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 ...
individual data points. Even though internal consistencies can take on any value less than or equal to 1, where the positive values are more meaningful, higher values of .70 or more are more desirable (Lomax, 2001). While there were low internal consistencies for each Action and Justification subscale within each of the four stories, within story correlations revealed mixed patterns of significance indicating methodological problems with combining both story character role and story form of victimization for story analysis. One explanation might be that multiple story variables within a single story confused children as the tried to imagine multiple roles and forms of victimization. Future studies should use stories that clearly delineate single variables in order to eliminate confounding variables. Another explanation for low internal consistencies within stories might be the way in which the measure was administered. Children were only given the option of the online format and completing the measure in a group setting among their peers. They did not have the option of using paper and pencil or to participate in an individual setting. Children might have lost concentration and responded by keying the same values such as all 1’s or 5’s, or with a repeated sequence of values in order to quickly complete the task. Upon close examination of the response data, only two of original 165 participants either failed to complete the survey and were eliminated from the data set. Another possibility might have been that children were confused about how to interpret rated items or by the directions such as what was meant by the terms good, bad, best or worst. Even though the researcher addressed all questions that were asked by children and maintained close proximity in order to answer individual questions, the possibility exists that children might have been reluctant to raise questions in the group for fear of calling attention to themselves among their peers. For future studies, the peer effect can be controlled for 140
y administering the measure in a individual setting. Additionally, problems with systematic response errors can be alleviated by use of paper and pencil formats in an interview format and by administering the online measure one-on-one with an interviewer present to clarify confusing items or terms. While the lack of significant reliability and presence of mixed correlations within stories lead to the decision to abandon the general linear model for rated data in favor of a nonparametic analyses of the categorical ranked data, findings within the CBVS Action Choice and Justification Choice variables across all four stories revealed moderate to strong internal consistency magnitudes. These results will be integrated into the discussion of the nonparametric findings. The Relationship Between Action Choices and Justification Choices How do children’s Action Choices relate to their justifications? This study found that there is a dependency between CBVS Action Choice and CBVS Justification Choice. While these findings are not unexpected, these variables were rated by the same source using related methods. These findings may have an inflated association between these variables due to the common source, which was not seen when compared to teacher ratings. First, this study found that children’s Prosocial Action Choices relate directly to their Prosocial/Care Justification Choices and to Justice/Fair Justification Choices. Specifically, children who choose Prosocial/Care Justification Choices were more likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices. Not surprisingly, other studies found that prosocial behavior begins at an early age and that personality disposition and prosocial parenting have a significant influence on a child’s development of prosocial dispositions (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Scourfield, John, Martin, & McGuffin, 2004). The significance of the 141
- 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 and 150: Figure 11. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test
- Page 151 and 152: Action Choices in this study varied
- Page 153: CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION How people ju
- 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
- Page 201 and 202: Date, ______________, 2009 Malvin (
- Page 203 and 204: Appendix C School Approvals 189
y administering the measure in a individual setting. Additionally, problems with systematic<br />
response errors can be alleviated by use <strong>of</strong> paper and pencil formats in an interview format and<br />
by administering the online measure one-on-one with an interviewer present to clarify confusing<br />
items or terms.<br />
While the lack <strong>of</strong> significant reliability and presence <strong>of</strong> mixed correlations within stories<br />
lead to the decision to abandon the general linear model for rated data in favor <strong>of</strong> a nonparametic<br />
analyses <strong>of</strong> the categorical ranked data, findings within the CBVS Action Choice and<br />
Justification Choice variables across all four stories revealed moderate to strong internal<br />
consistency magnitudes. <strong>The</strong>se results will be integrated into the discussion <strong>of</strong> the nonparametric<br />
findings.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Relationship Between Action Choices and Justification Choices<br />
How do children’s Action Choices relate to their justifications? This study found that<br />
there is a dependency between CBVS Action Choice and CBVS Justification Choice. While these<br />
findings are not unexpected, these variables were rated by the same source using related<br />
methods. <strong>The</strong>se findings may have an inflated association between these variables due to the<br />
common source, which was not seen when compared to teacher ratings.<br />
First, this study found that children’s Prosocial Action Choices relate directly to their<br />
Prosocial/Care Justification Choices and to Justice/Fair Justification Choices. Specifically,<br />
children who choose Prosocial/Care Justification Choices were more likely to choose Prosocial<br />
Action Choices than Aggressive Action Choices. Not surprisingly, other studies found that<br />
prosocial behavior begins at an early age and that personality disposition and prosocial parenting<br />
have a significant influence on a child’s development <strong>of</strong> prosocial dispositions (Eisenberg,<br />
Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Scourfield, John, Martin, & McGuffin, 2004). <strong>The</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
141
Change language