role was a victim. Children were as likely to select Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices when the story character role was a bystander as when the story character role was a victim. Children were as likely to select Justice/Fair Justifications when the story character role was a bystander when the story character role was a victim. This study found that Justification Choices varied across Story Form of Victimization. Children were more likely to select Prosocial/Care Justification Choices when the Story Form of Victimization was physical than when the Story Form of Victimization was a relational. Children were as likely to select Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices when the Story Form of Victimization was relational as when the Story Form of Victimization was physical. Children were more likely to select Justice/Fair Justification Choices when the Story Form of 137
- Page 99 and 100: Figure 1. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. 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 115 and 116: Figure 4. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- Page 117 and 118: A test for the Difference in Propor
- Page 119 and 120: Figure 5. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- 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 127 and 128: Table 28 CBVS Test and Confidence I
- Page 129 and 130: Justice/Fair) on bystander and vict
- Page 131 and 132: A test for the Difference in Propor
- 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 143 and 144: Table 38 CBVS Test and Confidence I
- Page 145 and 146: Justice/Fair Justification Choice r
- Page 147 and 148: Figure 10. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test
- Page 149: Figure 11. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test
- 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
Summary <strong>of</strong> Results<br />
To summarize the findings, there is a dependency between children’s Actions Choices<br />
and Justification Choices. Children who selected Prosocial/Care Justification Choices were more<br />
likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices. Children who chose<br />
Aggressive/Retribution Justification were just as likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices as<br />
Aggressive Action Choices. Children who chose Justice/Fair Justification Choices were more<br />
likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices.<br />
This study found that neither teacher-reposts <strong>of</strong> CBS Prosocial with Peers nor CBS<br />
Aggressive with Peers were predictive <strong>of</strong> CBVS Action Choice subscales (Prosocial vs.<br />
Aggressive). Additionally, neither teacher-reports on CBS Prosocial with Peers nor teacher-<br />
reports on CBS Aggressive with Peers were useful predictors <strong>of</strong> children’s Justification Choices.<br />
Findings in this study indicated that neither Action Choices nor Justification Choices<br />
varied across Intellectual Ability groups.<br />
Other findings from this study indicated that the frequency <strong>of</strong> children’s Action Choices<br />
did not vary across the gender <strong>of</strong> participant children. Males were as likely to select Prosocial<br />
Actions as females. Males were as likely to select Aggressive Action Choices as females.<br />
With regard to Story Character role, this study found that there was a difference between<br />
the proportion <strong>of</strong> children who select Prosocial Action Choices when the story character role was<br />
a bystander and when the story character role was a victim. Children were more likely to select<br />
Prosocial Action Choices when the story character role was a victim when the story character<br />
role was a bystander. Children were more likely to select Aggressive Action Choices when the<br />
story character role was a bystander than when the story character role was a victim.<br />
136
Change language