Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LOGO
Cyberaggression among primary school pupils in England and Spain
Claire P. Monks, Rosario Ortega, Susanne Robinson, Mónica Alfaro, Penny Worlidge
With funding from:University of Greenwich (England) and Proyectos de Excelencia (05-07-05 HUM2175) (Spain)
Definition and means of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying: Aggression carried out using electronic forms of contact Intentional Repeated Power imbalance
(Smith, et al., 2008; Ortega, Calmaestra y Mora-Merchán, 2008).
Rivers et al. (2011) cyberbullying can take a variety of forms; via phone calls, text or video/picture messages, via e-mail, in chatrooms, via instant messenger, ‘slambooks’ on social network sites, ‘griefing’ in online games, within virtual environments (e.g. Second Life) in blogs.
Levels of involvement in cyberbullying
UK: Smith et al. (2008) 6.6% of adolescents (11-
16y) surveyed reported being cyberbullied ‘often’ and 15.6% ‘once or twice’.
Spain: Ortega, et. al., (2008) approximately a quarter
of 12-16 year olds were victims of cyberbullying, 4% reported severe cybervictimisation.
Gender differences
Inconsistent findings regarding gender differences in roles in cyberbullying (Rivers et al., 2011)
No significant gender differences (Smith et al., 2008)
Li (2006) 11-14 year olds Cyberbullies: 22% of boys and 12% of girls. Cybervictims: 25% of boys and 26% of girls.
Types?
Links with traditional bullying
Juvonen & Gross (2008) most cybervictims knew their aggressor(s) from school
Raskauskas & Stoltz (2007) and Smith et al. (2008) found links between cyberbullying and traditional bullying among adolescents: Many cybervictims were also victims of
traditional bullying Many cyberbullies also bullied using traditional
methods
Guarini, Brighi & Genta (2009)
Use of ICT by children under 12 years High levels of internet access and mobile ownership in general
in both countries (e.g. INE, 2009; Bryon Review, 2008; MobileLife Report, 2006)
UK Children under 11 years are using the internet and mobile
phones (Byron Review, 2008 & MobileLife Report, 2006). Average age first going online 8 years (EU KidsOnline, 2010)
Spain Average age first going online 9 years (EU KidsOnline,
2010). 75.5% of homes in Spain have a mobile phone (INE, 2009)
Extent of involvement in cyberbullying
Little research has examined the nature and extent of cyberbullying among younger age groups.
UK: Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA, 2009) found that about 20% of 10-
11 year olds reported being cyberbullied. Similar levels were found among 7-11 year olds; 5% aggressors
and 23% victims (Monks et al., 2009).
Aims of current study
To examine: the prevalence of internet and mobile phone
use among 7-11 year olds the methods of aggression via the
internet/mobile phone which are most commonly reported among this age-range
how age, gender, country and involvement in ‘traditional’ aggression may be related to involvement in cyberaggression.
Method
Participants England: 220 participants (52.7% boys, 47.3%
girls) aged between 7 and 11 years of age (mean=9.67y, SD=1.34) were recruited from five primary schools in the South East of England
Spain: 1192 participants (51.7% boys and 48.3% girls) aged between 10 and 11 years of age (mean=10.50y, SD=0.50) were recruited from 15 primary schools in Andalucía, Southern Spain
Assessments Anonymous self-report questionnaire (Ortega
et al., 2007) was used to ask participants about:
• their use of ICT. • their experiences of aggression and
cyberaggression.
Procedure The questionnaires were administered to
participants in a large group setting.
Access to ICT by country
% own a mobile phone
% internet access at home
% internet access somewhere
England 67.00% (N=146)
92.90% (N=200)
95.90% (N=208)
Spain 72.30% (N=818)
68.50% (N=764)
84.70% (N=921)
Chi-square (1df)
2.57 50.80** 19.46**
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Involvement in cyberaggression
Victim via mobile phone
Victim via the internet
Aggressor via mobile phone
Aggressor via the internet
England 34.10% (N=75)
15.00% (N=33)
32.30% (N=71)
2.70% (N=6)
Spain 7.20% (N=80)
12.70% (N=136)
4.00% (N=43)
7.70% (N=81)
Total 11.00% (N=155)
12.00% (N=169)
8.1% (N=114)
6.2% (N=87)
45.5% (N=100) 35.0% (N=77)
16.1% (N=173) 9.50% (N=99)
19.3% (N=273) 12.5% (N=176)
Types of cyberaggression experienced
England Spain Total Chi-square (1df)
SMS 30.50% (N=67) 3.10% (N=34) 7.20% (N=101) 191.82**
MMS 4.10% (N=9) 1.60% (N=17) 1.80% (N=26) 6.01*
Calls 1.40% (N=3) 2.10% (N=23) 1.80% (N=26) 0.53
Email 6.40% (N=14) 3.70% (N=39) 3.80% (N=53) 3.33
Chatroom 3.60% (N=8) 2.40% (N=25) 2.30% (N=33) 1.20
Messenger 7.30% (N=16) 6.70% (N=71) 6.20% (N=87) 0.10
Website 2.30% (N=5) 1.20% (N=13) 1.30% (N=18) 1.45
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
SMS 30.50% (N=67) 3.10% (N=34) 7.20% (N=101) 191.82**
Messenger 7.30% (N=16) 6.70% (N=71) 6.20% (N=87) 0.10
Email 6.40% (N=14) 3.70% (N=39) 3.80% (N=53) 3.33
Factors predicting involvement in cyberaggression
4 Logistic Regressions performed to examine involvement in cyberaggression A) Victim via mobile phone B) Victim via the internet C) Aggressor via mobile phone D) Aggressor via the internet
Predictors: age, gender, country, involvement in traditional aggression
A) Victim via mobile phone
Model: 2א (4df) = 130.61, p<0.01 Country was a significant predictor Gender was a significant predictor Being a traditional victim was a significant
predictor
Wald (1df) Exp(B)
Age 0.02 1.02
Country 84.04** 7.08
Gender 10.57** 1.91
Victim (traditional) 15.77** 0.46
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
B) Victim via the internet
Model: 2א (4df) = 36.65, p<0.01 Age was a significant predictor Being a traditional victim was a significant
predictor
Wald (1df) Exp(B)
Age 6.68* 1.37
Country 2.59 1.45
Gender 0.07 1.05
Victim (traditional) 28.88** 0.38
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
C) Aggressor via mobile phone
Model: 2א (4df) = 169.66, p<0.01 Country was a significant predictor Gender was a significant predictor Being a traditional aggressor was a significant predictor
Wald (1df) Exp(B)
Age 2.49 0.85
Country 104.03** 14.87
Gender 8.73** 2.02
Aggressor (traditional) 18.77** 0.33
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
D) Aggressor via the internet
Model: 2א (4df) = 40.34, p<0.01 Gender was a significant predictor Being a traditional aggressor was a significant
predictor
Wald (1df) Exp(B)
Age 0.00 0.99
Country 3.34 0.42
Gender 5.70* 1.86
Aggressor (traditional) 23.60** 0.30
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Discussion
Children of upper primary school age (7-11 years) are using the internet and many have mobile phones
Some report involvement in cyberaggression via the internet and mobile phone.
The most common types of aggression reported by victims were similar: England: SMS, Messenger, Email Spain: Messenger, Email, SMS
Less common was aggression in Chatrooms, Calls, MMS and Websites
Country differences: The level of involvement and types of
cyberaggression appear to differ between countries
More pupils in England reported being victimised by mobile phone (SMS or MMS)
A significantly higher proportion of pupils in England reported being an aggressor or victim of aggression via mobile phone.
UNICEF (2006) and Monks et al. (2011)
Gender differences: Boys are more likely than girls to be
aggressors (Li, 2006) and more likely to be victims of aggression via mobile phone
Age differences: Older children were more likely to be victims
of aggression via the internet, perhaps due to their more extensive use of the medium.
Involvement in traditional aggression: There was a significant link between being a
‘traditional’ and ‘cyber’ aggressor and being a ‘traditional’ and ‘cyber’ victim.
These findings support those of Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) and Smith et al. (2008) and Guarini et al. (2009)
Limitations and Future Directions for Research
Examine gender differences in the specific types of cyberaggression used/experienced
Explore these issues across a broader age-range
Examine the issue of repetition of the behaviour
Implications
Other studies have found children this age find cyberaggression as hurtful/upsetting as traditional forms of aggression (e.g. Monks et al., 2009).
Work should begin early on teaching children how to stay safe on the internet.
Aggression via mobile phones should be addressed with primary school-aged pupils.
