Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011 Spanish Team R....
-
Upload
kai-horrall -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011 Spanish Team R....
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
T1• 7 secondary schools.• 1671 students• Age (M): 14.45
T2• 5 secondary schools• 1106 students• Age (M): 14.41
Boys
49%
Girls
51%
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
s
sChat 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