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

d. Null Hypotheses: There is no difference between the proportions of
Prosocial Action Choices and Aggressive Action Choices among children
across different Bystander and Victim Story Character Roles.
e. Null Hypotheses: There is no difference between the proportions of
Prosocial/Care Justification Choices, Aggressive/Retribution Justification
Choices, and Justice/Fair Justification Choices among children across
different Physical and Relational Story Forms of Bullying.
f. Null Hypotheses: There is no difference between the proportions of
Prosocial Action Choices and Aggressive Action Choices among children
across different Physical and Relational Story Forms of Bullying.
g. Null Hypotheses: There is no dependency between Bully/Victim group
membership and children’s Action Choices or Justification Choices. (In
other words, varying the category of group membership won’t have an
effect on the action choice or justification choice).
Significance of the Study
We know little about what children think is the best way to respond to being victimized
or to witnessing a peer being victimized. In addition, we know nothing about why children
behave in inconsistent ways as a response to being victimized by bullies. Thus, this study is
important because it examines the relationship between children’s social reasoning and what they
say they might do when they are victimized by bullies or when they witness others being
victimized by bullies. This study provides evidence that the CBVS measure has content and
predictive validity, and that it is able to assess the justifications children give for their preferred
actions taken in response to bully victimization or to witnessing victimization of a peer. This
8