15.08.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

help them carefully consider each choice before selecting the very best and very worst<br />

categorical Action and the very best and very worst categorical Justification. This procedure is<br />

better for this data because the parametric analyses were focused on scales that subsequently<br />

failed to provide sufficient reliabilities for demonstrating significant relationships between CBVS<br />

Action Choices and Justification Choices both within stories and between stories. <strong>The</strong>refore, I<br />

used two nonparametric techniques, which included Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence and<br />

Tests for Difference in Proportions, to analyze the ranked very best and very worst categorical<br />

data set (Lomax, 2001; Pedhazur, 1997). <strong>The</strong> Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence and Tests<br />

for Difference in Proportion techniques are more appropriate for analyzing categorical data and<br />

were found to be more reliable measures <strong>of</strong> relationships between CBVS Action Choices and<br />

Justification Choices.<br />

Next, Chi-Square (Ҳ 2 ) Test for Independence was used to determine whether there is a<br />

dependency between Justification Choice subscales (Prosocial/Care vs. Aggressive/Retribution<br />

vs. Justice/Fair) and Action Choice subscales (Prosocial vs. Aggressive). Tests for Difference in<br />

Proportions were carried out to identify the relationships between variables. Using the nominal<br />

best data and worst data, difference in proportions analyses were conducted to determine the<br />

frequency (ƒ) that children chose CBVS Justification Choices (Prosocial/Care vs.<br />

Aggressive/Retribution vs. Justice/Fair) and Action Choices (Prosocial vs. Aggressive).<br />

In particular, a frequency count for the number <strong>of</strong> times across the four stories that a<br />

Prosocial Action choice was selected as the very best Action response to victimization was used<br />

in all subsequent analyses to examine children’s Action choices. A frequency count for the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> times across the four stories that an Aggressive Action was selected as the very worst<br />

Action. Similarly, a frequency count for the number <strong>of</strong> times across the four stories that a<br />

82

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!