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 ...
Two theoretical approaches supported by empirical models share a common concern with harm and victimization. The social information processing model of social adjustment focuses on the way in which children’s processing of social information is related to their level of aggression with peers (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1986). The moral domain model focuses on children’s ability to make moral judgments about the appropriateness of social behavior (Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1995; Turiel, 1983). The ways that children interpret and understand (or misinterpret and misunderstand) social behaviors and peer motives influences children’s behaviors (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2004). Thus, the social information processing model provides a systematic way of clarifying the extent to which basic moral concepts are applied to behavior (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2004). In summary, similar language within social-learning theory, social information processing and moral domain theory is used to describe the concept that mental representations integrate memories of past events with other memories into a general mental structure (e.g., social knowledge, latent mental structures, and moral schemas) that guides the processing of social cues. Thus, social and moral knowledge influences the way social information is organized and processed in the context of bullying and victimization. During a bully victimization episode, children must decide how to respond to aggressive peers among multiple options, their underlying moral and social mental structures provide selective influence in favor of some choices over others (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2004; Dodge & Rabiner, 2004). Dodge and Rabiner (2004) argue that it is easy to imagine how a child’s own beliefs about what constitutes appropriate versus inappropriate behavior can influence the selecting or discarding of certain responses, even when the child is otherwise motivated to act on those responses. 44
The reader is reminded that the purpose of the present study is to develop a measure of children’s social reasoning regarding victimization. While this study is not a measure of children’s moral reasoning, it is will examine some of the ways in which children use moral justifications to explain prosocial and aggressive actions from the perspective of a victim or a nonbully/nonvictim bystander. To achieve this purpose, the Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS) was developed. The format and structure of the Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS) was based on the Intermediate Concepts Measure (ICM), a common measure of adolescents’ and adults’ moral reasoning. Intermediate Concepts Measure (ICM) The Intermediate Concepts Measure (ICM) is the model on which the CBVS is patterned. The ICM consists of hypothetical stories that focus the participant’s attention on a moral dilemma that occurs within a specific context (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999; Thoma, Crowson, Hestevold, & Sargent, 2005). The ICM provides respondents with a set of action choice items from which to resolve the dilemma. Additionally, the ICM asks participants to identify the moral justification for the action they selected in order to resolve the dilemma. The ICM provides action and justification choices identified by experts as appropriate or inappropriate based on the assumption that expert choices represent the application of moral schemas to the defining moral issues identified in each story. Therefore, action and justification choices represent expert ethical concepts, an understanding of the hypothetical situation, precedents that may apply, and a general social viewpoint (Thoma et al., 2005). The ICM assumes that highly contextualized decisions represent real-life decision-making choices. ICM participants are assessed on behavioral choices and justifications using four main scores: (a) the percentage of choices that were identified as acceptable action choices by 45
- 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 and 22: . Null Hypotheses: There is no rela
- Page 23 and 24: information will be helpful to prac
- 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: during a child’s early years and
- 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: Figure 2. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- 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
<strong>The</strong> reader is reminded that the purpose <strong>of</strong> the present study is to develop a measure <strong>of</strong><br />
children’s social reasoning regarding victimization. While this study is not a measure <strong>of</strong><br />
children’s moral reasoning, it is will examine some <strong>of</strong> the ways in which children use moral<br />
justifications to explain prosocial and aggressive actions from the perspective <strong>of</strong> a victim or a<br />
nonbully/nonvictim bystander. To achieve this purpose, the Children’s Bully/Victim Survey<br />
(CBVS) was developed. <strong>The</strong> format and structure <strong>of</strong> the Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS)<br />
was based on the Intermediate Concepts Measure (ICM), a common measure <strong>of</strong> adolescents’ and<br />
adults’ moral reasoning.<br />
Intermediate Concepts Measure (ICM)<br />
<strong>The</strong> Intermediate Concepts Measure (ICM) is the model on which the CBVS is patterned.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ICM consists <strong>of</strong> hypothetical stories that focus the participant’s attention on a moral<br />
dilemma that occurs within a specific context (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999; Thoma,<br />
Crowson, Hestevold, & Sargent, 2005). <strong>The</strong> ICM provides respondents with a set <strong>of</strong> action<br />
choice items from which to resolve the dilemma. Additionally, the ICM asks participants to<br />
identify the moral justification for the action they selected in order to resolve the dilemma. <strong>The</strong><br />
ICM provides action and justification choices identified by experts as appropriate or<br />
inappropriate based on the assumption that expert choices represent the application <strong>of</strong> moral<br />
schemas to the defining moral issues identified in each story. <strong>The</strong>refore, action and justification<br />
choices represent expert ethical concepts, an understanding <strong>of</strong> the hypothetical situation,<br />
precedents that may apply, and a general social viewpoint (Thoma et al., 2005). <strong>The</strong> ICM<br />
assumes that highly contextualized decisions represent real-life decision-making choices.<br />
ICM participants are assessed on behavioral choices and justifications using four main<br />
scores: (a) the percentage <strong>of</strong> choices that were identified as acceptable action choices by<br />
45