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 ...
professionals and experts in moral psychology, (b) the percentage of choices that were identified as unacceptable for action choices, (c) the percentage of responses identified as acceptable justification choices, (d) the percentage of responses identified as unacceptable justification choices. These scores were then combined to form a total “good” (identifying choices and justifications that were acceptable) and “bad” (identifying choices and justifications that were unacceptable) (Thoma et al., 2005). Findings from ICM studies revealed the proportion of times that participants were able to discern actions and justifications that were acceptable by professionals and experts from actions and justifications identified as unacceptable choices by professionals and experts. These studies revealed scores that indicated the level of moral reasoning at which participants were engaging as they evaluated hypothetical scenarios within the a specific context of professional values (Rest et al., 2000; Thoma et al., 2005; Thoma & Rest, 1999). Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS) The Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS), which is structurally modeled on the ICM, consists of hypothetical stories that focus children’s attention on a social dilemma within the specific context of bully victimization. The CBVS provide children with a set of action choice items from which to resolve a hypothetical bully victimization dilemma. Additionally, the CBVS asks children to identify the social justification for the action they selected in order to resolve the dilemma. The CBVS provides action and justification choices identified by experts as appropriate or inappropriate based on the assumption that expert choices represent the application of social knowledge for defining prosocial actions and justifications for each story. Therefore, prosocial and aggressive action and justification choices represent an understanding of the hypothetical situation, precedents that may apply, and a general view of prosocial and antisocial norms. The 46
CBVS is scored by comparing the differences in proportion of children’s selecting Action Choices (e.g., prosocial, aggressive) with Justification Choices (e.g., prosocial/care, aggressive/noncore, justice/fair). The premise is that most children will justify prosocial actions with prosocial justifications and that children who choose aggressive actions with justify those choices with aggressive reasons. It is assumed that some children who choose prosocial or aggressive actions will justify their actions on the basis of justice and fairness and that some children will inconsistently justify their aggressive actions with prosocial justifications. In each these scenarios, it will be incumbent on the intervention facilitator to consider a number of possible social and moral frameworks to determine the factors that influence each reasoning response. Although the proposed Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS) instrument does not purport to measure moral reasoning, the CBVS does assess the likelihood that children will justify actions from the moral perspective of justice or fairness toward the bully and the victim. The CBVS model assumes that moral justifications represent generalizable moral norms based on schemas about the welfare, fairness, and rights of others that regulate social relationships (Helwig & Turiel, 2003; Turiel, 1983, 1998). While beyond the scope of this study, future studies may further the research on the extent to which empathy may mediate the selection of prosocial actions and justifications based on concern for victim and bystander well-being. Summary and Implications The probability that children will experience peer abuse or become targets of peers’ aggressive behaviors increases as they enter school and progress through the primary grades (Ladd & Kochenderfer Ladd, 2002). The exposure to peer abuse during early and middle childhood appears to increase children’s risk for adjustment difficulties (Kochenderfer Ladd & 47
- 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 and 58: during a child’s early years and
- Page 59: The reader is reminded that the pur
- 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
- Page 109 and 110: Table 15 Predicting Action Choices
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and experts in moral psychology, (b) the percentage <strong>of</strong> choices that were identified<br />
as unacceptable for action choices, (c) the percentage <strong>of</strong> responses identified as acceptable<br />
justification choices, (d) the percentage <strong>of</strong> responses identified as unacceptable justification<br />
choices. <strong>The</strong>se scores were then combined to form a total “good” (identifying choices and<br />
justifications that were acceptable) and “bad” (identifying choices and justifications that were<br />
unacceptable) (Thoma et al., 2005). Findings from ICM studies revealed the proportion <strong>of</strong> times<br />
that participants were able to discern actions and justifications that were acceptable by<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and experts from actions and justifications identified as unacceptable choices by<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and experts. <strong>The</strong>se studies revealed scores that indicated the level <strong>of</strong> moral<br />
reasoning at which participants were engaging as they evaluated hypothetical scenarios within<br />
the a specific context <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional values (Rest et al., 2000; Thoma et al., 2005; Thoma &<br />
Rest, 1999).<br />
Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS)<br />
<strong>The</strong> Children’s Bully/Victim Survey (CBVS), which is structurally modeled on the ICM,<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> hypothetical stories that focus children’s attention on a social dilemma within the<br />
specific context <strong>of</strong> bully victimization. <strong>The</strong> CBVS provide children with a set <strong>of</strong> action choice<br />
items from which to resolve a hypothetical bully victimization dilemma. Additionally, the CBVS<br />
asks children to identify the social justification for the action they selected in order to resolve the<br />
dilemma. <strong>The</strong> CBVS provides action and justification choices identified by experts as appropriate<br />
or inappropriate based on the assumption that expert choices represent the application <strong>of</strong> social<br />
knowledge for defining prosocial actions and justifications for each story. <strong>The</strong>refore, prosocial<br />
and aggressive action and justification choices represent an understanding <strong>of</strong> the hypothetical<br />
situation, precedents that may apply, and a general view <strong>of</strong> prosocial and antisocial norms. <strong>The</strong><br />
46
Change language