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 ...
Second, Table 4 presents the descriptive data and internal consistencies for the Aggressive Action Choices subscale by each story on the CBVS. The means for the Aggressive Action Choices subscale for each story suggests that the items representing aggressive actions were rated by children as either “very bad” (1) or “kind of bad” (2). However, internal consistencies for CBVS Aggressive Actions are low across all four stories. Bystander character / physical victimization story 1 and victim character / relational victimization story 4 showed greater reliabilities (.4447, .5354 respectively) than victim character / physical victimization story 2 (.2069) for Aggressive Actions. Bystander character / relational victimization story 3 shows a negative reliability (-.0617) for Aggressive Actions. Victim character / relational victimization story 4 showed the highest reliability for Aggressive Actions. The correlations for Aggressive Actions were all positive across all four stories. Story 1 and story 2 showed a low moderate (.2328) correlation at the .01 level of significance. Story 1 and story 3 showed the highest correlation (.6291) at the .01 level of significance followed by story 1 and story 4 showing a moderate correlation (.4268) at the .01 level of significance. Story 2 and story 4 showed a moderate level of correlation (.4897) at the .01 level of significance. Story 3 and story 4 showed a moderately low correlation (.3224) at the .01 level of significance. Story 2 and story 3 showed a low correlation (.1975) at the .05 level of significance.. See Table 4. 74
Table 4 Psychometric Properties for Rated Data on the CBVS Aggressive Action Subscales Items Mean SD Range Cronbach’s α Story 1 [Bystander/Physical] 4 1.5949 .4303 1.00-3.75 .4447 Story 2 [Victim/Physical] 3 2.2110 .5404 1.00-2.00 .2069 Story 3 [Bystander/Relational] 3 2.3755 .4399 1.00-3.33 - .0617 Story 4 [Victim/Relational] 3 1.6498 .6099 1.00-3.33 .5354 Correlation Matrix for Rated Data on the CBVS Aggressive Action Subscales Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4 Story 1 1.0000 ---- ---- ---- Story 2 .2328** 1.0000 ---- ---- Story 3 .6291** .1975* 1.0000 ---- Story 4 .4268** .4897** .3224** 1.0000 N = 632 responses, 158 for each story **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) Third, Table 5 presents the descriptive data and internal consistencies for the Prosocial/Care Justification Choices subscales by each story on the CBVS. However, the internal consistencies for CBVS Prosocial/Care Justifications are very low across all four stories. Bystander character / physical victimization story 1 showed the greatest reliability (.2754) for Prosocial/Care Justifications of all four stories. Victim character / relational victimization story 4 showed a near zero reliability for Prosocial/Care Justifications. Victim character / physical victimization story 2 and bystander character / relational victimization story 3 showed negative reliabilities (-.005, -.1.13 respectively) for Prosocial/Care Justifications. 75
- 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 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: for Prosocial Actions and victim ch
- 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
- 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
Second, Table 4 presents the descriptive data and internal consistencies for the<br />
Aggressive Action Choices subscale by each story on the CBVS. <strong>The</strong> means for the Aggressive<br />
Action Choices subscale for each story suggests that the items representing aggressive actions<br />
were rated by children as either “very bad” (1) or “kind <strong>of</strong> bad” (2). However, internal<br />
consistencies for CBVS Aggressive Actions are low across all four stories. Bystander character /<br />
physical victimization story 1 and victim character / relational victimization story 4 showed<br />
greater reliabilities (.4447, .5354 respectively) than victim character / physical victimization<br />
story 2 (.2069) for Aggressive Actions. Bystander character / relational victimization story 3<br />
shows a negative reliability (-.0617) for Aggressive Actions. Victim character / relational<br />
victimization story 4 showed the highest reliability for Aggressive Actions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> correlations for Aggressive Actions were all positive across all four stories. Story 1<br />
and story 2 showed a low moderate (.2328) correlation at the .01 level <strong>of</strong> significance. Story 1<br />
and story 3 showed the highest correlation (.6291) at the .01 level <strong>of</strong> significance followed by<br />
story 1 and story 4 showing a moderate correlation (.4268) at the .01 level <strong>of</strong> significance. Story<br />
2 and story 4 showed a moderate level <strong>of</strong> correlation (.4897) at the .01 level <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Story 3 and story 4 showed a moderately low correlation (.3224) at the .01 level <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Story 2 and story 3 showed a low correlation (.1975) at the .05 level <strong>of</strong> significance.. See Table<br />
4.<br />
74
Change language