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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
information will be helpful to practitioners who develop and implement effective bully prevention and intervention programs in elementary schools because children’s reasoning informs intervention practitioners about how children are processing information about peer victimization and provide a basis for effective bully prevention. Limitations of the Study Limitations associated with this study including the following: 1. The sample in this study was a convenience sample of 158 children and 16 teachers who were recruited through public and private elementary schools in a metropolitan area in the Southern region of the United States; 2. The sample was limited to children who were enrolled in the fifth grade and resided in a rural and metropolitan area in the southern region of the United States; and 3. Fifth-grade children do not always reason or behave consistently with social norms and values in the context of stress associated with victimization. Definitions of Terms Action Choices. Behavior that a child says that he or she would do if he or she experienced bullying as a victim or as a bystander who witnessed an act of bullying. Action Choices are classified as either Prosocial or Aggressive. Prosocial Action Choices. Prosocial behavior in response to either being victimized or to witnessing another person being victimized by bullies. It includes any behavior that represents helpful, empathic, or caring concern for another person. Aggressive Action Choices. Aggressive behavior in response to either being victimized or to witnessing another person being victimized by bullies. It includes include any behavior that causes either physical, emotional, or relational harm to another person. 9
Page 1 and 2: CHILDREN’S SOCIAL REASONING IN TH
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT The purpose of this study
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation w
Page 7 and 8: Victim ............................
Page 9 and 10: Story Character Role ..............
Page 11 and 12: LIST OF TABLES 1. CBVS Sample Demog
Page 13 and 14: 30. Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Ind
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROB
Page 17 and 18: anxiety, loneliness, and self-worth
Page 19 and 20: Research Questions and Hypotheses T
Page 21: . Null Hypotheses: There is no rela
Page 25 and 26: Justice/Fair Justifications. An exp
Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW Chapt
Page 29 and 30: actively involved, or as defenders
Page 31 and 32: who are victimized themselves), and
Page 33 and 34: Bullying often occurs within the co
Page 35 and 36: manipulate social relationships to
Page 37 and 38: Longitudinal studies of children en
Page 39 and 40: Bully Bullying also damages the bul
Page 41 and 42: for the nonbully/nonvictim. From co
Page 43 and 44: Being victimized has been correlate
Page 45 and 46: Linking Social Support and Bullying
Page 47 and 48: (Bandura, 1986, 1991). Bandura (198
Page 49 and 50: Social-cognitive learning theory ha
Page 51 and 52: influenced and guided by informatio
Page 53 and 54: ignore him or her, or that it is be
Page 55 and 56: (Dodge, 1980a; Dodge & Frame, 1982)
Page 57 and 58: during a child’s early years and
Page 59 and 60: The reader is reminded that the pur
Page 61 and 62: CBVS is scored by comparing the dif
Page 63 and 64: Other research suggests that childr
Page 65 and 66: their behaviors, which may explain
Page 67 and 68: Aggressive) and Justification Choic
Page 69 and 70: Cohen-Posey, 1995; Coloroso, 2003;
Page 71 and 72: children’s arrival, answered ques
Page 73 and 74:
esponse to either being bullied or
Page 75 and 76:
Peers (7 items) and the Aggressive
Page 77 and 78:
Children’s Social Experience Ques
Page 79 and 80:
Standard Deviations, ranges, and Cr
Page 81 and 82:
Prosocial with Peers and CBS Aggres
Page 83 and 84:
Choices (e.g., Prosocial, Aggressiv
Page 85 and 86:
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS The purpose of
Page 87 and 88:
for Prosocial Actions and victim ch
Page 89 and 90:
Table 4 Psychometric Properties for
Page 91 and 92:
all four stories. Bystander charact
Page 93 and 94:
Victim character / relational victi
Page 95 and 96:
Table 8 Psychometric Properties for
Page 97 and 98:
Prosocial/Care justification or Jus
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 1. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
Page 101 and 102:
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:
Page 117 and 118:
A test for the Difference in Propor
Page 119 and 120:
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:
Page 129 and 130:
Justice/Fair) on bystander and vict
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
of children’s Aggressive/Retribut
Page 135 and 136:
Story Form of Victimization The nex
Page 137 and 138:
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:
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 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
Page 205 and 206:
191
Page 207 and 208:
Appendix D Informed Consent Forms 1
Page 209 and 210:
195
Page 211 and 212:
197
Page 213 and 214:
⁮ Asian American ⁮ European Ame
Page 215 and 216:
Rate each reason for how good you t
Page 217 and 218:
III. Of all the actions that you ju
Page 219 and 220:
5. Talk to Mike about his feelings
Page 221 and 222:
4. Make up something about the mean
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix F Teacher Online Questionn
Page 225 and 226:
fights with peers. 1 = Never True 2
Page 227 and 228:
• Make new friends / change peer
Page 229 and 230:
• Get bullies to think about thei
Page 231 and 232:
217
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?