Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data collected, the data analysis and the interpretation of the

said data. The data collected was established from the google forms given to High School

Students using a Likert scale type of questionnaire. The data was analyzed by the researchers

using the T- Test for Two Independent Groups which was used in table 3, and the One-Way

ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) which was mainly used in analyzing the data in this study. The

following data collected will be of great help in interpreting the study.

Hence, these are the following data that were collected; 1. Demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of; Age, and Sex; 2. Perceived level of Anti-Social behavior of the

respondents. The following are the data presented in sequence of the specific research problems

of the study.

Data Presentation:

Respondents No. of Respondents Percentage (%)

Male 69 68.3

Female 32 31.7

TOTAL 101 100

Table 2: Total Respondents of the Study based on their Sex

Since Don Bosco Technical Institute Tarlac is known for its all-boys school not until

Senior High School, the number of female respondents is fewer than the male respondents. A

total of 69 males (68.3%) and 32 females (31.7%) participated in this study. The respondents

came from the different grade levels and sections in the High School Department which includes

both the Senior and Junior High School students.

 Respondents No. of Respondents Percentage (%)

10-14 years old 29 28.7

15-17 years old 41 40.6

18 and above 31 30.7

TOTAL 101 100

Table 3: Total Respondents of the Study based on their Age

Unfortunately, the researchers were not able to gather 306 respondents due several

circumstances. Thus, it is suggested to at least collect 100 respondents if the sampling technique

to be used is a probability sampling technique. With that being said, there are a total of 101

respondents of both Senior and Junior High School students. Those 101 respondents consist of

29 respondents with the ages 10-14 (28%), 41 respondents with the ages 15-17 (40.6%) and 31

respondents with the ages 18 and above (30.7) who participated in this study. The respondents

came from different grade levels and sections in the High School Department which includes the

Junior and Senior High School students.

Statements Mean Mean2 Standard

Deviation

1.Urge to Commit Physical Harm 1.84 4.12 0.15

2.Easily Irritated 3.35 12.28 0.30

3.The type to retaliate physical harm 2.10 5.54 0.18

4.Threatened others 1.71 3.73 0.14

 5.Had trouble controlling temper 2.71 8.55 0.24

6.Swore or yelled at others 2.70 8.39 0.24

7.Satisfied when someone is hurt 1.52 3.05 0.12

8.Hurting someone intentionally 1.51 2.80 0.11

9.Getting Involved in Physical Fights 1.42 2.62 0.11

GWA 2.10 5.68 0.18

Table 4.1: General Weighted Average of Anti-Social Behavior in terms of Physical

Aggression

This table presents the General Weighted Average of Anti-Social Behavior in terms of

Physical Aggression.

As you can see on table 4.1, question number 2 “Easily Irritated” garnered the highest

mean, 3.35 with a standard deviation, 0.30. On the other hand, the lowest accumulated mean,

1.42, with a standard deviation, 0.11, was the question “Getting Involved in Physical Fights”.

With that being said, the total General Weighted Average of Anti-Social in terms of Physical

Aggression is 2.10 with a Standard Deviation of 0.18.

Statements Mean Mean2 Standard

Deviation

1. Blamed Others 2.19 5.73 0.19

2. Tried to hurt someone's feelings 1.94 4.73 0.17

3. Backstabbing 1.79 4.15 0.15

4. Spreading fake rumors 1.41 2.48 0.10

5. Silent treatment when you are angry with 2.98 10.84 0.28
 someone

6. Called other names 2.38 6.79 0.21

7. Disclosing someone's secret to others 1.45 2.67 0.11

8. Rude 2.12 5.45 0.18

9. Teasing someone because of physical appearance 1.61 3.28 0.13

GWA 1.98 5.12 0.17

Table 4.2: General Weighted Average of Anti-Social Behavior in terms of Social

Aggression

This table presents the General Weighted Average of Anti-Social Behavior in terms of

Social Aggression.

As you can see on table 4.2, question number 5 “Silent Treatment when you are angry

with someone” garnered the highest mean, 2.98 with a standard deviation, 0.28. On the other

hand, the lowest accumulated mean, 1.41, with a standard deviation, 0.10, was the question

“Spreading Fake Rumors”. With that being said, the total General Weighted Average of Anti-

Social in terms of Social Aggression is 1.98 with a Standard Deviation of 0.17.

Statements Mean Mean2 Standard

Deviation

1. Broke an empty building's windows 1.14 1.51 0.06

2. Littered in public areas 1.79 4.17 0.15

3. Getting things without paying for it 1.11 1.37 0.05

4. Stole something that is not yours 1.31 2.02 0.08

5. Staying outside even after curfew 1.52 3.21 0.13

 6. Was suspended or given sanctions for 1.33 2.50 0.11
misconduct from school
7. Had trouble keeping a job 1.29 2.08 0.09

8. Failed to pay debts 1.23 1.84 0.08

9. Loitering during class hours 1.36 2.33 0.10

GWA 1.34 2.34 0.09

Table 4.3: General Weighted Average of Anti-Social Behavior in terms of Rule Breaking

This table presents the General Weighted Average of Anti-Social Behavior in terms of

Rule-Breaking.

As you can see on table 4.3, question number 2 “Littered in public areas” garnered the

highest mean, 1.79 with a standard deviation, 0.15. On the other hand, the lowest accumulated

mean, 1.11, with a standard deviation, 0.05, was the question “Getting things without paying for

it”. With that being said, the total General Weighted Average of Anti-Social in terms of Physical

Aggression is 1.34 with a Standard Deviation of 0.09.

Data Analysis:

VALUES

alpha 0.05

p-value 0.92

t-stat 0.10

critical values 2

NULL HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

 AVERAGE

Male 1.81

Female 1.80

Table 5: T-test values for Male and Female

Since the p-value, 0.92 is greater than the alpha, 0.05, the Null Hypothesis must be

ACCEPTED. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the Sex and the Antisocial

Behavior of the respondents. Indeed, Men has the higher accumulated average, 1.81 which

makes them develop the antisocial behavior more frequent.

VALUES

alpha 0.05

p-value 0.45

f-value 0.79

f-crit 3.09

NULL HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

AVERAGE

Early Adolescence 1.71

Middle Adolescence 1.84

Late Adolescence 1.86

Table 6: F-test, One-way ANOVA values of the Stages of Adolescence

Since the p-value, 0.45 is greater than the alpha, 0.05, and the f-value, 0.79, is less than

the f-crit, 3.09, the Null Hypothesis must be ACCEPTED. Therefore, there is no significant
difference between the Stages of Adolescence and the Antisocial Behavior of the respondents.

Indeed, the antisocial behavior develops more often during the Late Adolescence which is 18

years old and above for it has the highest accumulated average of 1.86.

VALUES

alpha 0.05

p-value 0.88

f-value 0.13

f-crit 3.09

NULL HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

AVERAGE

Early Adolescence 2.07

Middle Adolescence 2.14

Late Adolescence 2.08

Table 7: F-test, One-way ANOVA values of the Anti-Social Behavior (Physical Aggression)

Since the p-value, 0.88 is greater than the alpha, 0.05, and the f-value, 0.13, is less than

the f-crit, 3.09, the Null Hypothesis must be ACCEPTED. Therefore, there is no significant

difference between the antisocial behavior under Physical Aggression to the Stages of

Adolescence. Indeed, people ages from 10-17 years’ old which is in the stage of Middle

Adolescence, tend to be Physically Abusive for they accumulated the highest average of 2.14
 VALUES

alpha 0.05

p-value 0.22

f-value 1.51

f-crit 3.09

NULL HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

AVERAGE

Early Adolescence 1.81

Middle Adolescence 2.04

Late Adolescence 2.08

Table 8: F-test, One-way ANOVA values of the Anti-Social Behavior (Social Aggression)

Since the p-value, 0.22 is greater than the alpha, 0.05, and the f-value, 1.51, is less than

the f-crit, 3.09, the Null Hypothesis must be ACCEPTED. Therefore, there is no significant

difference between the antisocial behavior under Social Aggression to the Stages of

Adolescence. Indeed, people ranging 18 and above which is under the stage of Late Adolescence

tend to be more Socially Aggressive for they obtained the highest accumulates average of 2.08.

VALUES

alpha 0.05

p-value 0.45

f-value 0.81
 f-crit 3.09

NULL HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

AVERAGE

Early Adolescence 1.26

Middle Adolescence 1.34

Late Adolescence 1.42

Table 9: F-test, One-way ANOVA values of the Anti-Social Behavior (Rule-Breaking)

Since the p-value, 0.45 is greater than the alpha, 0.05, and the f-value, 0.81, is less than

the f-crit, 3.09, the Null Hypothesis must be ACCEPTED. Therefore, there is no significant

difference between the antisocial behavior under Rule-Breaking to the Stages of Adolescence.

Indeed, people ranging 18 years old and above which is in the stage of Late Adolescence tend to

break the rules more often for they accumulated the highest average of 1.42.

VALUES

alpha 0.05

p-value 0

f-value 49.30

f-crit 3.03

NULL HYPOTHESIS REJECTED

 AVERAGE

Physical Aggression 2.10

Social Aggression 1.99

Rule-Breaking 1.34

Table 10: F-test, One-way ANOVA values of the significant difference of the categories under
Anti-Social Behavior
Since, the p-value, 0 is less than the alpha, 0.05, and the f-value, 49.30, is greater than the

f-crit, 3.03, the Null Hypothesis must be REJECTED. Therefore, there is a significant difference

between the categories under the Antisocial Behavior. Consequently, they may be different from

each other, but they all fall under one group which is the Anti-Social Behavior.