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 ...

acumen.lib.ua.edu
from acumen.lib.ua.edu More from this publisher
15.08.2013 Views

or she may reflect on the prosocial/caring responses that affect a positive resolution, and then reflects on the negative emotions that might affect a less than desirable outcome. For example, a victim may weight the fairness of the situation, followed by prosocial/care reasons that may inhibit aggressive response and lead to prosocial actions (or, self-protective aggression in the threat of physical harm). Alternatively, a flood of angry emotions may serve to exacerbate aggressive actions regardless of personal safety. It is interesting that children feel it is more appropriate for a bystander as opposed to a victim to respond to bully victimization with aggression. Perhaps, children believe that victims who respond with aggression are more likely to get victimization again; therefore, their most effective response is to be prosocial. Further, children may reason that bystanders, who are neither bullies nor victims, can intervene on behalf of a victim aggressively with greater power and less subjectivity to retaliation that would otherwise befall the original victim of abuse. Story Form of Victimization This study found that both children’s Action Choices and Justification Choices varied across Story Forms of Victimization. This study found that children were more likely to choose Prosocial Action Choices when the story form of victimization was physical than when the story form of victimization was relational. While the middle-class population sample may be socialized to favor prosocial behavior over aggressive behavior, another explanation may be that children may fear that an aggressive Action Choice by a victim in response to physical victimization might result in more physical victimization and further social isolation from peers; therefore, they may reason that the best action is a prosocial action. Other research found that children who are victimized by peers exhibit more internalizing behaviors, such as being quiet or withdrawn, depressed, and anxious (Craig, 1998; 152

Schwartz et al., 1998). These children are less socially accepted by their peers are more isolated than other children (Veenstra et al., 2005), which means that they favor prosocial behavior as a means to garner social support as a buffer from the harmful effects of peer victimization (Malecki & Demaray, 2004). In the context of schools, peers and teachers are the core part of a child’s social support network providing emotional, motivational, instrumental, and informational support (Tardy, 1985). In contrast, while children in this study were much less likely to select Aggressive Actions than Prosocial Actions regardless of whether the Story Form of Victimization was physical or relational. However, children were more likely to they Aggressive Action Choices when the story form of victimization was relational than when the story form of victimization was physical. With relational victimization, children may not fear a bully’s retaliation because neither victims nor bystanders incur a physical threat to their personal safety. Interestingly, as previously mentioned in the gender portion of this study, girls are more predisposed to resolving relational disputes through the use of strong social support networks. Even so, Olweus (1978) reported that bullies are rarely targeted by peers, which may suggest that even relational bullies have an inhibitory effect on victims for fear of psychological harm. Alternately, when children in this study do resort to Aggressive Actions, it may be that boys tend to resort to physical aggression and girls may resort to relational aggression respectively. With regard to Justification Choices for physical and relational forms of victimization, children tended to predominantly select more Justice/Fair Justification Choices with Prosocial/Care Justifications as a close second in both Physical and Relational Story Forms of Victimization. Murray-Close and associates (2006) argue that children tend to adopt a moral orientation (e.g., ability to distinguish behaviors that are acceptable as right and wrong) about 153

or she may reflect on the prosocial/caring responses that affect a positive resolution, and then<br />

reflects on the negative emotions that might affect a less than desirable outcome. For example, a<br />

victim may weight the fairness <strong>of</strong> the situation, followed by prosocial/care reasons that may<br />

inhibit aggressive response and lead to prosocial actions (or, self-protective aggression in the<br />

threat <strong>of</strong> physical harm). Alternatively, a flood <strong>of</strong> angry emotions may serve to exacerbate<br />

aggressive actions regardless <strong>of</strong> personal safety.<br />

It is interesting that children feel it is more appropriate for a bystander as opposed to a<br />

victim to respond to bully victimization with aggression. Perhaps, children believe that victims<br />

who respond with aggression are more likely to get victimization again; therefore, their most<br />

effective response is to be prosocial. Further, children may reason that bystanders, who are<br />

neither bullies nor victims, can intervene on behalf <strong>of</strong> a victim aggressively with greater power<br />

and less subjectivity to retaliation that would otherwise befall the original victim <strong>of</strong> abuse.<br />

Story Form <strong>of</strong> Victimization<br />

This study found that both children’s Action Choices and Justification Choices varied<br />

across Story Forms <strong>of</strong> Victimization. This study found that children were more likely to choose<br />

Prosocial Action Choices when the story form <strong>of</strong> victimization was physical than when the story<br />

form <strong>of</strong> victimization was relational. While the middle-class population sample may be<br />

socialized to favor prosocial behavior over aggressive behavior, another explanation may be that<br />

children may fear that an aggressive Action Choice by a victim in response to physical<br />

victimization might result in more physical victimization and further social isolation from peers;<br />

therefore, they may reason that the best action is a prosocial action.<br />

Other research found that children who are victimized by peers exhibit more<br />

internalizing behaviors, such as being quiet or withdrawn, depressed, and anxious (Craig, 1998;<br />

152

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!