THE EFFECT OF EMPATHY INDUCTION
ON AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF
BULLY-VICTIMS
A Thesis
presented to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY LIPA CITY
Marawoy, Lipa City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the
Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science inPsychology
IRIS KATHLEEN S. DOMION
CHRISTINE M. GLORIENE
NIESHA MARIE L. LALIMAN
IAN PAOLO H. MANGOBOS
JEANNEN L. ONA
May, 2020
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled “THE EFFECT OF EMPATHY INDUCTION ON
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF BULLY-VICTIMS”prepared and submitted
by Iris Kathleen S. Domion, Christine M. Gloriene, Niesha Marie L. Laliman, Ian
Paolo H. Mangobos, and Jeannen L. Ona in partial fulfillment of the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Psychology, has been examined and recommended for
acceptance and approval for Oral Examinations.
SHELYN S. EXTRA
Adviser
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examinations with a grade of ___________.
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science inPsychology.
_______
Date
DR. NERRIE E. MALALUAN
Dean of Colleges
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers wish to express their deepest gratitude to the people who have
extended their assistance for the success of this study. This work would not have
been possible to come to the present shape without the supervision and support
given by numerous people particularly the following:
It is with deep sense of gratitude to acknowledge the efforts and guidance of
our supervisor, Ms. Shelyn S. Extra. Her advices, valuable comments, enthusiasm,
and provisions greatly helped on the success of this study. Her expertise and
knowledge have also helped the researchers on the completion of this work.
To all friends, family, relatives and everyone who have shared their untiring
and countless support, either emotionally, morally, spiritually, and financially, and
for their immeasurable love and motivation.
And above all, to Almighty God, for the wisdom and power of mind he
bestowed upon us, strength, and good health in order to finish this research.
We thank you.
I.K.S.D
C.M.G
N.M.L.L
I.P.H.M
J.L.O
vi
DEDICATION
This is wholeheartedly dedicated to all the people in our lives who are behind the
success of this work and who have extended their help and support to accomplish
this study.
To our Family, who have constantly provide their moral, emotional, spiritual, and
financial support and who have motivated and gave us unconditional love when
we thought of giving up, these achievements are all for you;
To our Experimental Psychology Professor, Ms. Shelyn S. Extra, who believed in
our abilities and who gave her endless support and guidance, whose expertise and
knowledge were genuinely shared, this study would not be possible if not for you;
And above all, To Great Almighty,
For His guidance, for giving us strength, power of mind, protection, and skills.
Iris
Christine
Niesha
Ian
Jeannen
vi
ABSTRACT
Title:
THE EFFECTS OF EMPATHY INDUCTION
ON AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF
BULLY- VICTIMS
Author:
DOMION, IRIS KATHLEEN
GLORIENE, CHRISTINE
LALIMAN, NIESHA MARIE
MANGOBOS, IAN PAOLO
ONA, JEANNEN L.
Type of Document:
UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
No. of Pages:
93
Name and Address of Institution:
BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY LIPA CITY
MARAWOY, LIPA CITY
Course:
BS PSYCHOLOGY
________________________________________________________________________
Aggressive behavior can cause physical or emotional harm to others ranging from verbal
to physical abuse. It is a reactionary and impulsive behavior that often results in breaking
household rules or the law. One of the most significant predictors of violence is an
vi
individual’s ability to empathize with others. Empathy plays a vital role in managing and
controlling aggression. This study aims to discover the effects of empathy induction on
aggressive behavior of bully-victims. The researchers aim to establish a study that will
determine how aggressive behavior can be manifested by bully-victims, ages 15-20 years
old.
The sample consists of twelve (12) bully-victims or adolescents that are both
bullies and victims selected through online survey. Researchers used true experimental
design in gathering information and a 20-item Aggression Scale was used as the main
data gathering instrument to measure the aggressive behavior of the participants. To
assess the effects of the empathy induction on behavior, 2 video clips were utilized to
induce empathy; one (1) cognitive empathy inducing clip entitled “Why I Bully You” and
one (1) affective empathy inducing film entitled “Ian” for experimental group’s
interventions. Results indicate that empathy induction implemented by the researcher has
a significant effect on aggressive behavior of participants.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
………………………………..…
Page
i
APPROVAL SHEET
……………………………………
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ……………………………………
iii
DEDICATION
…………………………………….
iv
ABSTRACT
…………………………………….
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………….
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. (Pre-Test Results of Control and
Experimental Group)…………….…………… .46
Table 2. (Post Test Results of Control and
Experimental Group)……………….………....48
Table 3. (Summary of Computations on Test
of Difference Between the Pre-test Results
of the Control and Experimental Group.…….….……51
Table 4. (Summary of Computations on Test
of Difference Between the Post Test Results
of the Control and Experimental Group……………..52
Table 5. (Summary of Computations on Test of
Difference Between Pre-Test and Post Test Results…54
viii
Table 6. (Proposed Program and Activities)………………61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. (Conceptual Paradigm)……………………………38
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………….73
Appendix A. (Consent Form)…………………………….74
Appendix B. (Instrumentation)…………………………...76
Appendix C. (Statistical Computation)……………….......81
CHAPTER
1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction…………………………………………..1
Statement of the Problem………………………….....5
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations of the Study…5
Significance of the Study…………………………….6
2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Conceptual Literature………………………………...9
Research Literature…………………………………..26
Synthesis……………………………………………..32
Conceptual Framework………………………………37
Hypothesis……………………………………………39
Definition of Terms…………………………………..39
3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design……………………………………..41
Subjects of the Study………………………………...42
Data Gathering Instrument…………………………..43
Data Gathering Procedure…………………………...43
Analysis of Data……………………………………..45
ix
viii
4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND
INTERPRETATION OF DATA (topical based
on specific problems)………………………………46
5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary…………………………………………....57
Findings…………………………………..................58
Conclusions…………………………………………59
Recommendations…………………………………..61
APPENDICES
CURRICULUM VITAE
1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The Era of 21st Century is said to be the age of mental, social and
personality disintegration that is why aggressive behavior has become a topic of
vital importance and a major concern in most societies. People are under the
period of anxiety, struggle, frustration, hate, and under the strain of aggression that
could soon lead to violent offenses and greater involvement in crime. In most part
of the world, violence is disturbingly common and certainly creating chaos that
makes the world peace and harmony at sake. A 2002 report from the World Health
Organization found that 4,400 people die each year due to act of violence,
underscoring the public health relevance of understanding and preventing
aggressive behavior. (Krug et al., 2002)
Sigmund Freud defined the tendency of aggression as an innate,
independent, instinctual disposition in man. The instinct theorist view aggression
as a part of the basic nature of humans. Aggressiveness, on the other hand, can
also be considered as learnt behavior because there are environmental factors that
increase the risk of involvement of aggressive and violent acts. In psychology, the
term aggression refers to a range of behaviors that can result in both physical and
psychological harm to yourself, others, or objects in the environment. (Cherry,
2020) Mostly, human engage in aggression when they seek to cause harm or pain
2
to another person. In psychological literature, aggression refers to a wide spectrum
of behaviors intended to harm another individual who is motivated to avoid being
harmed. Commonly, aggression is perceived as purely physical harm such as
hitting and pushing, but there is a psychological aggression that can also be
damaging. Intimidating or verbally berating another person is an example of
verbal, mental and emotional aggression. Aggressive forms of behavior can be
characterized by verbal or physical attack. It may be appropriate (self-protective)
or, alternatively, it may be destructive to oneself and others. (Ferris & Grisso,
1996).
For the past years, bullying has been a big issue surrounding the world. To
prevent such an issue, it is necessary to provide information and understand the
topic. Bullying represents a form of aggressive behavior. It occurs due to the
anticipation of someone’s desirable goal. According to Olweus (2001), bullying is
a unique but complex form of interpersonal aggression, which takes many forms,
serves different functions, and is manifested in different patterns of relationships.
There are numerous definitions of bullying, but they all refer to bullying as
repeated intimidation, over time, of a physical, verbal and psychological nature, of
a less powerful person by a more powerful person or group of persons. It is
repetitive and encompasses an intrinsic power imbalance between the bully and
the person being bullied, who generally is incapable of self-defense. The longterm effects of bullying and being aggressive in childhood are reported to be
3
potential risk factors for adolescent depression, suicidal behavior and self-harm.
Children exposed to bullying often become violent towards others.
One of the most significant predictors of violence is an individual’s ability
to empathize with others. Empathy is the ability to recognize, understand, and
share the thoughts and feelings of another person, animal, or fictional character.
Empathy helps us cooperate with other people, build friendships, make moral
decisions, and intervene when we see others being bullied. Empathy, according to
Happ & Melzer (2014), refers to the capacity to feel what another is feeling.
Examples include the sadness felt when tragedy strikes a friend or the pleasure
vicariously experienced in relation to another's joy. It is, then, the sharing of an
emotional experience. Humans begin to show signs of empathy in infancy and the
trait develops steadily through childhood and adolescence. Still, most people are
likely to feel greater empathy for people like themselves and may feel less
empathy for those outside their family, community, ethnicity, or race.
Developing empathy is crucial for establishing relationships and behaving
compassionately. It is an essential part of social and emotional development,
affecting an individual’s behavior toward others and the quality of social
relationships. It involves experiencing another person’s point of view, rather than
just one’s own, and enables prosocial, or helping behaviors that come from within,
rather than being forced. Therefore, empathy plays an important role in reducing
4
aggressive and violent behavior like bullying. It just takes serious practice to give
empathy the right way.
As students of psychology studying human mind and behavior, the research
is very relative and essential on the field. The researchers chose to study
aggressive behavior because it is a familiar term and a key concept in the study of
human behavior. Study aims to investigate the effect of empathy on aggressive
behavior of bully-victims. It intends to evaluate if empathy, elicited by empathy
inducing films,
would
influence the
participants’
aggressive
behavior.
Furthermore, the main goal of the research is to create a psychological
intervention and activities based on the result of the study. It could be an activity
that will boost empathic concern to effectively handle aggressive behavior.
5
Statement of the Problem
Generally, this study aims to discover the effects of empathy induction on
aggressive behavior of bully-victims. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the
following problems:
1. What are the pre-test results of the participants?
2. What are the post test results of the participants?
3. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test results of the
participants?
4. Is there a significant difference between the post test results of the
participants?
5. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test and post test results of
the participants?
6. What are the proposed intervention and activities based on the findings?
Scope, Limitation and Delimitations of the Study
At this span of life, aggression is also a major characteristic among
adolescents. The study is limited to aggressive behavior of bully-victims in
relation to empathy induction.
The participants of the study were bully-victims selected through online
survey. The study was only delimited to twelve (12) participants composed of six
6
(6) men and six (6) women. In this study, both genders were considered and
adolescents’ ages 15-20 years old were selected.
The study seeks to know if empathy induction has an effect on the aggressive
behavior of the participants. The researchers used a Bully-Victim Survey Form to
assess bullying and victimization experiences in selection of the respondents.
Meanwhile, the researchers used a 20-item Aggression Scale as the main data
gathering instrument to measure the aggressive behavior of the participants. The
researchers will only use two (2) video clips for empathy induction: one (1)
cognitive empathy inducing clip entitled “Why I Bully You” and one (1) affective
empathy inducing film entitled “Ian” for experimental group’s interventions.
Significance of the Study
Aggressive behavior can be learned through various sources like family,
school, peers, neighbours, culture, through television or violent video games.
Aware of the need to control aggression that resulted on different forms of
violence, the researchers would find the results of the study meaningful and
substantial:
To Students. This study will be helpful to students who have aggressive
tendency and behavior due to their condition and experiences. It is essential for
them to know how aggression could be regulated and controlled.
7
To Parents. Family plays a significant role in the potential development of
early aggressive behavior that’s why this study is important for the parents to
understand their children’s emotion and guide them in handling anger, aggression
and frustration.
To Educational Practitioners. School environment plays a very vital role
in the development and prevention of adolescent aggressive behavior. This study
will help them to be familiar with the different emotional needs of their students
and serves as a guide to create a more comfortable and safe atmospheres for
students to learn in.
To Psychologists. Fostering empathy may contribute in clinical
interventions for prevention and intervention of future aggressive behavior that
leads to delinquency and other antisocial behavior if not prevented. This will give
them ideas about better design and implementation of treatment programs and
therapies.
To Media Practitioners. This research will contribute on promoting a
healthy media environment as they play a crucial role in developing aggressive
and violent behaviors among children. This will help in implementing future
programs on media literacy or violence prevention.
To Government Officials. Community plays a vital role in the society
development of aggression as they are the chief agents of socialization. This study
8
will help in identifying ways and means to reduce or regulate aggression in the
community and to promote the use of nonviolent conflict resolution strategies.
To Future Researchers. This study willlead them to create different studies
in aggression. It will serve as a reference or guide for future researchers who will
be doing the same or related kind of research for further expansion of the subject
9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Presented in this chapter are the discussions of studies relative to the
present research. This contains concise different literature and studies that will be
helpful to the present study. The researchers review important concepts from
considerable numbers of previous studies and research work from thesis from both
foreign and local resources related to study.
Conceptual Literature
In order to understand fully, the researchers seek writing from journals and
electronic sources. This briefly presents the review of related literature that
provided the researcher with the background of determining the problems of bullyvictims.
Empathy
Ickes (1997) defined empathy as a complex interpersonal phenomenon in
which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are united to allow
insights into the thoughts and feelings of others. It describes an affective response
that involves the perception and the understanding of the emotional state of
someone else. Empathic individuals are thought to utilize information about
emotional states in others to constrain potentially harmful behaviors. Empathy is
10
associated with helping and comforting another individual, and is assumed to
inhibit antisocial and aggressive behavior.
According to Goldstein & Michaels (1985), the word empathy can be
traced back to the Greek word empatheia, which “implies an active appreciation of
another person’s feeling experience”. Meanwhile, Strayer (1987) mentioned
another predecessor of the term empathy which is, “einfühlung”, meaning “feeling
into”.
The term “einfühlung” was introduced into the English language by
Edward B. Titchener in the early 1900s. Since then, the definition of empathy has
evolved to include two distinct components: affect and cognition.
As a broad term, Killen & Smetana (2006) defined empathy as “an
affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of
another’s emotional state or condition and is similar to what the other person is
feeling or would be expected to feel in the given situation.” In short, empathy is
the ability to understand and share in another person’s emotions and feelings.
Most researchers agree that empathy consists of a cognitive and an affective
component.
Hoffman (2000) referred the term empathy to two related, yet different
human abilities: mental perspective taking (cognitive empathy) and the vicarious
sharing of emotion (affective empathy). There are evidences to suggest that
cognitive empathy is distinct from affective empathy. Cognitive empathy is the
ability of one person to understand another’s emotions, whereas affective empathy
11
is the ability for a person to share the emotions of others. (Crothers, L.M. et.al,
2014).
Cognitive Empathy. Cognitive empathy refers to the skills of recognizing
others’ emotions and understanding others’ perspectives. Cognitive empathy
allows the ability to apprehend, appreciate, and tolerate the viewpoints of others
while engaging in non-aggressive behaviors. Cognitive empathy also evolves with
age. Children with lower levels of cognitive empathy are less able to interpret the
feelings of others. If children have low cognitive empathy, they may create
inaccurate attributions about other children’s behaviors and engage in forms of
reactive aggression. (Hogan, 1969)
According to Beadle, J. & de la Vega, C. (2019), one subdomain of cognitive
empathy is perspective taking, which involves mentally putting oneself in another
person’s shoes in order to understand their thoughts and feelings. Perspective
taking may engage such processes as imagination, autobiographical memory, and
future thinking as an individual attempts to determine another person’s thoughts
and feelings. There is also evidence that actively attempting to engage in
perspective taking can result in an increase in momentary levels of emotional
empathy.
Moreover, Maibom (2012) defined cognitive empathy as the capacity to
represent other people’s mental states (theory of mind). When cognitive empathy
is said to be required for affective empathy, it is best interpreted in terms of theory
12
of mind. More often, however, cognitive empathy is thought of in terms of
perspective taking. Perspective taking is considered and evaluated mostly as a
monolithic ability.
The broadest definitions of cognitive empathy are actually redundant with
the theory of mind perspective and not specific to emotions, while narrower
definitions limit the scope of cognitive empathy to detecting emotions, projecting
oneself into another’s situation, or imagining how another person is feeling. In any
case, cognitive empathy represents a top-down analysis reliant on higher brain
structures.
Affective Empathy. Affective empathy is the ability to understand and share
the emotions of others. Individuals with affective empathy experience an
appropriate emotional response when confronted with the mental state of another
person. Those high in affective empathy are able to share the pain of a victim and
experience the emotional state and discomfort of the victim. It has been suggested
that children high in affective empathy avoid aggression for causing distress in
others and thus themselves.
Affective empathy reflects the innate, automatic capacity to respond with
arousal to the signs of discomfort or affective states of the other. It is initiated
through direct contact, which ensures access to species-universal information that
activates affective empathy mechanisms. (Preston and De Waal, 2002).
13
Definitions of affective empathy also vary. The conceptualization most
similar to simulation theory is that of “emotional contagion”—the exact matching
of emotions (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Most conceptualizations refer
to resonant emotional experiences that are congruent in valence rather than
identical. Closely related to this conception of affective empathy are sympathy and
personal distress, which the psychological literature distinguishes on the basis of
their social consequences. Both include a negative emotional reaction caused by
witnessing another’s distress; however, sympathy is characterized by an altruistic
motivation to reduce that person’s suffering, while personal distress connotes a
selfish motivation to reduce one’s own suffering—either by helping the other
person or escaping the situation, whichever is less costly.
During this evolution, some researchers preferred a definition containing
either the affective or cognitive component, but not both, although it is widely
recognized today that empathy contains both of these components.
For researchers that emphasize the affective component of empathy, the
match or sharing between the emotions of the target and of the observer is
stressed. Thus, the observer must experience the same emotion the target does.
Others have preferred a definition of empathy that centers on cognition. These
cognitive definitions often relate empathy to social cognitive and role-taking
skills/perspective taking skills (Eagle & Wolitzky, 1997).
14
The distinction between cognitive and affective empathy might be best
understood by reference to two competing theoretical views of how humans
understand other humans’ mental states more generally.
Theory of Mind Perspective. The theory of mind perspective describes an
evolved psychological capacity for understanding behavior using something akin
to scientific theory (Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1998). Using a fairly cold form of
information processing, humans apply a system of rules derived from their own
experiences to represent the mental states of others. The accurate representation of
others’ thoughts and feelings confers obvious benefits, because it allows us to
accurately monitor others’ intentions, predict their behavior, and enjoy the various
advantages associated with social living.
Simulation Perspective. In contrast to the theory of mind perspective, the
simulation perspective suggests that we instinctively mimic others’ mental activity
and use our own reactions to understand what they are thinking and feeling
(Gallese & Goldman, 1998). The automatic and unconscious activation of neural
representations matching the perceived mental state of others has been referred to
as the perception-action mechanism (Preston & De Waal, 2002). The PAM
provides a bottom-up, phylogenetically ancient mechanism for representing the
mental states of others that is far less intellectually demanding and cold than the
top-down processes described by the theory of mind account.
15
Empathy Induction
Maibom (2012) divulged that empathy is normally induced by seeing,
believing, or imagining that the person is experiencing an emotion or is in an
emotion-inducing situation. In principle, we can empathize with any emotion
someone else experiences, as long as we are capable of experiencing that emotion
ourselves. In practice, however, most empathy research concerns empathy with a
person in some form of distress.
Induction comes in the form of stimulated experimental situations. With this
measure, children are shown videos, audiotapes, or realistic enactments that elicit
empathic responses. Meta-analyses and reviews on emotion research have shown
the use of film clips to be one of the most effective methods of mood induction.
Grodal & Kramer (2010) stated that film clips are the most commonly used stimuli
in mood induction. Films that provide interaction with the body surface may thus
induce similar feelings in the viewer. Film experience consists of a double
empathic sharing: the sharing of emotions with characters and the sharing of
emotions with other physically present or imagined viewers. Maffei (2019) stated
that emotion induction are emotional imagery, presentation of visual stimuli
(slides and videos), presentation of sound or music,
recollection of
autobiographical memories and, more recently, virtual reality.
In the theory of mind debate, imagining being in the other person’s situation
is thought to play an important role in us representing the mental states of others.
16
Simulation theory is considered a major competitor to the theory, the idea that we
use something like a theory to ascribe mental states to people. The simulation
theory supposes that when we imagine ourselves in another’s situation, we have
thoughts, feelings, etc. very similar to those we would have if we were in that
situation ourselves. Empathic induced affects, according to Dodaj et.al., (2012),
are combined with the general state of the mental images of others. Empathic
distress is the core feeling state of empathy, and this cognitive appraisal
determines whether the person will have an emotional arousal.
Moreover, Howard (2014) mentioned that the use of emotional film clips
provides several advantages compared to other methods of emotion elicitation,
including ease of standardization and a high degree of ecological validity. Film
clips allow for presentations of more emotional and complex stimuli in relatively
short periods of time compared to other methods (e.g., static images).a variety of
methods to elicit specific emotions experienced by individuals, including, but not
limited to, the use of static images, vignettes, interactions with confederates, and
films.
In addition, Philippot (2010) proved that longer film clips conveying a
larger amount of information for the elicitation of complex emotions (such as
empathy) may provide a viable alternative to eliciting empathic emotion. As noted
before, film clips have the ability to employ particularly complex stimuli in a short
amount of time. On the other hand, Maffei (2019) stated that duration should be
17
long enough to provide the viewer with an understanding of the plot, leading to a
coherent and stable change of his/ her affective state. Shorter clips (i.e. one minute
or less) may not be long enough to induce a complex emotion, engage the
attention of the viewer and making possible the process of “willing suspension of
disbelief” which is critical for the ecology of the emotional experience achieved
through film watching. Meanwhile, using longer clips (i.e. three minutes or more)
may increase the difficulty to disengage from the stimulus, thus prompting
carryover effects on the following excerpts within the experimental paradigm.
Aggressive Behavior
Aggression is usually defined as behavior deliberately aimed to harm
individuals and/or objects. Another often cited description of aggression is Parke
and Slaby’s (1983), definition as a “behaviour that is aimed at harming or injuring
another person or persons”. Intent to harm and the victim feeling hurt are two
features common to most definitions of both physical and nonphysical forms of
aggression (Galen & Underwood, 1997). However, Hay (2005) suggested intent is
a developmental phenomenon, making it difficult to measure.
Subsequent investigations of aggressive behaviors resulted in a number of
other terms used to describe forms of aggression. Behaviors that are aimed at
inflicting relationship or social harm are viewed as covert in nature, and include
indirect, covert, relational, and social aggression. Aggression has several elements
including physical and social, verbal and nonverbal, and reactive and proactive
18
components, however, it can be summed up in two types – physical and relational
aggression (Fraser, et al., 2005).
Physical aggression. Physical aggression may be the most widely
recognized form of overt or direct aggression and also one of the most serious
forms of antisocial behavior. Physical aggression has also been defined by
Tremblay & Nagin (2005) as the use of force against another person, which may
or may not include the use of objects. In fact, physical aggression is one of the
criteria for the diagnosis of conduct disorder (i.e., “often bullies, threatens, or
intimidates others,”). It usually takes place in a face-to-face confrontation and
includes behaviors that threaten or cause bodily injury, such as making threats of
harm, fighting, and violent crimes (Loeber & Hay, 1997).
Verbal aggression. Parke & Slaby (1983) characterized verbal aggression by
threats of physical aggression and yelling. Kochenderfer-Ladd and Ladd (2001)
distinguished overt verbal aggression (e.g., name-calling, insults, threats) and
indirect verbal aggression (e.g., talking behind the victim’s back).
Indirect aggression. Indirect aggression, according to Lagerspetz et al.,
(1988), was the first term to emerge to describe the topography of nonphysical
behavior. It is described as behaviors that do not confront the victim, including
gossiping, rejection, and exclusion. Buss (1961) first used the term indirect
aggression to describe aggressive behavior in which the aggressor was not easily
observed. Later, Björkqvist et al. (1992) defined indirect aggression as “a type of
19
behavior in which the perpetrator attempts to inflict pain in such a manner that he
or she makes it seem as though there has been no intention to hurt at all”
Relational aggression. Crick and Grotpeter (1995) defined relational
aggression as a form of aggression that targets the closeness of friendships.
Relationally aggressive youth are usually found to be more socially savvy, with
the ability to manipulate the social hierarchy to their advantage. Relational
aggression, sometimes referred to as social aggression, is characterized as actions
designed to damage another’s self-esteem, social status or friendship patterns. It
consists of both direct (e.g., telling someone they are not your friend anymore
unless they do something for you) and indirect behaviors (e.g., spreading rumors).
Relational aggression is aimed at inflicting harm by manipulating peer
relationships, including behaviors such as gossiping, rumor spreading, social
exclusion, and ostracizing. It is further characterized by high levels of intimacy,
exclusivity, and jealousy.
Social aggression. Social aggression as defined by Galen and Underwood
(1997) has been described as behaviors aimed at damaging the victim’s selfesteem or reputation, through rejection, rumors, or social exclusion. Also viewed
as in direct behavior, social aggression is viewed as subtle, indirect behavior that
is just as hurtful as physical aggression. Social aggression is aimed at damaging
another’s self- esteem and social status. They posit that social aggression can be
direct (e.g., verbal rejection, negative facial expressions) or indirect (e.g., rumors,
20
social exclusion). Other behaviors manifested through social aggression include
hurting another’s social status or friendships through nonverbal and verbal social
exclusion, gossip, and friendship manipulation.
Moreover, Dodge and Coie (1987) introduced the distinction between
reactive and proactive aggression in children.
Reactive aggression.Reactive aggression is described as an impulsive
response to a perceived threat or provocation, often associated with high emotional
arousal, anxiety, and anger. It is a behavior that occurs in response to specific
situational conditions, such as threats and provocations, and is accompanied by
changes in the physiological and emotional level. Reactive aggression is
committed in “anger or frustration or in response to provocation”. It is angry,
defensive, and responsive to a real or perceived threat. Dodge and Coie (1987)
discovered that reactive aggression is connected with attention difficulties and
adjustment concerns with peer relationships. Children use reactive aggression to
alleviate their own anger, frustration, or stress in a social situation and typically
demonstrate remorse after they have behaved in this manner. Reactively
aggressive youth hold more hostile attributions than their nonaggressive peers and
their aggression is motivated by both accurate and inaccurate perceptions of a real
or perceived threat.
Proactive aggression. Proactive aggression, on the other hand, is defined as
behavior intended to achieve personal gain through attainment of status or desired
21
objects. It is deliberate behavior focused on reaching an instrumental (not
relational) goal. This type of aggression is focused on self-enhancement through
material or territorial gain (i.e., external reward). Also, it is described as
instrumental, organized, cold-blooded, and motivated by the anticipation of
reward. Research has shown that along with individual, family, school and
economic factors, early aggressive behavior and poor peer relationships are
precursors of fighting, delinquency, and drug involvement. Dodge et al. (1987)
theorized that a primary distinction between aggressive and non-aggressive
children is the purpose for engaging in aggression. It is “motivated by the desire to
reach a specific goal” and is systematically planned and unprovoked. It can be
used to gain power, dominate, or intimidate for the aggressor’s personal
satisfaction. Children who use proactive aggression are also known as “offensive
aggressors” and “coldblooded” aggressor. Proactive aggressors exhibit methodical
and intentionally-driven behaviors, which are related to delinquency, criminality,
and social withdrawal. However, proactively aggressive children are often viewed
as leaders with a sense of humor.
The study of aggressive behavior has a long history in the social sciences.
From the frustration aggression hypothesis in social learning theory came the
assertion that aggression is behavior intended to harm or driven by frustration or
passion.
22
Bully-Victim
Pepler et al., 2010 mentioned that youth spend much of the day interacting
with peers in schools, neighborhoods, communities, and through social media, and
bullying behaviors almost always occur within the peer context. Bullying and
victimization are more likely in classrooms characterized by peer norms that
support bullying and by high peer conflict. Bullying has been most studied in the
school context, and the positive or negative climate of the school impacts the
frequency of bullying and victimization. As these findings suggest, bullying and
victimization do not occur in isolation. Rather, bullying stems from complex
interactions between individuals and the contexts in which they function, both
proximal (i.e., family, peers, school climate) and distal (i.e., societal, cultural
influences). (Swearer & Hymel, 2015)
Dodaj et al. (2012) stated that there are four characteristic profiles that can
differ in bullying: children who are exposed to bullying or victims, children who
bully others or bullies, children who experience bullying but themselves behave
violently or bully-victims, as well as the children who are not in any way involved
in bullying, or neutral children. Bullies and victims may share risk factors such as
low academic achievement, poor social skills, low socioeconomic status, and
family discord. Individuals who are victimized at home and bully at school may be
part of the bully-victim group as well. Bully-victims are characterized as those that
23
are at risk for a variety of behavioral problems, such as addiction to alcohol,
delinquency, etc.
Kochel et al. (2015) stated that “bully-victims” are both bullies and the
victims of bullying. They suffer from a distinctive set of problems. There is an
evidence that victimized bullies engage in acts of aggression or violence. When
children experience bullying, they have a tendency to become emotionally
withdrawn. It is important to note that anger and rage is one possible emotional
response to bullying. In some cases, kids who are bullied are also bullies
themselves. They demonstrate many of the same behaviors as do bullies and
victims. The interesting, and very sad, part comes later, when they reach adulthood
and experience long lasting psychological effects that are more severe than that
experienced by either bullies or victims alone.
Some kids occupy the middle of the bullying food chain. They get bullied
by dominant individuals but they also perpetrate bullying themselves. Rejected,
victimized, and aggressive, these “bully-victims” tend to have more psychological
problems than either “pure bullies” or “pure victims”. Both type may suffer from
psychiatric disorders, and both are at increased risk for committing severe, violent
offenses as they get older. (Sourander, 2011)
Bully-victims typically tend to have the highest level of adjustment
difficulties among all children involved in bullying, showing symptoms of both
internalizing and externalizing problems (Nansel et al., 2001). Researchers have
24
long demonstrated that being involved as both a perpetrator and victim seems to
compound the impact of bullying, with bully-victims experiencing worse
outcomes than either bullies or victims, being at greater risk for anxiety,
depression, low self-esteem, self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicidality, physical
injury, substance abuse, negative attitudes toward school, absenteeism, poor
perceptions of school safety, aggression, and delinquency. (Berkowitz &
Benbenishty, 2012)
Those who bully and who are bullied (bully-victims) are found consistently
to be at greater risk for mental health problems than bullies or victims alone
(Benedict et al., 2015). Particularly in regards to internalizing symptoms, bullyvictims report higher levels of mental health challenges, specifically anxiety,
depression, and thought problems, than bullies or victims. Additionally, bullyvictims demonstrate the poorest psychosocial functioning of all groups, with
increased peer rejection, poorer relationships with classmates, and increased
loneliness.
Adolescents
Aggression is a highly studied area in psychosocial literature, particularly
adolescent aggression. Adolescence is a time of rapid change for youth both
physically and cognitively. An adolescent passes through great physical, mental,
emotional and social stress during this period. During the last decade, the study of
adolescent aggressive behavior has increasingly focused upon the fact that
25
aggression is not only physical by its nature, but it can be of various forms. There
can be many reasons of aggression among adolescents but the period of
adolescence itself is a major cause of aggression. That is why it has been said that
adolescence is the period of stress, strain and strife. They become at greater risk
for anxiety, depression, and suicidal behavior.
During the transition from middle to high school, bullying tends to peak. At
this vulnerable stage of a child’s development, social, verbal, and electronic
bullying can be more abusive than any kind of physical bullying. (PREVNet,
2019). Aggression and violence during childhood and adolescence have been the
focus of much research over the past several decades. These researchers have
found that serious forms of aggression remain relatively stable from childhood
through adulthood; however, Loeber and Hay (1997) argue that mild forms of
aggression may not begin for some children until early or late adolescence.
Despite Loeber and Hay's findings, very little research has been conducted on mild
forms of aggression, such as bullying, during the middle years. One notable gap in
the evolving literature on bullying and victimization during early adolescence is
the role that peers play in promoting bullying and victimization by either
reinforcing the aggressor, failing to intervene to stop the victimization, or
affiliating with students who bully.
26
Research Literature
In the process of gathering data, the researchers had referred to some
materials which were believed to have to their current endeavours. Reviews of
related foreign and local researches, journals and study are presented that serve as
a basis of the present study.
Research on human aggression has been a flourishing industry in the 20 th
century. The study of Scrimgeour (2007) entitled “Empathy and Aggression: A
Study of the Interplay Between Empathy and Aggression in Preschoolers” found
that high levels of empathy were significantly correlated with low levels of
aggression. Conceivably, the development of empathy reduced the presence of
aggressive behavior in participants. The less empathic participants were
significantly associated with high rates of physical aggression. These findings
underline the importance of the development of empathy and prosocial behavior
and their ability to inhibit aggressive acts towards others in preschool children. He
also concluded that if more children were encouraged to explore their feelings and
to understand the feelings of their peers, then perhaps statistics of school violence
could be reduced and school shootings could be a phenomenon of the past.
Moreover, Bohart & Greenberg (1997) cited in their study, entitled
“Empathy reconsidered: New direction in psychotherapy” , that empathy serves as
a learned lesson and as an inhibitor of further aggressive acts to a child who
vicariously experienced pain through another child’s experience. As children
27
advance cognitively, the more likely they are able to understand and control their
emotions as well as take another’s perspective. This cognitive achievement allows
for a reduction in potential aggressive conflicts and welcomes the probable
occurrence of prosocial behaviors. He supported the notion that children from a
young age experience empathy and that their empathic skills develop with age.
Furthermore, in the study of Stanger et al. (2015) entitled “Empathy Inhibits
Aggression in Competition: The Role of Provocation, Emotion, and Gender”, the
researchers indicate that empathy can reduce reactive aggression in team sport
athletes in competition. The results showed that empathy reduced males’ reported
likelihood to aggress toward an opponent in sport. However, the suppressing effect
of empathy on aggression occurs only in women at high provocation. Their
findings proved that empathy reduced participants’ aggression. Empathy has the
potential to attenuate aggression in sport, a context in which individuals could be
aggressive in their efforts to outperform others. Perspective taking may strengthen
one’s cognitive ability to counteract the arousal that could lead to aggression,
thereby attenuating aggression in athletes during competition. The inhibitory effect
of empathy on aggression may be weaker in men compared to women, during
competition.
In addition, Minde (1992) supported the idea that the development of
empathy and prosocial behavior helps decrease levels of overall aggression. He
examined the developmental changes of aggression in preschool children. Results
28
showed that the aggressive children displayed a delay in empathic and perspective
taking skills. These results support previous research and theories on the notion
that empathy is a key factor in the development of prosocial behavior.
Chalmers & Townsend (1990) supported the claim that perspective taking has
received empirical support with its relationship to empathy and its effects on
aggression. Girls who participated in a training program to increase their
perspective taking skills also experienced a significant increase in their empathy
skills, so perspective taking is likely related to empathy. Research on empathy
trainings further supports these findings. After attending intervention programs on
empathy-related learning participants behave less aggressively and show fewer
social problems. As empathy training promotes the reduction of negative social
behaviors to the benefit of prosocial interactions with others, (affective) empathy
mediates social behaviors.
The study of Sohravardi (2015) also revealed that empathy training caused
reduction on aggression. The development of empathy with training programs has
positive effects on reduction of aggression and increase compatibility in students
at elementary schools. Empathy training will improve interpersonal skills as well
as management skills and recognition of emotions. Eventually, the ability to
understand and manage emotions will result in interpersonal skill improvement
and become less aggressive.
29
From a review of research, Dodaj et al. (2012) summarized that empathy
plays an important role in reducing violent behavior. The higher the level of
empathy, the lower the tendency towards violent behavior. During testing of the
multidimensional construct of empathy, it was found that both the cognitive and
affective components of empathy reduce aggressive behavior. However, some
studies have shown that only the affective component of empathy plays a
significant role in reducing aggressive behavior. The results in children who are
bullies show that the affective component of empathy has an important role in
reducing empathy in relation to the cognitive component.
Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) claimed that cognitive empathy to have a
stronger relationship than affective empathy with some types of aggression, such
as offending. The researchers emphasized that it is possible that bullies have
cognitive empathy, but have reduced affective empathy. Probably the lack of
affective empathy separated those who were prone to repeated, constant
aggressive behavior. From the above, it can be said that it is necessary to establish
a clear distinction between the cognitive and affective components of empathy.
They found a significant positive relationship between empathy and antisocial
behavior. Also, this correlation proved higher among adolescents and young adults
compared to children. Their findings suggested that the association was stronger
for cognitive than for affective empathy, weaker for adults than adolescents, and
moderated by intelligence and socioeconomic status (SES). Empathic concern and
30
compassion probably encourage an individual to aggressive behavior because
these individuals are emotionally able to assess and predict negative consequences
that would have negative impact on other people.
In agreement with Jolliffe and Farrington (2004), Freeman (1984) concluded
that cognitive empathy plays a crucial role in the development of empathy. Results
of the studies strongly indicated that “empathy is a multifaceted construct
including both cognitive and affective dimensions.” Among preschoolers of both
sexes, the cognitive expression of empathy seems to emerge prior to the affective
one” Results from the 54 children indicated that cognitive empathy is easier for
younger kids to express than affective empathy. To shed light on her findings, it is
quite possible that the younger children were able to experience affective empathy,
but lacked the verbal skills to express themselves clearly.
On the other hand, Lovett and Sheffield (2007) found that affective empathy
to have a stronger inverse relationship with aggression and bullying than cognitive
empathy. They looked at affective empathy and found a negative relationship
between affective empathy and aggression in adolescents, with the relationship
being stronger when behavioral measures of empathy were used compared to
questionnaire measures. Likewise, Kemp et al. (2007) found systematic negative
associations between affective empathy and antisocial behavior, corroborating the
results of Lovett and Sheffield (2007).
31
Meanwhile, Feshbach (1983) pointed out that the overall findings suggest
that empathy plays a significant role in the control of aggression and argued that
empathy hinders both types of aggression. The researchers found that the children
who participated in the training program showed an increase in prosocial activity
during the course of the training and also showed somewhat of a decrease in their
tendency to act aggressively. He explains that the empathetic person is able to
understand the other point of view and is less likely to become aggressive due to
misinterpreting another’s behavior. Aggression causes pain and distress and the
observation of pain and distress should elicit empathic responses even if the child
is the initiator of the aggressive act. It would be consistent to say that the
development of empathetic skills, both in the cognitive abilities to assume another
person’s perspective and correctly emotionally identify with another person,
would decrease aggressive behavior in children and even adults.
Furthermore, Euler et al. (2014) revealed that empathy is involved in the
inhibition of aggressive behavior with proactive motivational underpinnings, but
not with reactive aggression. Results indicated that cognitive but not affective
empathy was negatively associated with proactive aggression while cognitive and
affective empathy were unrelated to reactive aggression. Proactive aggression is
related to lower levels of empathy and with studies that show that bullying is
associated with lower levels of empathy. Thus, a higher ability to understand the
cause and reason of emotions in others seems to reduce the amount of aggression
32
that is instrumental, organized, and motivated by the anticipation of reward.
Affective empathy facets do not seem to be associated with lower proactive
aggression. This finding is contrary to a number of studies that indicated that
affective empathy is negatively related to antisocial behavior.
In a consistent research finding in empathy and aggression which also
concerns gender differences, Strayer & Roberts (2004) indicated that the more
empathic children were less physically and verbally aggressive and also engaged
in more prosocial behaviors. Results showed that girls engaged in more prosocial
behavior than boys, and boys engaged in more physical aggression than girls.
Boys also exhibited more anger than girls. This study enhanced previous research
and underlined the negative association for empathy with anger and aggression.
However, the study of Spellings (2007) indicates that empathy training
program implemented by the researcher had no significant effect on either the
children’s behavior or their empathy levels. However, one must take note that
although the results are not statistically significant; the significance levels were in
the predicted direction.
Synthesis
Synthesis explained how the study is related to other existing studies
conducted. This shows how a certain topic often used. This would serve as a
33
baseline of the present study of the proponents. It compared the similarity and
differences of both studies and methodology done.
The reviewed related literature and studies cited by Feshbach, Freeman,
Chalmers & Townsend, Minde, Bohart & Greenberg, Strayer and Roberts,
Scrimgeour, Stanger et al., and Sohravardi et al. are different to the present study
in terms of the chosen group of participants. The present study chose adolescents
who are victims and, at the same time, perpetrators of bullying. Unlike the studies
of Scrimgeour, Bohart & Greenberg, Minde and Strayer and Roberts, they
examined the preschoolers’ behavior to assess aggression.
Meanwhile, Feshbach and her team of researchers designed an empathy
training program for elementary school children. The program was a ten-week
course during which the child performs role-taking and affect-identification
exercises with an empathy “trainer” three times a week. The researchers developed
thirty hours of lessons that included problem-solving games, tape recordings, and
storytelling. Similarly, the study of Spellings explored the relationship between the
development of empathy and aggression in fifteen (15) elementary age children in
an empathy training program. There were twenty-three exercises ranging in
difficulty from easy to more demanding. To assess each child’s empathy and
aggression levels, the researcher used two scales. With these studies, the present
research is different in terms of the participants, length of duration in conducting
the experiment and the interventions used to elicit and develop empathy. The
34
present study only used video clips to induce empathy and used one scale to assess
the participants’ behavior.
Likewise, the study of Sohravardi et al. held fifteen (15) training course
sessions that lasted for two months due to existing limitations. The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the effect of empathy teaching on aggression and
compatibility in female students of elementary sixth grade in Yazd, Center of Iran.
In addition to differences in terms of participants, duration of time and place of the
study, the samples were 62 girl students that were put in two groups of control and
experimental group randomly and equally. Whereas similar to the present study,
data were collected by using questionnaires.
Further difference to the present study, Stanger et al. aimed to investigate the
effect of empathy on aggression in athletes and to examine whether provocation
and gender moderate and emotions mediate. Also, the researchers aim to discover
whether empathy inhibits athletes’ aggression during a competitive motor task
under conditions of low and high provocation and whether these effects are
moderated by gender. Moreover, two methods and measures of aggression were
used in the study: unprovoked (or proactive) aggression, which was
operationalized as the shock intensity chosen by the participant on the first trial,
that is, before receiving any shocks; and provoked (or reactive) aggression, which
was operationalized as the shock intensity chosen on subsequent trials. While
35
sharing the same main objective to the present study, researches varied in
participants, method of the experiment, and instrumentation.
Additional difference to the present study, Strayer and Roberts examined
young children’s peer-group behavior to assess empathy and prosocial behavior.
Their interactions, behaviors, and emotions were observed and videotaped. In
order to specifically assess levels of empathy, the children individually viewed six
emotionally evocative videotaped vignettes. Empathy was also measured by
teacher, parent, best friend, and self-ratings. Strayer and Roberts also used direct
observation of play time, but also incorporated story vignettes to assess levels of
empathy in preschool children. The present study only used questionnaires to
assess the self-reported aggressive behavior of the participants and used two (2)
video clips to induce empathy on bully-victims.
In comparison to Jolliffe &Farrington, Kemp et al., Lovett and Sheffield,
and Euler et al., the present study is somehow similar to the participants and datagathering instrument used. In the study of Kemp et al. questionnaires were used to
measure both empathy and aggression of early adolescence. Moreover, Lovett and
Sheffield investigated affective empathy and aggression in mostly clinical and
forensic samples of adolescents through the use of questionnaires also. They found
a negative relationship between affective empathy and aggression in adolescents.
In addition, Jolliffe and Farrington focused on forensic samples of adolescents and
adults with empathy being measured by questionnaires.
36
The study of Euler et al. aimed to investigate the association between
cognitive and affective empathy, and reactive and proactive aggression in a highrisk sample of adolescent girls and boys. A total of 184 adolescents living in
socio-educational and juvenile justice institutions between the age of 12 and 22
years participated in this study. Three questionnaires were administered. Otherreport assessment was conducted by the caseworker. Caseworkers are used to
working with adolescents with disruptive behavior and are trained in the
evaluation of behaviors relative to a certain age group. In similar to the present
study, both genders were considered and both focused on the two aspects of
empathy, which were used as the manipulation in the present study.
The
differences between the studies are the number of participants, age range in
adolescents, and number of instruments used. In present study, the researchers
limited the participants to 12 with their age ranging from 15-20 years old. Also, a
researcher-structured questionnaire was the only instrument used to measure
aggressive behavior of the participants.
In connection on the two (2) aspects of empathy, Freeman studied the
development of empathy in young children (between 43 months and 67 months)
and also focused on the cognitive and affective aspects of empathy. Meanwhile,
Chalmers & Townsend only focused on social perspective taking on socially
maladjusted girls. On the other hand, Minde examined the developmental changes
of aggression in preschool children. Two standardized tests (Richman Graham
37
Behavior Screening Questionnaire and the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire)
were completed for behavioral assessment. Mother and child direct observations
were conducted, and direct observations at school took place.
In addition,
Scrimgeour investigated correlations between empathy and relational and physical
aggression in preschoolers. Aggression was measured by direct observation and a
teacher questionnaire. Different from the present study, no observations were
conducted. The experimental study was done online due to limitations.
Conceptual Framework
This conceptual framework explains the aim of the research which is to
determine the effect of empathy induction on aggressive behavior of bully-victims.
The conceptual paradigm is illustrated below.
The conceptual model of the study consists mainly of the input, process and
output. The input of the modelconsists of the manipulations used in the
experiment. Interventions conducted on experimental group were a 3-minutevideo
clipinducing a cognitive empathy and a 9-minute animated short film inducing
affective empathy.
The process composed of the pre-test and post-test aimed to determine the
significant effect of empathy induction on the aggressive behavior of bullyvictims. Meanwhile in selecting participants, the researchers used Bully-Victim
Survey Form to assess their bullying experience. The researchers used a true
38
experimental design wherein the comparison of pre-test and post-test results was
made. The instrument used in measuring the participants’ behavior is the 20-item
Aggression Scale.
Lastly, the output represents the implications of the result of the study and
the proposed intervention and recommended activity that will reduce the
aggressive behavior of the respondents. The expected output will be based on the
result of the study. The researchers should come up with effective programs that’ll
help people decrease and manage aggressive and violent behavior.
The figure shows the research paradigm of the study:
Figure 1
Conceptual Paradigm on
The Effect of Empathy Induction on Aggressive Behavior of Bully-Victim
INPUT
PROCESS
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Empathy
INPUTInduction
Aggressive Behavior
PROCESS
1st level : Type of Inducing
Films (Cognitive and
Pre-test and Post Tests
(Aggression Scale)
Affective)
2nd level : Duration of films
( 1-5mins.&6-10mins. )
1.1 Control Group
1.2 Experimental Group
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
Intervention Program:
“Empathy Activating
Tasks”
39
Hypothesis of the Study
The research hypothesis was presented in null form. Based on the nature of
the study, the null hypothesis is made to test whether the result of the findings can
be rejected or accepted.
The null hypothesis stated that empathy induction has no significant effect on
the aggressive behavior of bully-victims. Thus, the researchers want to disprove
the claim through the creation of this study.
Definition of Terms
For better understanding of the study, the researchers felt it necessary to
define the following terms conceptually and operationally.
Aggressive Behavior. It can be conceptualized as the observable
manifestation of aggression, which is defined as the act to cause harm, pain, injury
in another. (Zirpoli, 2008) In this study, it is the dependent variable measured on
bully-victims through questionnaire.
Empathy. This is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that
includes the ability to notice, feel, and automatically respond to other people and,
on the other, to understand their emotional states. (Hoffman, 2000) It is assumed to
inhibit antisocial and aggressive behavior in this study.
Empathy Induction. Empathy is normally induced by seeing, believing, or
imagining that the person is experiencing an emotion or is in an emotion-inducing
40
situation. Maibom (2012) It is the independent variable in this study designed to
elicit empathic feelings through video clips.
Affective Empathy. It refers to an affective connection with another person's
emotional state, and closely relates to another oriented reaction regarding the
perceived welfare of other person (Batson et al., 1997). Affective empathy is
elicited through a video clip which appeals to emotions.
Cognitive Empathy. It is the capacity to take the mental perspective or
mentally putting oneself in another person’s shoes in order to understand their
thoughts and feelings. (Beadle & de la Vega, 2019). In this study, cognitive
empathy is induced through a perspective-taking video clip.
Adolescents. It is a phase of maturation: it is a transitional period of physical
and psychological human development between childhood and adulthood, the
cultural purpose of which involves preparation to assume adult roles.
(iFightDepression, 2020) It refers to the age of participants included in the study
ranging from 15-20 years old.
Bully-Victims. Bully-victims are both a perpetrator and victim that
experience worse outcomes than either bullies or victims, being at greater risk for
anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, self harm, suicidal ideation, aggression, and
delinquency. (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012) They are the target respondents of
the researchers who are both bullies and victims.
41
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology and procedures used by
the researchers in the study. This chapter contains the method of research to be
used, the respondents of the study, the instrument to be used, the administration of
the instrument and the statistical treatment for the data that had been collected.
Moreover, this chapter gives a detailed description of the experimental system and
procedures used in data acquisition and data processing throughout this
experiment.
Research Design
The main purpose of this study is to determine whether empathy induction
had an effect on aggressive behavior of bully-victims. The participants’ behavior
will be measured and compared so that the researchers can test the hypothesis
about the effect of inductions on behavior. The researchers used true experimental
design. Williams (2015) stated that a true experiment is a type of experimental
design that is thought to be the most accurate type of experimental research
because it supports or refutes a hypothesis using statistical analysis. The
comparison of pre-test and post-test results was made in the experimental and
control group of the experiment. The study will use quantitative research methods
42
through Aggression Scale, a researchers-structured questionnaire, as main data
gathering instrument.
Subjects of the Study
The researchers aim to establish a study that will determine how aggressive
behavior can be manifested by bully-victims, ages 15-20 years old.The researchers
chose bully-victims or adolescents that are both bullies and victims as their
respondents because they are more prone to emotional instability and aggression
since they receive such an awful treatment among their friends or classmates.
Sigurdson et al. (2015) proved that it is common among adolescents being
involved in bullying. Prevalence rates of being victims of bullying globally from 6
to 35% and bullying others from 6 to 32% whereas a smaller group, from 1.6 to
13% has experience both as a bully and victim (bully-victim).
The researchers used Purposive Sampling also known as judgemental,
selective, or subjective sampling in which researchers rely on their own judgment
when choosing members of the population to participate in their study. (Foley,
2018). With this, the researchers chose the respondents through a survey that will
determine their experiences in bullying. They chose twelve (12) participants
online which consist of six (6) men and six (6) women as the respondents in the
study.
43
Data Gathering Instrument
Questionnaires were utilized as the researchers’ main data gathering
instrument. In selecting the respondents, the researchers used Bully-Victim Survey
Form which assesses bullying and victimization experiences based on self-report.
Moreover, the researchers used a 20-item Aggression Scale to assess the
aggressive behavior of bully-victims. Aggression Scale is used to measure
frequency of self-reported aggressive behaviors. It is a researcher-structured
questionnaire, approved by our adviser in research, adapted from Aggression Scale
of Orpinas & Frankowski (2001). Point values are assigned. All items are scored
on the following 4-point scale. Responses of 3 “Very often”, 2 “Often”, 1
“Sometimes” and 0 “Never” were recoded. All scores are summed to derive a
total. Higher scores indicate higher frequencies of aggressive behavior.
Data Gathering Procedures
The researchers first conducted an online survey through Bully-Victim Survey
Form, assessing bullying and victimization experiences, to determine and verify
the participants in the study. The questionnaires will be created and administered
through Google Forms. After the survey, the researchers secured the respondents’
availability of internet connection for the experimental study to be possible. After
seeking their approval, they were informed about the experimental research and
assured the confidentiality of the information disclosed.
44
During the actual experiment, in the pre-test activity of both experimental
and control group, the researchers will proceed on administering a 20-item
Aggression Scale to measure the frequency of self-reported aggressive behaviors
of the participants.
After the respondents finished answering the pre-test, the experimental group
will then be divided into two (2) groups for the manipulation. The researchers will
use two (2) kinds of empathy inducing clips with different durations that might
affect the aggressive behavior of the respondents. For the first (1 st) experimental
group’s manipulation, a 3-minute cognitive empathy inducing clip entitled “Why I
Bully You” will be shown. It is a short video clip showing reasons of bullying
from different perspectives. Likewise, a 9-minute animated short film which
appeals to emotions and encourages in constructing a more inclusive world, will
be presented to activate the affective empathic feelings of the second (2 nd)
experimental group. The link of the videos will be sent after the respondents
finished answering the pre-test. After watching the video clips, the researchers will
request the participants to message them for assurance.
After (5) five-day interval on the pre-test, the researchers administered the
post test to control and experimental group to further assess the aggressive
behavior of the respondents on the past days and also to find out if there is a
significant difference between the pre-test and post-test results of the participants
after the experimental group’s intervention. The results of the questionnaires and
45
activities done were tallied, prepared in a tabular form, presented and analyzed in
the text applying the appropriate statistical treatment.
Analysis of Data
The statistical treatments employed in this study were as follows:
Mean. It was used to determine the pre-test and post test result of the
control and experimental groups.
Independent-Sample T-test. It was used to compare the mean scores of
experimental and control groups’ pre-test and post test to test their difference.
Paired-Sample T-Test. It was used to test the difference between the pretest and post test results of the means of control and experimental group.
46
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter manifests data gathered from the survey through
questionnaires given to the respondents. They were presented in tabular form,
analyzed, interpreted and complemented with inferences, implications and
theoretical bases. The figures and interpretation presented represents only the data
from where the researchers conducted their study.
1. Pre-Test Results of the Participants
Pre-test were given to control and experimental groups to determine their
aggressive behavior before the experiment. The test was composed of twenty (20)
items to measure the frequency of self-reported aggressive behaviors.
Table 1 presents the results of both control and experimental groups
during their pre-test. It shows the mean scores of the participants followed by its
corresponding interpretation.
Table 1
Pre-Test Results of Control and Experimental Group
Mean Result
1.08
SD
0.44
Interpretation
Low Aggressive Behavior
Experimental Group 1
1.18
0.54
Low Aggressive Behavior
Experimental Group 2
1.35
0.78
Low Aggressive Behavior
Control Group
47
As shown in the table, the control group got a mean score of 1.08 with a
0.44 standard deviation indicating a low aggressive behavior. Moreover, the mean
score of experimental group 1 is 1.18 with a 0.54 standard deviation while
experimental group 2 got a mean score of 1.35 and a 0.78 standard deviation that
both indicate low aggressive behavior.
Overall, the result implied that the participants in this study have low
aggressive behavior. It means that there is a presence of aggression among the
participants however, it was low.
According to Sourander (2011), some kids occupy the middle of the
bullying food chain. They get bullied by dominant individuals but they also
perpetrate bullying themselves. Rejected, victimized, and aggressive, these “bullyvictims” tend to have more psychological problems than either “pure bullies” or
“pure victims”. Both type may suffer from psychiatric disorders, and both are at
increased risk for committing severe, violent offenses as they got older.
Moreover, in some cases, kids who are bullied are also bullies themselves.
Kochel (2015) stated that bully-victims demonstrate many of the same behaviors
as do bullies and victims. A typical victim is likely to be aggressive, think negative
thoughts and has a trouble with social interaction. The very sad part comes later,
when they reach adulthood and experience long lasting psychological effects that
are more severe than that experienced by either bullies or victims alone.
48
2. Post Test Results of the Participants
The same test was administered to both control and experimental groups
after the latter’s intervention. This test will determine if the intervention affects the
behavior of the participants.
Table 2 presents the results of both control and experimental groups during
their post test. It shows the mean scores of the participants followed by its
corresponding interpretation.
Table 2
Post Test Results of Control and Experimental Group
Mean Result
SD
Interpretation
Control Group
0.96
0.39
Low Aggressive Behavior
Experimental Group 1
0.43
0.34
Very Low Aggressive Behavior
Experimental Group 2
0.88
0.54
Low Aggressive Behavior
The above table revealed the post test result of both groups. The mean
score of the control group is 0.96 with a standard deviation of 0.39 that indicates
low aggressive behvior. Meanwhile, the experimental group 1 got a mean score of
0.43 with a 0.34 standard deviation indicating very low aggressive behavior.
Moreover, the experimental group 2 got a mean score of 0.88 and a 0.54 standard
deviation indicating low aggressive behavior.
49
The mean scores in post test revealed that the experimental group 1 (M =
0.43) decreased aggressive behavior more compared to experimental group 2 (M =
0.88) and control group (M = 0.96). The result implied that the aggressive
behavior of the participants in experimental group 1 decreased from low (M =
1.18, SD = 0.54) to very low (M = 0.43, SD = 0.34) aggressive behavior. The
result indicates that the intervention in experimental group 1 (cognitive empathy
induction) is more effective than experimental group 2 (affective empathy
induction). Results showed that a short cognitive empathy inducing film is more
effective than a long affective empathy inducing film in reducing aggression.
Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) claimed cognitive empathy to have a stronger
relationship than affective empathy with some types of aggression, such as
offending. The researchers emphasized that it is possible that bullies have
cognitive empathy, but have reduced affective empathy. Probably the lack of
affective empathy separated those who were prone to repeated, constant
aggressive behavior. They found a significant positive relationship between
empathy and antisocial behavior. Their findings suggested that the association was
stronger for cognitive than for affective empathy, weaker for adults than
adolescents, and moderated by intelligence and socioeconomic status (SES).
In agreement with Jolliffe and Farrington (2004), Freeman (1984) concluded
that cognitive empathy plays a crucial role in the development of empathy. Results
of the studies strongly indicated that “empathy is a multifaceted construct
50
including both cognitive and affective dimensions.” Among preschoolers of both
sexes, the cognitive expression of empathy seems to emerge prior to the affective
one” Results from the 54 children indicated that cognitive empathy is easier for
younger kids to express than affective empathy.
Furthermore, Euler et al. (2014) indicated that cognitive but not affective
empathy was negatively associated with proactive aggression and concluded that a
higher ability to understand the cause and reason of emotions in others seems to
reduce the amount of aggression that is instrumental, organized, and motivated by
the anticipation of reward. In addition, Philippot (2010) noted that film clips have
the ability to employ particularly complex stimuli in a short amount of time.
Maffei (2019) also stated that shorter clips engage the attention of the viewer and
making possible the process of “willing suspension of disbelief” which is critical
for the ecology of the emotional experience achieved through film watching.
Using longer clips (i.e. three minutes or more) may increase the difficulty to
disengage from the stimulus, thus prompting carryover effects on the following
excerpts within the experimental paradigm.
3. Significant Difference between the Pre-test Results of the Participants
The researchers compared the mean scores of experimental and control
groups’ pre-test through independent-sample t-test to find out if there is a
significant difference between the pre-test results of the participants.
51
Table 3 presents the summary of computations to compare the pre-test
results of the participants followed by its corresponding interpretation.
Table 3
Summary of Computations on Test of Difference Between the Pre-test
Results of the Control and Experimental Group
Mean
Control Group
Experimental Group
Computed
Values
P
Value
Decision
Conclusion
-0.98
0.166
Failed to
Reject H0
Not
Significant
1.08
1.24
DR: Reject H0 if p value is lesser than  = 0.05.
Table 3 disclosed the comparison between pre-test results of the
participants. The researchers generated a probability value of 0.166 that is greater
than alpha () at 0.05. Due to the result, the researchers failed to reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the pre-test
results of the participants.
4. Significant Difference between the Post Test Results of the Participants
Using the independent sample t-test, the mean scores of the participants in
their post test were evaluated to find out if there is a significant difference or not.
Table 4 presents the summary of computations to compare the post test
results of the participants followed by its corresponding interpretation.
52
Table 4
Summary of Computations on Test of Difference Between the Post Test
Results of the Control and Experimental Group
Mean
Control Group
Computed
P Value
Values
Conclusion
Reject H0
Significant
0.96
3.08
Experimental Group
Decision
0.002
0.59
DR: Reject H0 if p value is lesser than  = 0.05.
In the above table, it revealed that since P value, which is 0.002, is lesser
than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is
concluded that there is a significant difference between the post test results of
control and experimental groups.
Table 3 showed that the mean scores in experimental group became lower
after the interventions compared to the control group. The table above implied that
interventions had an effect on participants’ behavior. It means that empathy
inductions lessen the aggressive behavior of the participants.
Minde (1992) supported the idea that the development of empathy and
prosocial behavior helps decrease levels of overall aggression. Also, the study of
Scrimgeour (2007) entitled “Empathy and Aggression: A Study of the Interplay
Between Empathy and Aggression in Preschoolers” found that high levels of
empathy were significantly correlated with low levels of aggression. Conceivably,
53
the development of empathy reduced the presence of aggressive behavior in
participants. These findings underline the importance of the development of
empathy and prosocial behavior and their ability to inhibit aggressive acts towards
others. He also concluded that if more children were encouraged to explore their
feelings and to understand the feelings of their peers, then perhaps statistics of
school violence could be reduced and school shootings could be a phenomenon of
the past.
In the study of Stanger et al. (2015), findings proved that empathy reduced
participants’ aggression. Empathy has the potential to attenuate aggression in
sport, a context in which individuals could be aggressive in their efforts to
outperform others. Perspective-taking may strengthen one’s cognitive ability to
counteract the arousal that could lead to aggression.
5. Significant Difference between the Pre-test and Post Test Rresults of
the Participants
To determine the significant difference of the pre-test and post test results
of control and experimental group, the researchers used the paired-sample t-test to
know if the intervention has an effect on the behavior of the participants.
Table 5 presents the summary of computations to compare the pre- test and
post test results of the participants followed by its corresponding interpretation.
54
Table 5
Summary of Computations on Test of Difference Between Pre-Test and
Post Test Results
Mean
Pre-test
Post test
0.96
Pre-test
1.24
Post test
P
Value
Decision
Conclusion
0.75
0.230
Failed to
Reject H0
Not
Significant
3.42
0.001
Reject H0
Significant
1.08
Control Group
Experimental
Group
Computed
Values
0.59
DR: Reject H0 if p value is lesser than  = 0.05.
Table 5 revealed the comparison between pre-test and post test results of
the participants. In control group, the researchers generated a probability value of
0.230 that is greater than alpha () at 0.05. Due to the result, the researchers failed
to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is no significant difference
between the pre-test and post test results of the control group.
Although the mean score of control group decreased after the intervention
(M = 0.96), it is not enough to claim that there is a significant difference between
the pre-test and post test results of the control group (p > 0.05).
Further analysis, the mean scores of experimental group on both pre-test and
post test were compared. In experimental group, the researchers generated a
probability value of 0.001 that is lesser than the alpha level () at 0.05. The test
55
was found to be significant, indicating that the aggressive behavior before (M =
1.24) was significantly different than the aggressive behavior after the intervention
(M = 0.59). Hence, it is concluded that there is a significant difference on the
aggressive behavior of participants before and after the intervention. The result
indicates that empathy induction implemented by the researcher has a significant
effect on the aggressive behavior of the participants.
From a review of research, Dodaj et al. (2012) summarized that empathy
plays an important role in reducing violent behavior. The higher the level of
empathy, the lower the tendency towards violent behavior. During testing of the
multidimensional construct of empathy, it was found that both the cognitive and
affective components of empathy reduce aggressive behavior.
Moreover, Feshbach (1983) pointed out that the overall findings suggest
that empathy plays a significant role in the control of aggression and argued that
empathy hinders both types of aggression. The researchers found that the children
who participated in the training program showed an increase in prosocial activity
during the course of the training and also showed somewhat of a decrease in their
tendency to act aggressively. He explains that the empathetic person is able to
understand the other point of view and is less likely to become aggressive due to
misinterpreting another’s behavior. Aggression causes pain and distress and the
observation of pain and distress should elicit empathic responses even if the child
is the initiator of the aggressive act. It would be consistent to say that the
56
development of empathetic skills, both in the cognitive abilities to assume another
person’s perspective and correctly emotionally identify with another person,
would decrease aggressive behavior in children and even adults.
Furthermore, Bohart & Greenberg (1997) cited that empathy serves as a
learned lesson and as an inhibitor of further aggressive acts to a child who
vicariously experienced pain through another child’s experience. As children
advance cognitively, the more likely they are able to understand and control their
emotions as well as take another’s perspective. This cognitive achievement allows
for a reduction in potential aggressive conflicts and welcomes the probable
occurrence of prosocial behaviors. He supported the notion that children from a
young age experience empathy and that their empathic skills develop with age.
Meanwhile, to support the effectiveness of empathy induction, Chalmers &
Townsend (1990) supported the claim that perspective-taking has received
empirical support with its relationship to empathy and its effects on aggression.
Research on empathy trainings further supports these findings. After attending
intervention programs on empathy-related learning participants behave less
aggressively and show fewer social problems. As empathy training promotes the
reduction of negative social behaviors to the benefit of prosocial interactions with
others, (affective) empathy mediates social behaviors.
57
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter contains the summary of findings based on the result of the
analysis and interpretation of the data gathered from the respondents that leads to
establishment of conclusion and recommendation.
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the effect of empathy induction on
aggressive behavior of bully-victims. Purposive sampling was used in choosing 12
participants’ ages 15-20 years old. Researchers used true experimental design with
pre-test and post test design. Intervention was given to experimental group and
“Aggression Scale” was administered to both groups to assess their behavior.
Specifically, it answered to the following questions:
1. What are the pre-test results of the participants?
2. What are the post-test results of the participants?
3. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test results of the
participants?
4. Is there a significant difference between the post test results of the
participants?
5. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test and post-results of the
participants?
6. What are the proposed intervention and activities based on the findings?
58
Findings
After the analysis and the interpretation of the data, the researchers came up
with the following findings:
1. Pre-Test Results of the Participants
The result of the pre-test showed that participants in this study have low
aggressive behavior wherein there is a presence of aggression among the
participants however, it was low.The control group got a mean score of
1.08. Experimental group 1 got 1.18 while experimental group 2 got a mean
score of 1.35 that all indicate low aggressive behavior.
2. Post Test Results of the Participants
Post test results revealed that participants in this study still scored low in
aggression; however experimental group 1 with a mean score of 0.43
decreased to very low aggressive behavior compared to experimental group
2 with a mean score of 0.88 and control group with 0.96 mean score
indicating the greater effectiveness of the 1st intervention.
3. Significant Difference Between the Pre-Test Results of the Participants
The comparison between pre-test results of the participants generated a
probability value of 0.166 that is greater than alpha () at 0.05. Due to the
result, the researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis.
59
4. Significant Difference Between the Post Test Results of the Participants
The result in testing the difference between the post test of the
participants showed that the mean scores in experimental group became
lower after the interventions compared to the control group. It revealed that
since P value, which is 0.002, is lesser than 0.05, the null hypothesis is
rejected at 5% level of significance.
5. Significant Difference Between the Pre-Test and Post Test Results Of The
Participants
The comparison between pre-test and post test results of the
participants generated a probability value of 0.230, in control group, that is
greater than alpha () at 0.05. Due to the result, the researchers failed to
reject the null hypothesis. Meanwhile, the researchers got a probability
value that is lesser than the alpha level in experimental group which means
the null hypothesis should be rejected.
Conclusion
Based on the findings, the following hereby concluded:
1. Victims of bullying have tendencies to be aggressive.
2. A short cognitive empathy inducing film is more effective than a long
affective empathy inducing film in reducing aggression.
3. There is no significant difference between the pre-test results of the
participants.
60
4. There is a significant difference between the post test results of control and
experimental groups. Empathy inductions reduced the aggressive behavior
of the participants.
5. Although the mean score of control group decreased after the intervention,
it is not enough to claim that there is a significant difference between the
pre-test and post test results of the control group. On the other hand, it is
concluded that there is a significant difference on aggressive behavior of
participants before and after experimental groups’ intervention. The result
indicates that empathy induction implemented by the researcher has a
significant effect on the aggressive behavior of participants.
6. The proposed intervention based on the findings are activities that will be
helpful in recognizing and managing emotions as well as developing
concern for others to reduce aggression. The suggested activities are the
following:
61
Table 6
Proposed Program and Activities
“Empathy
Activating Task”
EMOvies:
Empathy Movies
Crystals of Kaydor:
Video Game
If The Shoe Fits:
A Group Activity
Objective
Brief Description
EMOvies is a series of
emotional films that’ll elicit
emotions and compassion
“To induce an affective
among the viewers. This will
state and foster
be helpful in developing
reflection.”
empathic sharing or sharing of
another’s emotional
experience.
It is a story-based game in
“To activate and
training empathy. It is an instrengthen perspectivegame training tool in which
taking behavior and
players gauge the intensity of
encourage to practice
emotions. Players will learn to
emotion recognition
recognize six basic emotions
and empathic
(anger, fear, happiness,
responding”
surprise, disgust and sadness).
“To spend time
understanding and
feeling another
person’s perspective
and experiences.”
A set of printed shoe prints
with different conditions of
living are laid and whoever it
might fit, they will try to live
and act as if they were on
those situations for a day.
Recommendation
Based on the conclusion drawn, the following recommendations are hereby
presented.
1. The researchers recommend the use of empathy induction in reducing and
regulating aggressive behavior among individuals.
62
2. It is recommended to continue this study on different groups and ages of
participants who are more likely to be aggressive like adult violent
offenders.
3. A larger number or a more diverse participant sample should also be
considered to provide more accurate and reliable results.
4. Due to time constraints, the researchers limited the duration of the
experiment for only 5 days. Future studies should be conducted for a long
period of time to observe long-term effects.
5. Future researchers should utilize different variety of methods to elicit
empathy like the use of emotional imagery, presentation of visual stimuli
(slides and videos), presentation of sound or music, recollection of
autobiographical memories other than film clips.
6. In this study, the intervention and administration of questionnaires were
conducted online due to several restrictions brought by the pandemic. It is
suggested that future researchers should conduct face-to-face research
methods to avoid uncertain and inaccurate result, and eliminate biases.
7. Similar research should be done with other instrument and assessment
measures other than self-report. Future studies should also include observer
reported behavior and peer reports.
8. It would also be of interest to determine other interventions except empathy
elicitation that will decrease aggressive behaviour.
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
Beadle, J.& de la Vega, C. (2019) Impact of Aging on Empathy: Review of
Psychological
and
Neural
Mechanisms.
Retrieved
from
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00331
Benedict, F.T, Vivier, P.M., & Gjelsvik, A. (2015). Mental health and bullying in
the United States among children aged 6 to 17. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence.
Retrieved
from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260514536279
Berkowitz, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Perceptions of teachers’ support, safety,
and absence from school because of fear among victims, bullies, and bullyvictims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Retrieved from https://
www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0038929.pdf
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., and Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls
manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and
indirect aggression. Aggress. Behav. Retrieved from https://www.frontier
sin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00081/full
Bohart, A.C., & Greenberg, L.S. (1997). Empathy reconsidered: New direction in
psychotherapy. Washington, D.C.: American PsychologicalAssociation.
Retrieved
from
https://digitalrepository.wheatoncollege.edu/bitstream/handle/1
1040/788/07_Scrimgeour.pdf?sequence=1
64
Buss, A.H. (1961). The psychology of aggression [Adobe Digital Editions
version].doi:10.1037/11160-000.
Retrieved
from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=c
ehsdiss
Chalmers, J. B., & Townsend, M. A. R. (1990). The effects of training in
socialperspective taking on socially maladjusted girls. ChildDevelopment.
Retrieved
fromhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605119879229
Cherry, K.(2020) Factors that Lead to Aggression.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-aggression-2794818
Retrieved
from
Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development. Psychological Bulletin.
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?
article=1043&context=edc_theses
Crothers, L.M. et.al (2014). Proactive and Reactive Aggression and Cognitive and
Affective
Empathy
among
Students
in
Middle
Childhood.
InternationalJournal of School and Cognitive Psychology. Retrieved from
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/proactive-and-reactive-aggressionand-cognitive-and-affective-empathy-among-students-in-middle-childhood2469-9837.1000105.pdf
Dodaj, A., et.al. (2012). THE EFFECT OF EMPATHY ON INVOLVING IN
BULLYING
BEHAVIOR.
Retrieved
from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8da0/c20c87b1d1c7c5b4f6dac0e0edf430e2e
4e3.pdf
65
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information processing factors in
reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk
/download/pdf/81837689.pdf
Eagle, M. & Wolitzky, D. (1997). Empathy: A psychoanalytic perspective. In A.C.
Bohart & L.S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy Reconsidered: New Directions in
Psychotherapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Retrieved fromhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org /49d2/2500d6a963857cb32
da0e9b7f969f4d7d063.pdf
Euler, F., Steinlin, C., Stadler, C. (2014) Cognitive and Affective Empathy:
Associations with Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4
Ferris CF, Grisso T. (1996) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol.
794. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; New York: 1996.
Understanding aggressive behavior in children. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570125/
Feshbach, N. (1983). Learning to care: a positive approach to child training and
discipline.
Retrieved
from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15374418309533142
Foley, B. (2018). Purposive Sampling 101. Surveygizmo. Retrieved from
https://www.surveygizmo.com/resources/blog/purposive-sampling-101/
66
Freeman, E.B. (1984). The development of empathy in young children: In search
of
a
definition.
Child
Study
Journal
.Retrieved
from
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-17457-001
Galen, B.R., & Underwood, M.K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social
aggression among children .Developmental Psychology.Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7677457_An_Integrated_Review_o
f_Indirect_Relational_and_Social_Aggression
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of
mind
reading.
Retrieved
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21227300
Goldstein, A.P. & Michaels, G.Y. (1985). Empathy: Development, training, and
consequences. Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.Retrieved from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=bgsu1180535095&dispositi
on=inline
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1998). Words, thoughts, and theories. Retrieved
from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/words-thoughts-and-theories
Grodal, T. & Kramer, M. (2010). Empathy, Film, and the Brain. Recherches
sémiotiques
/
Semiotic
Inquiry.
Retrieved
from
https://doi.org/10.7202/1025921ar
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Retrieved from
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5216092.pdf
67
Hay, D.F. (2005). The beginnings of aggression in infancy. Retrieved from
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-09268-006
Hoffman M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development. Implication for Caring
and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5988850/
Hogan R (1969) Development of an empathy scale. J Consult Clin Psychol.
Retrieved
from
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/proactive-andreactive-aggression-and-cognitive-and-affective-empathy-among-students-inmiddle-childhood-2469-9837.1000105.pdf
Howard, A. L. (2014). Elicitation of Empathic Emotions Using Film:
Development
of
a
Stimulus
Set.
Retrieved
from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8f54/27d36afd825be57f8ddbd2aed7aed285e
056.pdf
Ickes, W. (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272202633_Empathy_A_
Review_of_the_Concept
Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. (2004) Empathy and offending: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent behavior. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017348/
Kemp, R. A. T. de, Overbeek, G., Wied, M. de, Engels, R. C. M. E., & Scholte, R.
H. J. (2007). Early adolescent empathy, parental support, and antisocial
behavior. The Journal of GeneticPsychology. Retrieved from https://dspace.
68
library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/188513/masterthesisheerebeek,ecmvan3111342.pdf?sequence=1
Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of moral development.
London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=PTVHAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&lpg
=PA184&dq=Killen+and+Smetana+(2006)+defined+empathy+as+%E2%80
%9Can+affective+response+that+stems+from+the+apprehension+or+compre
hension+of+another%E2%80%99s+emotional+state+or+condition+and+is+s
imilar+to+what+the+other+person+is+feeling+or+would+be+expected+to+fe
el+in+the+given+situation.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=mfxdi_5k50&sig
=ACfU3U20si_7p3wLZErWuCey6c7TyOr2Yg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUK
EwiU75Wc9tjpAhVBy4sBHSlSBQsQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ
Kochel KP, Ladd GW, Bagwell CL, Yabko BA. 2015. Bully/Victim Profiles'
Differential Risk for Worsening Peer Acceptance: The Role of Friendship. J
Appl Dev Psychol. Retrieved from https://www.parenting science.com/bullyvictims.html
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization. In
J.Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of
thevulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=c
ehsdiss
Krug, E. et. al,. (2202) World Health Organization. World report on violence and
health.Geneva.
Retrieved
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411865/
Lagerspetz KM, Bjorkvist K, Peltonen T. Is indirect aggression typical of females?
Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old
children. AggressiveBehavior. Retrieved
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3736589/
69
Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and
violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology.
Retrieved
from
https://www.counseling.org/resources/library/Selected%20Topics/Bullying/B
ullying_%20Early_Adolescence.html
Lovett, B. J., & Sheffield, R. A. (2007). Affective empathy deficits inaggressive
children and adolescents: A critical review. ClinicalPsychology Review.
Retrievedfrom https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/088260519879229
Maffei A, Angrilli A (2019) E-MOVIE Experimental MOViesfor Induction of
Emotions in neuroscience: An innovative film database with normative data and
sex differences. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0223124
Maibom, H.L., (2012). THE MANY FACES OF EMPATHY AND THEIR
RELATION TO PROSOCIAL ACTION AND AGGRESSION
INHIBITION.
Retrieved
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26301398
Minde, K. (1992). Aggression in preschoolers: Its relation to socialization. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Retrieved
from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=5V66-WRcGL8C&pg=PA206&
dq=Minde,+K.+(1992).+Aggression+in+preschoolers:+Its+relation+to+social
ization.+Journal+of+the+American+Academy+of+Child+and+Adolescent+P
sychiatry&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwq42Dz9jpAhXPFogKHVHJAEU
Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Minde%2C%20K.%20(1992).%20Aggression
%20in%20preschoolers%3A%20Its%20relation%20to%20socialization.%20
Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Academy%20of%20Child%20and%
20Adolescent%20Psychiatry&f=false
70
Nansel, R.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simon-Morton, B., &
Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and
association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical
Association. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC3766526/
Olweus, D. (2001). “Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important
questions,” in J. Juvonen & S. Graham (eds.), Peer harassment inschool: The
plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York,NY: Guilford Press.
Retrieved
fromhttps://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&conte
xt=edpsychpapers
Parke, R. & Slaby, R. (1983). The development of aggression. In P. Mussen & E.
Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4.
Socialization,
personality, and social development.Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu
/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1312893747&disposition=inline
Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O’Connell, P. (2010). Peer processes in
bullying:Informing prevention and intervention strategies. In S. R. Jimerson,S.
M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying inschools: An
international perspective. New York, NY:Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0038929.pdf
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate
bases. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioraland-brain-sciences/article/empathy-its-ultimate-and-proximatebases/953E0D092176FEE351ED81E933FE646D
71
PREVNet (2019) Adolescents. Promoting Relationships & Eliminating Violence.
Canada's Healthy Relationships Hub: Preventing Interpersonal Violence
through
Research
and
Practice.
Retrieved
from
https://www.prevnet.ca/bullying/parents/parents-of-adolescents
Scrimgeour, M. (2007). Empathy and Aggression: A Study of the Interplay
Between Empathy and Aggression in Preschoolers. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=q7RBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT82&lpg=PT82&dq=Scrimgeour,+M.+(2007).+Empath
y+and+Aggression:+A+Study+of+the+Interplay+Between+Empathy+and+A
ggression+in+Preschoolers&source=bl&ots=t3fEHL_xm&sig=ACfU3U097vhOWyTZRnz2OsTxbFO6QHuNRQ&hl=en&sa=X&v
ed=2ahUKEwjo4T0zNjpAhWKLqYKHRP6BsoQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Scr
imgeour%2C%20M.%20(2007).%20Empathy%20and%20Aggression%3A
%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Interplay%20Between%20Empathy%20a
nd%20Aggression%20in%20Preschoolers&f=false
Sigurdson, J.F., et.al. (2015) The Long-Term Effects of Being Bullied or a Bully
in Adolescence on Externalizimg Mental Health Problems In Adulthood.
Child
Adolesc
Psychiatry
Ment
Health.
Retrieved
from
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-015-0075-2
Sohravardi, H., et al. (2015). The Effect of Empathy Training Programs on
Aggression and Compatibility Students of Elementary Schools in Yazd,
Center of Iran. International Journal of Pediatrics. Retrieved from
https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=458287
Sourander A, Brunstein Klomek A, Kumpulainen K, Puustjärvi A, Elonheimo H,
Ristkari T, Tamminen T, Moilanen I, Piha J, Ronning JA. 2011. Bullying at
age eight and criminality in adulthood: findings from the Finnish Nationwide
1981 Birth Cohort Study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. Retrieved
from https://www.parentingscience.com/bully-victims.html
72
Stanger, N. et al., (2015). Empathy Inhibits Aggression in Competition: The Role
of
Provocation,
Emotion,
and
Gender.
Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299475243_Empathy_Inhibits_Agg
ression_in_Competition_The_Role_of_Provocation_Emotion_and_Gender
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and aggression in
five
year-olds.
Social
Development.
Retrieved
from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=z0fIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA
96&dq=Strayer,+J.,+%26+Roberts,+W.+(2004).+Empathy+and+observed+a
nger+and+aggression+in+five+yearolds.+Social+Development&source=bl&ots=LWTEidNvBh&sig=ACfU3U1
3NGLWWiT624BP43tvybS3VomePQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUreP
gx9jpAhW8L6YKHViHDu4Q6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=Straye
r%2C%20J.%2C%20%26%20Roberts%2C%20W.%20(2004).%20Empathy
%20and%20observed%20anger%20and%20aggression%20in%20five%20ye
ar-olds.%20Social%20Development&f=false
Susan M. Swearer, Shelley Hymel (2015). Understanding the Psychology of
Bullying Moving Toward a Social-Ecological Diathesis–Stress. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038929
Tremblay, R.E., & Nagin, D.S. (2005). The developmental origins of physical
aggression in humans. New York: The Guilford Press. Retrieved from
https://www.guilford.com/books/Developmental-Origins-of-Aggression/Tre
mblay-Hartup-Archer/9781593851101/contents
Williams, Y. (2015). True Experiment: Definition & Examples. Retrieved from
https://study.com/academy/lesson/true-experiment-definition-examples.html.
73
APPENDICES
74
APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM
75
REPULIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY
LIPA CITY, BATANGAS
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Consent Form
Good day!
We, the researchers, are conducting an experimental study entitled "The Effect of
Empathy Induction on Aggressive Behavior of Bully-Victims". The purpose of this
study is to investigate if empathy induction may affect the bully-victim’ aggressive
behavior. Thus, we are requesting for your permission to be our respondent.
In this experiment, the researchers will use empathy inducing films for the experimental
group's intervention. To assess the behavior of the respondents, a 20-item Aggression
Scale will be used in measuring the frequency of self-reported aggressive behaviors of
the participants. This scale will be administered for pre-test and post test. Post test will be
given 5 days after answering the pre-test.
We hope the information from this research will help us contribute in developing
interventions that will help decrease and regulate aggressive behaviors that leads to
violence.
We look forward to your outmost cooperation. Rest assured that all your responses will
be kept strictly confidential. You are free to decide not to participate in this study or to
withdraw if you think this study will be harmful to you.
If you check "Yes", it means you have decided to participate and have read everything in
this form. Thank you for your time.
Yes, I wil participate.
No, I will not participate.
Noted by:
SHELYN S. EXTRA RPm
Research Adviser
76
APPENDIX B
INSTRUMENTATION
77
Bully-Victim Survey Form
Bullying has been defined as a specific type of aggressive, interpersonal behavior that
involves intent to cause harm, occurs repetitively, and involves an imbalance of power.
Direction: In this survey, you will be asked to answer questions about aggression and
victimization. Please check the box/ boxes which fit your answer. Remember that all
answers will be treated confidentially.
Name: ____________________ (optional)
Age: _____
Gender:
Male
Female
A. Victimization
1.
Have you been bullied before?
Yes
2.
How often?
Most days
3.
No
One or more times a week
One or more times a month
Where have you been bullied? (Check all possible answer)
School
Home
Online
Others (please specify): _________________
4.
What type of bullying did you experience? (Check all possible answer)
Physical form- hit, kicked, tripped, and having things stolen
Verbal form- called nasty “names”, shouted at, insulted and been threatened
Indirect Form- having lies or rumours spread behind your back and being left
out from social groups
Other form (Please specify): ________________
78
B.
1.
Aggression
Did you bully anyone before?
Yes
2.
How often?
Most days
3.
No
One or more times a week
One or more times a month
Where did you bully him/ her? (Check all possible answer)
School
Home
Online
Others: (please specify): _________________
4.
How did you bully him/her? (Check all possible answer)
Physical form- hitting, kicking, tripping, and hiding things
Verbal form- call nasty “names”, shouted, insulted and threatened someone
Indirect Form- spread lies or rumours behind their back and left someone I
didn’t like.
Other forms (Please specify): ________________
79
Pre-Test
Aggression Scale
Name: __________________ (optional)
Age:_____
Gender: ______
These items measure the frequency of the aggressive behavior of the participants.
Directions: Please check the appropriate column that best represents how often you did
the following behaviors. Please answer the questions as honestly as possible.
Never
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
I mock or tease someone to piss them off.
I get irritated over little things.
I curse and swear a lot.
I insult someone by calling them mean “names.”
I yell or shout to release my frustration.
I fight back when someone hit me first.
I say things behind someone’s back.
I call someone stupid or “bobo” when they did
wrong.
9. I tell lies and make up stories that aren’t true.
10. I get mad easily.
11. I fight when I am provoked.
12. I poke, slap or push someone.
13. I blackmail or threaten someone.
14. I trip others just to make fun.
15. I hide someone’s belonging to trip him/her.
16. I broke things when I am mad.
17. I ignore people I don’t like anymore.
18. I give insulting or negative comments on
someone’s posts.
19. I send or post embarrassing photos without
permission.
20. I spread rumors and fake news online.
Sometimes
Often
Very
Often
80
Post Test
Aggression Scale
Name: __________________ (optional)
Age:_____
Gender: ______
These items measure the frequency of the aggressive behavior of the participants.
Directions: Please check the appropriate column that best represents how often you did
the following behaviors in the past 5 days. Please answer the questions as honestly as
possible.
In the past 5 days, how often did....
Never
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
I yell or shout to release my frustration.
I blackmail or threaten someone.
I spread rumors and fake news online.
I broke things when I am mad.
I say things behind someone’s back.
I trip others just to make fun.
I call someone stupid or “bobo” when they did
wrong.
8. I curse and swear a lot.
9. I mock or tease someone to piss them off.
10. I send or post embarrassing photos without
permission.
11. I hide someone’s belonging to trip him/her.
12. I fight back when someone hit me first.
13. I get irritated over little things.
14. I poke, slap or push someone.
15. I ignore people I don’t like anymore.
16. I insult someone by calling them mean “names.”
17. I tell lies and make up stories that aren’t true.
18. I fight when I am provoked.
19. I give insulting or negative comments on
someone’s posts.
20. I get mad easily.
Sometimes
Often
Very
Often
81
APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL
COMPUTATION
82
MEAN SCORES COMPUTATION
Control Group (PRETEST)
Very Often-3
Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Often-2
Sometimes-1
Never-0
O
1
1
1
1
3
3
0
1
0
2
1
2
1
4
3
2
3
0
0
0
S
5
5
5
5
3
2
5
3
4
4
3
3
0
2
3
2
2
3
4
1
N
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
1
5
0
0
2
1
3
2
5
OVERALL MEAN
MEAN
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.50
1.50
0.83
1.33
0.67
1.33
0.83
1.67
0.33
1.67
1.50
1.00
1.33
0.50
0.67
0.17
1.08
O
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
4
0
3
2
0
0
1
4
S
4
1
2
3
3
5
4
1
5
4
5
3
2
5
2
3
4
4
4
2
N
0
5
3
2
3
1
0
3
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
OVERALL MEAN
MEAN
1.33
0.17
0.67
0.83
0.50
0.83
1.33
0.83
0.50
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.67
0.83
1.33
1.17
0.67
0.67
1.00
1.67
0.96
Control Group (POST TEST)
Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
Experimental Group 1 (PRETEST)
Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VO
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
O
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
S
1
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
N
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
2
1
2
OVERALL MEAN
Mean Score
1.33
1.67
1.33
1.67
1.67
1.67
1.00
1.67
1.00
1.33
1.33
0.33
0.67
2.00
1.00
0.33
1.67
0.33
1.33
0.33
1.18
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
OVERALL MEAN
Mean Score
2.00
2.00
2.67
1.00
1.67
2.33
0.67
1.33
1.00
2.00
1.33
0.67
0.00
2.00
1.33
0.33
2.00
2.00
0.67
0.00
1.35
Experimental Group 2 (PRETEST)
Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VO
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
3
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
3
3
0
0
S
0
1
0
3
1
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
84
Experimental Group 1 (POST TEST)
Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
S
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
N
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
OVERALL MEAN
MEAN
0.67
0.00
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.33
1.00
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.67
1.00
0.33
1.00
0.43
S
3
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
3
2
2
N
0
3
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
OVERALL MEAN
Mean Score
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.67
1.67
1’.33
1.67
1.00
0.00
0.67
1.00
1.67
0.33
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.33
1.33
0.88
Experimental Group 2 (POST TEST)
ITEMS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VO
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
85
The scores were interpreted using Likert’s 4-point scale. The researchers rated
them using the numerical ratings and descriptions:
Mean Ranges
2.26-3.00
1.51-2.25
0.76-1.50
0.00-0.75
Scale
3
2
1
0
Verbal Interpretation
Very Often / Very high aggressive behavior
Often / High aggressive behavior
Sometimes / Low aggressive behavior
Never / Very low aggressive behavior
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
PRE TEST
CG
Mean
Standard Error
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Sample Variance
Kurtosis
Skewness
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Count
EG
1.0755
0.097865
1.17
1.17
0.437667
0.191552
-0.56166
-0.56377
1.5
0.17
1.67
21.51
20
Mean
Standard Error
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Sample Variance
Kurtosis
Skewness
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Count
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
CG
EG
1.0755
1.2415
0.191552 0.378908
20
20
0.28523
0
38
-0.9829
0.165936
1.685954
0.331873
2.024394
1.2415
0.137642
1.33
1.67
0.615555
0.378908
-1.18741
-0.41952
1.83
0.17
2
24.83
20
86
POST TEST
CG
Mean
Standard Error
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Sample Variance
Kurtosis
Skewness
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Count
EG
0.9585
0.087043
0.915
0.83
0.389268
0.151529
-0.17123
0.128672
1.5
0.17
1.67
19.17
20
Mean
Standard Error
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Sample Variance
Kurtosis
Skewness
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Count
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
CG
EG
0.9585 0.59105
0.151529 0.132979
20
20
0.142254
0
38
3.080817
0.001914
1.685954
0.003827
2.024394
0.59105
0.081541
0.665
0.33
0.364663
0.132979
-1.25282
-0.14986
1.17
0
1.17
11.821
20
87
PRE-TEST AND POST TEST
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
CONTROL GROUP
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
PRE
POST
1.0755
0.9585
0.191552368 0.151529
20
20
0.406619209
0
19
0.753950629
0.230060653
1.729132812
0.460121307
2.093024054
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
PRE
POST
1.2415 0.59105
0.378908 0.132979
20
20
-0.46841
0
19
3.423005
0.001426
1.729133
0.002852
2.093024
88
CURRICULUM VITAE
89
IRIS KATHLEEN S. DOMION
Tibagan, Siranglupa Calamba City, Laguna
Phone: 09611314822
iriskathleendomion@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth
Age
Place of Birth
Sex
Civil Status
Nationality
Religion
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
January 19, 2000
20
Calamba, Laguna
Female
Single
Filipino
Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Senior High School
Laguna College of Business and Arts
S.Y. 2016-2018
Junior High School
Majada In National High School
S.Y. 2014-2016
Little Jesus Learning Center
S.Y. 2012-2014
Elementary
Little Jesus Learning Center
S.Y 2006-2012
90
CHRISTINE M. GLORIENE
Brgy. Sampaguita, Lipa City
Phone: 09758534394
christinegloriene@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth
Age
Place of Birth
Sex
Civil Status
Nationality
Religion
: January 20, 2000
: 20
: Sampaguita, Lipa City
: Female
: Single
: Filipino
: Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Senior High School
LCC Silvercrest Senior High School
SY 2016 – 2018
Junior High School
Bolbok National High School
SY 2012 – 2016
Elementary
Bolbok Elementary School
SY 2006 – 2012
91
NIESHA MARIE L. LALIMAN
Manggas, Padre Garcia, Batangas
Phone: 09107673436
lalimannieshamarie@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth
Age
Place of Birth
Sex
Civil Status
Nationality
Religion
: September 16, 2000
: 19
: Manggas, Padre Garcia, Batangas
: Female
: Single
: Filipino
: Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Senior High School
Holy Family Academy
S.Y. 2016-2018
Junior High School
Pansol National High School
S.Y. 2012-2016
Elementary
Manggas-Tamak Elementary School
S.Y. 2005-2012
92
JEANNEN L. ONA
Brgy. Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas
Phone: 09551409201
onajeannen@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of birth
Age
Place of birth
Sex
Civil Status
Nationality
Religion
: Janaury 27, 2000
: 20
: Bacolod, Negros Occidental
: Female
: Single
: Filipino
: Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Senior High School
LCC Silvercrest Senior High School
SY 2016-2018
Junior High School
Inosloban National High School
SY 2012-2016
Elementary
Inosloban Marawoy Elementary School
SY 2006-2012
93
IAN PAOLO H. MANGOBOS
Brgy.10 Lipa City
Phone: 09058369160
imangobos@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth
Age
Place of Birth
Sex
Civil Status
Nationality
Religion
: March 12, 1998
: 22
: San Sebastian, Lipa City
: Male
: Single
: Filipino
: Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Secondary
Lodlod National High School
SY 2010-2013
Primary
G.B Lontok Memorial School
SY 2004-2009