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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

intellectual ability. This measure served as a proxy measure for children’s intellectual ability and was entered into the analyses as a statistical control. It was important to statistically control for children’s intellectual ability because previous research has found that children of lower intelligence are more likely to be physically aggressive with peers than children of higher intelligence (Dodge, 1986). Dodge (1986) posited that children’s social information processing skills are determined at least in part by intelligence. Recent research finds that adaptive emotion-regulation strategies, aggressive-response generation, and problem-solving response generation are all related to adolescents’ intelligence. In contrast, hostile attribution of intent is not related to intelligence (Nas, De Castro, & Koops, 2005). Given that previous research finds that intelligence is related to aggressive response generation and problem solving, it is likely that intelligence is related to actions children say they would take if they were a victim of bullying or a bystander witness to bullying. Similarly, it is possible that intelligence is related to the justifications children give for their actions in response to bullying by another child. Therefore, the relationships between teacher perceptions of children’s intelligence and children’s action choices and justification will be examined. If these relationships were statistically significant, then teacher perceptions of a child’s intelligence would have been entered as a covariate in all analyses. Data Analyses What are the psychometric properties of the Children’s Bully Victim Survey (CBVS)? The reader is reminded that for each of the four stories on the CBVS, children rated a list of Prosocial Action Choices and Aggressive Action Choices on the basis of how “good” they are as behavioral responses to bulling. Ratings ranged from 1 = “very bad” to 4 = “very good.” Means, 64
Standard Deviations, ranges, and Cronbach alphas for the Prosocial Actions Choices across all four scenarios and the Aggressive Action Choices were calculated across all four scenarios. Similarly, means, standard deviations, ranges, and Cronbach alphas were calculated for the ratings of “goodness” on the three types of Justifications (Prosocial/Care vs. Aggressive/Retribution vs. Justice/Fair). Logistic regression analysis was used to test for a relation between a categorical dependent variable and continuous independent variables. Chi-square analysis was used to test for independence between variables. Chi-square is the most appropriate analysis to test for independence between two or more categorical variables. For all subsequent analyses, Test for the Difference in Proportions were used total frequencies (ƒ) and percentages (%) were computed across all four stories for Prosocial each Action Choices and Aggressive Action Choices and for Prosocial/Care justifications, Aggressive/Retribution justifications, and Justice/Fair justifications. These are reported by children’s Gender (male vs. female), Story Character Form (bystander vs. victim), and Story Form of Victimization (physical vs. relational). Does children’s Intellectual Ability relate to the frequency of children’s CBVS Action Choices (e.g., Prosocial, Aggressive) and Justification Choices (e.g., Justice/Fair, Prosocial/Care, Aggressive/Retribution)? Intellectual ability was reported as a single teacher- perceived item on the teacher measure. Children’s categorical ability was reported as Low, Below Average, Average, Above Average, or High. Standardized academic ability scores were not available for this study. 65
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 and 74: esponse to either being bullied or
Page 75 and 76: Peers (7 items) and the Aggressive
Page 77: Children’s Social Experience Ques
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?