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 ...
aggressive behavioral patterns are highly salient predictors for other risk factors in children's development such as peer rejection, delinquency, criminality, mental illness, underachievement, and dropping out of school. Aggression with peers may likely to put children on a negative developmental course for future social difficulties in adolescence and adulthood. This has implications for preventive interventions that expose maladaptive social competencies and provide prosocial strategies for solving peer conflict and dealing with social stress. Preventive education and counseling may also provide critical reflective strategies for enhancing prosocial values and beliefs about peer relationships. Child Variables Intellectual Ability Previous research finds that children’s social behavior is related to their intellectual ability. Dodge (1986) argued that children’s social information processing skills are determined at least in part by intelligence and that those skills are determined in part by intelligence. Specifically, children of lower intelligence are more likely to be physically aggressive with peers than children of higher intelligence. More recent research found that adaptive emotion-regulation strategies, aggressive-response generation, and problem-solving response generation were all related to adolescents’ intelligence; however, hostile attribution of intent was not related to intelligence (Nas et al., 2005). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that children’s Action and Justification Choices will co-vary with their intellectual ability. However, this study found that neither CBVS Action Choices nor CBVS Justification Choices varied with teacher-reports of children’s intellectual ability. The vast majority of children in this study were classified by teachers as Average in intellectual ability. Very few children were classified as Above Average/High in intellectual 146
ability. The lack of variance in teacher-reports of children’s intellectual ability may explain the non-significant relations between this variable and CBVS Action Choices and CBVS Justification Choices. This measure was intended to serve as a proxy measure for children’s intellectual ability and as a statistical control in subsequent data analyses. This analytic strategy is supported by previous findings that children’s social information processing skills, which include self- regulating emotions, developing social problem-solving strategies, and generating prosocial and aggressive responses, are determined at least in part by intelligence; specifically, that children of lower intelligence are more likely to be physically aggressive with peers than children of higher intelligence (Dodge, 1986). Bully/Victim Group Membership This study found that neither CBVS Action Choices nor Justification Choices varied across participant children’s teacher reported Bully/Victim Group Membership. In support of this strategy, many studies cite the prevalence of negative psychosocial and behavioral effects resulting from victimization on bully/victim group members (Flashpohler et al., 2009; Huitsing et al., 2007; Olweus, 1993; Veenstra et al., 2005). As with children’s Intellectual Ability, it was hoped that children’s Bully/Victim Group Membership would serve as another statistical control in subsequent data analyses. One explanation for the invariance of Bully/Victim Group Membership across CBVS Action Choices and Justification Choices may be that in this study there were insufficient numbers in each group, particularly in the Bully/Victim group, to account for a significant group effect. Indirect Assessments Versus Direct Assessments One of the issues of this study involves the validity and reliability of comparing indirect teacher-reports of children’s social competencies, such as CBS prosocial and aggressive behavior 147
- 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 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: engaging in high rates of aggressiv
- 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
- Page 205 and 206: 191
- Page 207 and 208: Appendix D Informed Consent Forms 1
- Page 209 and 210: 195
aggressive behavioral patterns are highly salient predictors for other risk factors in children's<br />
development such as peer rejection, delinquency, criminality, mental illness, underachievement,<br />
and dropping out <strong>of</strong> school. Aggression with peers may likely to put children on a negative<br />
developmental course for future social difficulties in adolescence and adulthood. This has<br />
implications for preventive interventions that expose maladaptive social competencies and<br />
provide prosocial strategies for solving peer conflict and dealing with social stress. Preventive<br />
education and counseling may also provide critical reflective strategies for enhancing prosocial<br />
values and beliefs about peer relationships.<br />
Child Variables<br />
Intellectual Ability<br />
Previous research finds that children’s social behavior is related to their intellectual<br />
ability. Dodge (1986) argued that children’s social information processing skills are determined<br />
at least in part by intelligence and that those skills are determined in part by intelligence.<br />
Specifically, children <strong>of</strong> lower intelligence are more likely to be physically aggressive with peers<br />
than children <strong>of</strong> higher intelligence. More recent research found that adaptive emotion-regulation<br />
strategies, aggressive-response generation, and problem-solving response generation were all<br />
related to adolescents’ intelligence; however, hostile attribution <strong>of</strong> intent was not related to<br />
intelligence (Nas et al., 2005).<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, it is reasonable to expect that children’s Action and Justification Choices will<br />
co-vary with their intellectual ability. However, this study found that neither CBVS Action<br />
Choices nor CBVS Justification Choices varied with teacher-reports <strong>of</strong> children’s intellectual<br />
ability. <strong>The</strong> vast majority <strong>of</strong> children in this study were classified by teachers as Average in<br />
intellectual ability. Very few children were classified as Above Average/High in intellectual<br />
146