sibra dct

Free Powerpoint Templates

Free Powerpoint TemplatesBRAVO, KEA KOKO D.SISON, LEIDI JAYN P.

Sison-Bravo Diphasic

ConformityTest

(SiBra DCT)

http://www.powerpointstyles.com/


Free Powerpoint TemplatesBRAVO | SISON



Although a variety of factors influences alcohol drinking among adolescents, peer pressure has emerged as one of the most powerful predictors of its initiation and maintenance (Riefman &Watson 2003; Wood et al., 2001). The compelling need to fit into and belong to a group of friends serves as a motivation. Lundborg (2006) found evidence that peer binge drinking increases probability that the adolescent also participates in binge drinking – 10 percentage point (pp) increase in share of peer binge drinking was associated with 2.3 pp higher likelihood of the adolescent to binge drink. Fletcher & Ross (2011) estimated that 10 pp in friends’ drinking increases individuals’ probability to drink by 2.8 pp.



Adolescents are especially prone to adopt peer attitudes and behaviors in college where socialization is typically peer-intensive. They lack frequent contact with parents, siblings, and other reference groups and institutions. Hence, peers become crucial in defining attitudes and behaviors. As Manski (2000) pointed out, the interaction of individuals with each other leads to correlated behavior – that is to perceive one’s world as the group does, to adopt peer group attitudes and to act in accordance with their expectations.



Theoretical Framework

The theory of reasoned action posits the view that intention (motivation) to perform a certain behavior is dependent on whether individuals evaluate the behavior as positive (attitude) and if they judge others as wanting them to perform the behavior (subjective norm). Thus, TRA suggests that the more favorable the adolescent’s attitude is towards the drinking behavior of her peers and the more favorable the subjective norm, the stronger is the potential of the intention (Fishbein, 1980).



Theoretical Framework

According to the differential association theory developed by Edwin Sutherland (1992), learning takes place according to the frequency, duration, intensity and priority of social interactions. Adolescents are likely to acquire attitudes favorable to alcohol use if they associate frequently with others who use alcohol and have favorable attitudes towards alcohol use. Learning is more likely to occur when interactions are intense as opposed to casual and superficial. If those interactions occur over a long period of time, internalization of pro-alcohol attitudes and behaviors is more likely than if the duration of interactions is over a short period of time.



RationaleThe researchers want to know the

prevalence of conformity among their fellow dormers in Mary’s House. The researchers also recognize the concern of developing a diagnostic tool that measures conformity and is culturally grounded. Moreover, the researchers aim to determine how they mix with (pakikisalamuha) their roommates as well as other dormers given that all of them have different personalities, different schools, different courses and different ethnicity.



In a broader perspective, the involvement of adolescents in alcohol use is associated with three things. First, it is linked with an array of other health risk behaviors including cigarette smoking, illicit drug use, and sexual behavior (Domingo & Marquez, 1999). Second, alcohol use increases the risks for adolescents of negative health and social outcomes such as physical and sexual assault, motor vehicles crasher, school dropout, pregnancy and STDs. Third, alcohol use in adolescents is associated with greater likelihood of alcohol problems later in life. To reduce these risks, it is critical to develop a better understanding of the risk factors especially the role of peers because of its strong impact in adolescent behavior.

Rationale



Significance of the Study

Measuring conformity among dormers would give ideas to people who are planning to live in a dormitory and alike on how to makitungo, makisalamuha, makilahok, makibagay and makisama. It also serves as a guide to build Smooth Interpersonal Relationship.



It intends to measure…

BRAVO | SISON

CONFORMITY

is the participants’ susceptibility or resistance to influence of peers.

Using a 12-item Likert scale, it can be categorized as (0) absent with a

score below 25 and (1) present with a score of 25 and above.



Conceptual Framework

BRAVO | SISON

Peer Pressure Conformity

• first-time drinker• authoritarian

parenting• exclusive high

school



Observations

• Since they live in a dorm, it is necessary to mix in.

• Dormers, especially roommates, are sensitive to the attitudes and behaviors of their fellow dormers.



Feasibility

The scale is a paper and pencil test that gives out profile of conformity behavior posing minimal risk to the respondents. It consists of 12 items which will be measured through a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. It takes 5-10 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Meanwhile, the experiment is an unstructured test with minimum effort from the respondents.



Methodology

The study used a quantitative research design. An experiment and a survey were conducted in Mary’s House Dormitory located at 1806 A. Vasquez St., cr. Nakpil St., Malate, Manila. The sample for the study was purposively selected among adolescent girls aged 16-19 years. Prescreening of the prospective study participants eliminated those individuals who (1) are first time drinkers; (2) have authoritarian parents and; (3) attended exclusive high school. If the adolescent appeared to fit the inclusion criteria, she was considered to participate in the experiment and the survey.



Methodology

Over the course of data collection, only 30 respondents out of 50 proceeded to the experiment, representing a 60% response rate. 6 were found to be first-time drinkers, 6 attended exclusive high school, and 8 have authoritarian parents.

A self-developed, self-administered questionnaire followed the experiment. It consisted of multiple choice questions; yes/no items and; items measuring conformity on a 4-point Likert scale.



Methodology

Pre-coding was done by the researchers where values are assigned that corresponds to each item. Data gathered were encoded in MS Excel and were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17. Point-biserial correlation was used to determine significant associations between the scores in the conformity scale and the responses in the experiment.



Methodology

Prior the experiment, the researchers did not ask for informed consent due to the purpose of determining the individual’s decisional capacity. However, the objectives, the methods used, the possible outcome and the consequence of participating in the study were explained before answering the questionnaire. If questions were threatening to respondents, they had the freedom not to answer or withdraw from the study. Information gathered was kept confidential and anonymity was assured.



Picture 1. Informed consent



Ask to compare Drink A and B

• Gusto mo?• Sige na.• Tikim lang

naman.

AGREE

DISAGREE

• first-time drinker• authoritarian

parenting• exclusive high• school

NOT FITFIT

EXCLUDEDQUESTIONNAIRE

FLOW OF DATA COLLECTION



Picture 2. Items used to measure conformity



Scoring and Interpretation

Responses obtained in the experiment were assigned values where “disagree” was coded as (0) and agree as (1).

In the survey, responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree and (4) strongly agree. The mean of the total scores (μ = 25) was computed then compared to the individual scores of the respondents. If the individual score was below 25 (x < 25), it was interpreted as absence of conformity. If the score ranged from 25 and above (x > 25), it indicated presence of conformity.



Response Code

Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Agree 3

Strongly Agree 4

BRAVO | SISON

Response Code

Disagree 0

Agree 1

Table 1. Code for experiment

Table 2. Code for scale



Results and Discussion

Adolescent dormers were 17.9 years old on average and most have family income of more than P100, 000 a month.

Age%

(n=30)

171819

36.736.726.7

Table 3. Age of participants in %

SES%

(n=30)Below P10,000P10,000 – P25,000P25,001- P50,000P50,001-P100,000Above P100,000

6.723.310.016.743.3

Table 4. Socio-economic status of participants in %




Half of the respondents showed presence of conformity while the other half showed absence.

% (n=30)

AbsentPresent

5050

Table 5. Percent of respondents and their presence/absence of conformity




In the experiment, one-third of the respondents disagreed to drink the alcoholic beverage offered to them while the remaining 2/3 agreed.

Responses%

(n=30)

DisagreeAgree

33.366.7

Table 6. Percent of respondents and their responses to drink alcohol



Validity

I. Conformity Scale

Content Validity

1. Does each item pertain to one aspect of the construct (content relevance)?

2. Is the domain covered by atleast 5 items (content coverage)?

3. Was this assessed by a panel of experts?



Validity

II. Experiment

Criterion-related Validity

How well do the results correlate with other similar measures of the construct (concurrent validity)?



Reliability

I. Conformity Scale

The internal consistency of the whole scale has a good correlation 0.664 as analyzed by the Cronbach’s Alpha.

Table 7. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items

N of

Items

.664 .652 12



Reliability

I. Conformity Scale

Table 8. Inter-item correlation matrix from C1-C6 listwise

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12

C1 1.000 .041 .038 -.092 .149 .370 -.204 .028 .219 -.169 -.107 -.150

C2 .041 1.000 .584 .034 .386 .239 .075 .173 .529 .403 .412 .299

C3 .038 .584 1.000 .031 .355 .126 -.139 .159 .104 .084 .160 .046

C4 -.092 .034 .031 1.000 -.124 -.154 .085 -.117 -.026 .023 -.156 .093

C5 .149 .386 .355 -.124 1.000 .248 .183 .340 -.042 .377 .574 .402

C6 .370 .239 .126 -.154 .248 1.000 -.340 -.117 .286 -.327 -.223 -.093



Reliability

I. Conformity Scale

Table 9. Inter-item correlation matrix of C7-C12 listwise

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12

C7 -.204 .075 -.139 .085 .183 -.340 1.000 .103 .172 .361 .393 .069

C8 .028 .173 .159 -.117 .340 -.117 .103 1.000 .068 .140 .388 .125

C9 .219 .529 .104 -.026 -.042 .286 .172 .068 1.000 .149 .102 .038

C10 -.169 .403 .084 .023 .377 -.327 .361 .140 .149 1.000 .728 .545

C11 -.107 .412 .160 -.156 .574 -.223 .393 .388 .102 .728 1.000 .444

C12 -.150 .299 .046 .093 .402 -.093 .069 .125 .038 .545 .444 1.000



ReliabilityI. Conformity Scale

Table 10. Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedC1 23.50 15.707 -.006 .262 .690C2 23.37 12.861 .657 .704 .592C3 22.37 14.309 .273 .524 .649C4 22.33 16.161 -.073 .151 .691C5 23.50 13.638 .597 .700 .612C6 23.33 16.023 -.042 .617 .687C7 22.00 14.483 .195 .449 .662C8 22.57 13.564 .267 .282 .653C9 23.03 13.689 .300 .565 .645C10 22.87 12.120 .512 .683 .600C11 22.73 11.375 .608 .718 .576C12 23.40 13.766 .383 .436 .632



ReliabilityII. Experiment

Table 11. Correlation of Scores in the conformity scale and responses in the experiment

Score Response

Score

Pearson Correlation 1 .626**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

Response

Pearson Correlation .626** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).



ReliabilityII. Experiment

V 51 = scoresV53 = responses



ReferencesAjzen, L., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Fletcher, J. M., & Ross, S. L. (2011). Estimating the effects of friendship networks on health behaviors of adolescents. New Haven, CT.Lundborg, P. (2006). Having the wrong friends? Peer effects in adolescent substance use. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 214-33. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.02.001Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Evanston, IL.Reifman A., & Watson K. (2003). Binge drinking during the first semester of college. Journal of American College Health, 52, 73–81Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1992). Principles of Criminology (11th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.


sibra dct

Documents

alcohol use inadolescents

tocorrelated behavior

behavior subjectivenorm

adoptpeer attitudes

attitudes andbehaviors

performa certain behavior

peer groupattitudes

theinvolvement of adolescents