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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Justice/Fairness. Examples include, “It’s not fair to pick on Charlie,” “Mike has as much right to be on the team as anybody else.” Another third of the Justification Choices on the list reflect a rationale based on the principle of Prosocial behavior/Care for another person. Examples include, “Being picked on really hurts,” “Charlie needs someone to help him.” The last third of the Justification Choices on the list are based on the principle of Aggressive behavior/Lack of concern for another person. Examples include, “The mean kids deserve to get punished,” “It will teach the mean kids a lesson.” The participating child rates each Justification Choice on the list for how good it is with 1 = very bad, 2 = kind of bad, 3 = kind of good, and 4 = very good. The participating child then selects from among all of the Justifications just rated as very good Justification for the main character’s “best” Action Choice. The participant child also selects the worst Justification for the main character’s “very bad” Action Choice. A score for Justice/Fair Justification was calculated by summing the number of “best” Justifications across all four scenarios that were coded as Justice/Fair. A score for Prosocial/Care was calculated by summing the number of “best” Justifications across all four scenarios that were coded as Prosocial/Care. Finally, a score for Aggressive/retribution Justifications was calculated by summing the number of worst Justifications across all four scenarios that were coded as Aggressive/retribution. Teacher’s Survey The teacher’s survey contained the Child Behavior Scale (CBS), the Children’s Social Behavior Scale (CSBS), and the Children’s Social Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ). Child Behavior Scale (CBS). The CBS contains 59 items grouped into six subscales (Ladd & Profilet, 1996), which include Prosocial with Peers, Aggressive with Peers, Asocial with Peers, Excluded by Peers, Anxious-Fearful, and Hyperactive-Distractible. Only the CBS Prosocial with 60
Peers (7 items) and the Aggressive with Peers (7 items) subscales are relevant to the current study. Thus, a modified version of the CBS was used for this investigation, which these two subscales. Teachers rated the behavior described in each item in terms of how characteristic or “applicable” it was for the child they were rating. Scale points were defined as 1 = doesn’t apply (child seldom displays the behavior); 2 = applies sometimes (child occasionally displays the behavior); 3 = certainly applies (child often displays the behavior). The Aggressive with Peers subscale contains questions about the child such as whether or not this child is an “aggressive child,” “fights with other children,” “kicks, bites, or hits other children,” “argues with other children,” or “threatens other children.” A score for Aggressive with Peers is calculated by summing the teacher’s ratings across all 7 items. Possible scores range from 1 to 7. The Prosocial with Peers subscale contains questions about the child such as whether the child is “kind toward others,” “helps other children,” “Seems concerned when other children are distressed,” and “Shows concern for moral issues (e.g., fairness, welfare of others).” A score for Prosocial with Peers is calculated by summing the teacher’s rating across all 7 items. Possible scores range from 1 to 7. Previous research for the Prosocial with Peers subscale reported an internal consistency coefficient as determined by Cronbach alpha of .92 (M = 2.31, SD = .55, range = 1-7) (Ladd & Profilet, 1996). For the Aggressive with Peers subscale, Ladd and Profilet (1996) reported an internal consistency coefficient as determined by Cronbach alphas of .92 ( M = 1.39, SD = .51, range = 1-7). The CBS with subscales is found in Appendix B. For Prosocial with Peers, the present study found an internal consistency coefficient as determined by Cronbach’s alpha of .92 (M = 2.60, SD = .44, range = 1-7). For Aggressive with Peers, the present study found an 61
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 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 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: esponse to either being bullied or
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 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 117 and 118: A test for the Difference in Propor
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:
Table 28 CBVS Test and Confidence I
Page 129 and 130:
Justice/Fair) on bystander and vict
Page 131 and 132:
A test for the Difference in Propor
Page 133 and 134:
of children’s Aggressive/Retribut
Page 135 and 136:
Story Form of Victimization The nex
Page 137 and 138:
A test for the Difference in Propor
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:
Table 38 CBVS Test and Confidence I
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?