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

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