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 ...
For Prosocial/Care Justifications, positive correlations were found between story 1 and stories 2, 3, and 4 (.3719, .4474, .3187 respectively) at the .01 level of significance. Positive correlations were found between story 2 and stories 3 and 4 (.3754, .2789 respectively) at the .01 level of significance. The highest correlation was found between story 3 and story 4 (.5081) at the . 01 level of significance. See Table 5. Table 5 Psychometric Properties for Rated Data on the CBVS Prosocial/Care Justification Subscales Items Mean SD Range Cronbach’s α Story 1 [Bystander/ Physical] 3 3.1667 .6281 2.00-4.00 .2754 Story 2 [Victim/Physical] 3 2.4578 .6651 1.00-4.00 - .0005 Story 3 [Bystander/Relational] 2 2.9209 .7498 1.00-4.00 - .1013 Story 4 [Victim/ Relational] 2 3.4051 .6364 2.00-4.00 .0736 Correlation Matrix for Rated Data on the CBVS Prosocial/Care Justification Subscales Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4 Story 1 1.0000 ---- ---- ---- Story 2 .3719** 1.0000 ---- ---- Story 3 .4474** .3754** 1.0000 ---- Story 4 .3187** .2789** .5081** 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) Fourth, Table 6 presents the descriptive data and internal consistencies for the Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices subscale by each story on the CBVS. However, the internal consistencies for CBVS Aggressive/Retribution Justifications were very low across for 76
all four stories. Bystander character / physical victimization story 1, victim character / physical victimization story 2 and victim character /relational victimization story 4 showed moderately low (.3478, .4931, .4252 respectively) reliabilities for Aggressive/Retribution Justifications. bystander character / relational victimization showed the lowest (.1559) reliability for Aggressive/Retribution Justifications. Correlations were positive but moderate across all four stories for Aggressive/Retribution Justifications. Story 1 and story 2 showed a moderate correlation (.4227) at the .01 level of significance; whereas, story 1 and stories 3 and 4 showed similar but slightly weaker correlations (.3017, .3015 respectively) at the .01 level of significance. Story 2 showed moderately weak correlations with stories 3 and 4 (.3739, .4223 respectively) at the .01 level of significance. Story 3 and story 4 showed he highest correlation (.4670) at the .01 level of significance. See Table 6. 77
- 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 and 88: for Prosocial Actions and victim ch
- Page 89: Table 4 Psychometric Properties for
- 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
- Page 139 and 140: hypothesis and I conclude that ther
For Prosocial/Care Justifications, positive correlations were found between story 1 and<br />
stories 2, 3, and 4 (.3719, .4474, .3187 respectively) at the .01 level <strong>of</strong> significance. Positive<br />
correlations were found between story 2 and stories 3 and 4 (.3754, .2789 respectively) at the .01<br />
level <strong>of</strong> significance. <strong>The</strong> highest correlation was found between story 3 and story 4 (.5081) at<br />
the . 01 level <strong>of</strong> significance. See Table 5.<br />
Table 5<br />
Psychometric Properties for Rated Data on the CBVS Prosocial/Care Justification Subscales<br />
Items Mean SD Range Cronbach’s α<br />
Story 1 [Bystander/ Physical] 3 3.1667 .6281 2.00-4.00 .2754<br />
Story 2 [Victim/Physical] 3 2.4578 .6651 1.00-4.00 - .0005<br />
Story 3 [Bystander/Relational] 2 2.9209 .7498 1.00-4.00 - .1013<br />
Story 4 [Victim/ Relational] 2 3.4051 .6364 2.00-4.00 .0736<br />
Correlation Matrix for Rated Data on the CBVS Prosocial/Care Justification Subscales<br />
Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4<br />
Story 1 1.0000 ---- ---- ----<br />
Story 2 .3719** 1.0000 ---- ----<br />
Story 3 .4474** .3754** 1.0000 ----<br />
Story 4 .3187** .2789** .5081** 1.0000<br />
N = 632 responses, 158 for each story<br />
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)<br />
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)<br />
Fourth, Table 6 presents the descriptive data and internal consistencies for the<br />
Aggressive/Retribution Justification Choices subscale by each story on the CBVS. However, the<br />
internal consistencies for CBVS Aggressive/Retribution Justifications were very low across for<br />
76
Change language