Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CYBERPRZEMOCI STRATEGIE JEJ PRZECIWDZIAŁANIA
Jacek PyżalskiBullying & Cyberbullying – the representative study of
Polish adolescents.
Info on CAN project.
We CAN! – Cyberbullying Action Network for Parents’
Education
Partners
Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Poland
MYKOLO ROMERIO UNIVERSITY, Lithuania
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Vocational Education Centre, Greece
IFOS – Istituto di formazione sardo – Training postgraduate courses in clinic criminology and legal psychology, Italy
Background
A lot of cyberbullying incidents outside educational settings
Not reporting incidents – as in traditional bullying
Lack of knowledge in specific situations
Need to cooperate with teachersDigital gap
Main aim
helping and educating parents to deal with cyberbullying, to help their children and pupils to be safe in cyberspace. These adult learners - parents with low competence according to cyberbullying – is target groups of our educational activities.
Electronic aggression
• Electronic aggression - general term covering all hostile acts when ICT (Internet&mobile phones) are used as a tool (David-Ferdon, Feldman Herz, 2007; Pyżalski, 2009)
• New tools: what does it mean
6
New quality?
• Publication
• Invisible audience (D. Boyd)• Persistence
• Psychological mechanism: e.g. disinhibition
• …but only potentially
7
Technologies
• Sending unpleasant text privately or publicly
• Happy slapping
• Outing
• Impersonation
• Exclusion
• Traditional bullying Olweus – regular, imbalance of power, intentional
• Different understanding of those features• Different severity of the actsConsequences: similar as in traditional bullying
(depression, low self-esteem, etc)
Cyberbullying – peer aggression
Representative sample of Polish adolescents (15 y.o)
• N=2143• Prevalance and consequences
11
Grant MNISW Cyberbullying jako mowa forma agresji rówieśniczej wśród gimnazjalistów
PerpetrationWho was the victim? %
Peopleknown only from the Internet 42,5Known peers (from school) 39Close friends 26,8Random people 24,2Groups 15,8
Former partner 16,9Other people (homeless, disabled) 10,8Celebrieties 11,1Teachers 9
Cyberbullying%
boys%
girls% all
Not involved 65,8 68,7 67,1
Perpetrator 22,8 16,4 19,5
Victim 5,1 7,8 6,6
Bully-victim 6,3 7,1 6,8
J. Pyżalski/Grant MNiSW Cyberbullying jako mowa forma agresji rówieśniczej wśród gimnazjalistów/WSP w Łodzi
Slected influencing factors
Perpetrators and victims – dysfunctional Internet use
Bullies and bully-victims – more conflicts in the family
Victims – lower SES
Selected influencing factorsBullies and bully-victims – lower pro-school attitude
Bullies and victims – exhausted by learning
Bullies and victims – lower grades
Bullies – pro-violence peer group
Bullies and victims – no friends
Bullies and bully-victims – no online norms at school and in a family
Selected influencing factors
Important
Only 9% of vivtims reported the proopblem to teachers and 29% to parents
37% of the respondents have sent something as a joke that ended up a suffering for other people
What to do in family context
Knowledge
Positive Internet use – together!
Norms and resonable control
Technical solutions
