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 ...
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 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 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
- Page 111 and 112: Table 18 Predicting Action Choices
- Page 113 and 114: participant child variable such as
- Page 115 and 116: Figure 4. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- Page 117 and 118: A test for the Difference in Propor
- Page 119 and 120: Figure 5. Chi-Square (Ҳ2) Test for
- Page 121 and 122: Table 24 CBVS Test and Confidence I
- Page 123 and 124: Therefore, I reject the null hypoth
Peers (7 items) and the Aggressive with Peers (7 items) subscales are relevant to the current<br />
study. Thus, a modified version <strong>of</strong> the CBS was used for this investigation, which these two<br />
subscales. Teachers rated the behavior described in each item in terms <strong>of</strong> how characteristic or<br />
“applicable” it was for the child they were rating. Scale points were defined as 1 = doesn’t apply<br />
(child seldom displays the behavior); 2 = applies sometimes (child occasionally displays the<br />
behavior); 3 = certainly applies (child <strong>of</strong>ten displays the behavior). <strong>The</strong> Aggressive with Peers<br />
subscale contains questions about the child such as whether or not this child is an “aggressive<br />
child,” “fights with other children,” “kicks, bites, or hits other children,” “argues with other<br />
children,” or “threatens other children.” A score for Aggressive with Peers is calculated by<br />
summing the teacher’s ratings across all 7 items. Possible scores range from 1 to 7. <strong>The</strong> Prosocial<br />
with Peers subscale contains questions about the child such as whether the child is “kind toward<br />
others,” “helps other children,” “Seems concerned when other children are distressed,” and<br />
“Shows concern for moral issues (e.g., fairness, welfare <strong>of</strong> others).” A score for Prosocial with<br />
Peers is calculated by summing the teacher’s rating across all 7 items. Possible scores range from<br />
1 to 7.<br />
Previous research for the Prosocial with Peers subscale reported an internal consistency<br />
coefficient as determined by Cronbach alpha <strong>of</strong> .92 (M = 2.31, SD = .55, range = 1-7) (Ladd &<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>ilet, 1996). For the Aggressive with Peers subscale, Ladd and Pr<strong>of</strong>ilet (1996) reported an<br />
internal consistency coefficient as determined by Cronbach alphas <strong>of</strong> .92 ( M = 1.39, SD = .51,<br />
range = 1-7). <strong>The</strong> CBS with subscales is found in Appendix B. For Prosocial with Peers, the<br />
present study found an internal consistency coefficient as determined by Cronbach’s alpha <strong>of</strong> .92<br />
(M = 2.60, SD = .44, range = 1-7). For Aggressive with Peers, the present study found an<br />
61
Change language