Συνάντηση στη ΘεσσαλονίκηMeeting Thessaloniki

June 2011Spanish Team

R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

Comparison between T1 and T2 Daphne 2

Spanish TeamR. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

2. NEW VARIABLES

3. COMPARATIVE T1 & T2

4. CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

T1• 7 secondary schools.• 1671 students• Age (M): 14.45

T2• 5 secondary schools• 1106 students• Age (M): 14.41

Boys

49%Girl

s51%

Boys50%

Girls50%

1º E.S.O34%

3º E.S.O.26%

1º BACH40%

1º E.S.O32%

3º E.S.O.32%

1º BACH36%

2. NEW VARIABLESQUESTIONNAIRE NEW VARIABLE

1 I haven’t been involved Not Involved

2 Only one or twice Occasional

3 Two or three a month

Frequent4 About once a week

5 Several times a week or more

VICTIM

AGGRESSOR

Not Involved Occasional Frequent

Not Involved Bystander Occasional Aggressor

Frequent Aggressor

Occasional Occasional Victim

Occasional Bully/Victim

Frequent Aggressor

Frequent Frequent Victim

Frequent Victim

Frequent Bully/Victim

Victim Direct Bullying(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1485 939 2424% 89,3% 86,9% 88,4%AR 1,9 -1,9

Occasionalf 125 102 227% 7,5% 9,4% 8,3%AR -1,8 1,8

Frequentf 53 39 92% 3,2% 3,6% 3,4%AR -,6 ,6

[χ2 (2,2743) = 3.702, p>.05]

Bully Direct Bullying(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1475 961 2436% 88,9% 88,0% 88,5%AR ,7 -,7

Occasionalf 168 97 265% 10,1% 8,9% 9,6%AR 1,1 -1,1

Frequentf 17 34 51% 1,0% 3,1% 1,9%AR -4,0 4,0

[χ2 (2,2752) = 16.620, p<.001]

Victim Indirect Bullying(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1393 909 2302% 84,2% 83,5% 83,9%AR ,4 -,4

Occasionalf 205 140 345% 12,4% 12,9% 12,6%AR -,4 ,4

Frequentf 57 39 96% 3,4% 3,6% 3,5%AR -,2 ,2

[χ2 (2,2743) = .188, p>.05]

Aggressor Indirect Bullying(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1409 956 2365% 84,6% 87,4% 85,7%AR -2,0 2,0

Occasionalf 233 103 336% 14,0% 9,4% 12,2%AR 3,6 -3,6

Frequentf 23 35 58% 1,4% 3,2% 2,1%AR -3,3 3,3

[χ2 (2,2759) = 22.332, p<.001]

Victim Cyberbullying Mobil(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1574 1040 2614% 95,7% 94,5% 95,2%AR 1,5 -1,5

Occasionalf 61 50 111% 3,7% 4,5% 4,0%AR -1,1 1,1

Frequentf 9 11 20% ,5% 1,0% ,7%AR -1,4 1,4

[χ2 (2,2745) = 3.086, p>.05]

Aggressor Cyberbullying Mobil(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1577 1039 2616% 94,9% 95,4% 95,1%AR -,6 ,6

Occasionalf 69 39 108% 4,2% 3,6% 3,9%AR ,8 -,8

Frequentf 15 11 26% ,9% 1,0% ,9%AR -,3 ,3

[χ2 (2,2750) = .644, p>.05]

Victim Cyberbullying Internet(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1527 972 2499% 92,5% 88,3% 90,8%AR 3,7 -3,7

Occasionalf 103 106 209% 6,2% 9,6% 7,6%AR -3,3 3,3

Frequentf 21 23 44% 1,3% 2,1% 1,6%AR -1,7 1,7

[χ2 (2,2752 = 14.034, p<.001]

Aggressor Cyberbullying Internet(T1) 2008 (T2) 2011 TOTAL

Not Involvedf 1578 1019 2597% 95,4% 93,6% 94,7%AR 2,1 -2,1

Occasionalf 60 57 117% 3,6% 5,2% 4,3%AR -2,0 2,0

Frequentf 16 13 29% 1,0% 1,2% 1,1%AR -,6 ,6

[χ2 (2,2743) = 4.525, p>.05]

Occasional Victim

Occasional Aggressor

Occasional Bully/Victim

Frequent Victim

Frequent Aggessor

Frequent Bully/Victim

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

T1T2

Roles in Direct Bullying

[χ2 (6,2730) = 21.273, p<.01]

Occasional Victim

Occasional Aggressor

Occasional Bully/Victim

Frequent Victim

Frequent Aggessor

Frequent Bully/Victim

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

T1T2

Roles in Indirect Bullying

[χ2 (6,2734) = 24.856, p<.001]

Occasional Victim

Occasional Aggressor

Occasional Bully/Victim

Frequent Victim

Frequent Aggessor

Frequent Bully/Victim

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

T1T2

Roles in Cyberbullying Mobile

[χ2 (6,2721) = 3.720, p>.05]

Roles in Cyberbullying Internet

[χ2 (6,2725 = 15.543, p<.05]

Occasional Victim

Occasional Aggressor

Occasional Bully/Victim

Frequent Victim

Frequent Aggessor

Frequent Bully/Victim

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

T1T2

Ways of Cyberbulling

SMS

MMSCall

sEm

ails

Chat IM

Socia

l Netw

ork

File S

haring

Blogs0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

T1T2

+

+

**

**

***p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; + p<.1

Overlapping Traditional Bullying

Not Involved Direct Indirect Both0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

T1T2

[χ2 (3,2777 = 15.259, p<.01]

Overlapping Cyberbullying

Not Involved Mobile Internet Both0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

T1T2

[χ2 (3,2777 = 13.730, p<.01]

Overlapping Bullying (Both Types)

Not Involved Traditional Cyber Both0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

T1T2

[χ2 (3,2777 = 14.387, p<.01]

4. Conclusions

• Higher percentages of implication in T2 vs T1

– Direct traditional bullying: more occasional victims and frequent aggressors

– Indirect traditional bullying: less occasional aggressors and bully/victim, but more frequents aggressors

– Mobil Cyberbullying: no significant differences – Internet Cyberbullying: more occasional victims

4. Conclusions

• Ways of Cyberbullying are changing– From IM to Social Network

• More overlapping: – Traditional bullying: less indirect more both– Cyberbullying: more internet– Cyberbullying and Bullying: less only traditional,

more overlap