Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Using a virtual role-play environment to reduce bullying in primary schools: The FearNot! evaluation Moral Disengagement University of Wuerzburg Natalie.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Using a virtual role-play environment to reduce bullying in primary schools: The FearNot! evaluation Moral Disengagement University of Wuerzburg Natalie."— Presentation transcript:

1 Using a virtual role-play environment to reduce bullying in primary schools: The FearNot! evaluation Moral Disengagement University of Wuerzburg Natalie Vannini & Wolfgang Schneider Supported by the EU Framework VI under IST STP

2 Moral Disengagement - MD MD refers to socio-cognitive processes through which the average person is able to commit horrible acts against others (Bandura 1999, 2002) Four major psychological mechanisms: –cognitive restructuring of harmful behaviour –obscuring or minimizing one’s role in causing harm –disregarding or distorting the impact of harmful behaviour –blaming and dehumanizing the victim MD Scale (Hymel et al, 2005) including 11 items (plus Example item), i.e. –“Some kids get bullied because they deserve it.“ –“Getting bullied helps to make people tougher.”

3 MD Questionnaire

4 MD Analyses of Scale Factor analysis (principal components, varimax rotation) on the 17 moral disengagement items –failed to differentiate the four categories of moral disengagement concept. –Instead most items (11 items*) loaded on a single factor (explained 35,5% of the variance). Cronbach´s alpha = (assessment 1-3) Moral disengagement score = mean of the 11 items (  higher scores = higher level of MD) *items: 01,03,04,05,09,10,11,13,14,15,17

5 MD & Total Longitudinal Sample Longitudinal sample = 916/1129 (81,1%) –443 in the intervention group –473 in the control group children UK sub-sample = 500 German sub-sample = 416 Mean age overall: 8,89 years (SD=0.74) –Mean age sig. higher for UK pupils than German pupils: 9.36 (SD= 0.53) vs 8.34 (SD=0.55) years (F[1,909] = 793.9; p <.001).

6 MD & Total Sample: Gender & Bullying Roles: Means & SD –Includes baseline MD as a covariate GroupNMeans.d. Bullies Girls Boys Total Victims Girls Boys Total Non-Involved Girls Boys Total Bully-Victims Girls Boys Total

7 MD Effects of Gender & Bullying Roles Sig. main effect for the Bullying Roles –(F [3,871]=11.70, p<.001); Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni comparisons): Bullies significantly higher level of MD than victims and non-involved children Bully-victims significantly higher level of MD than victims and non-involved children Sig. main effect for Gender –Girls scored significantly lower than boys. (F[1,871] =18.90 p<.001) No interaction effect for Roles x Gender UK children sig. higher level of MD than German children –(1,43 vs 1,33; t= 4.87 p <.001)

8 MD & Intervention: Results Total Sample –Includes baseline MD as a covariate GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 914)=2.25, p=.134. –Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 914)=3.04, p=.048. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 914)=0.315, p=.730.

9 MD & Intervention: Girls Sub- sample –Includes baseline MD as a covariate GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 435)=0,335, p=.563. –Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 435)=3,227, p=.040. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 435)=0,446, p=.640.

10 MD & Intervention: Boys Sub- sample –Includes baseline MD as a covariate GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –Sig. main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 477)=7.180, p=.008. –No within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 477)=0.653, p=.521. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 477)=0,313, p=.731.

11 MD & Intervention: German Sub- sample –Includes baseline MD as a covariate GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 414)=0.170, p=.680. –No within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 414)=2,858, p=.058. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 414)=1.554, p=.213.

12 MD & Intervention: UK Sub- sample –Includes baseline MD as a covariate GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –Sig. main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 498)=6,451, p=.011. –No within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 498)=0.686, p=.504. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 498)=.212, p=.809.

13 MD & Intervention: Conclusions Total Sample No significant effect of intervention for total sample –MD decreases in both groups –Overall, control group scores lower than intervention group scores Bullies scored higher at baseline than victims and non-involved children –Further analysis with bully sub-sample

14 Moral Disengagement & Bully Sub-sample Baseline Bullies (self-report) MD Sample = 58 / 916 (6,3%) –25 in the intervention group –33 in the control group children –28 males & 30 females UK sub-sample = 54 German sub-sample = 4 Mean age: 9,26 years (SD=0.61)

15 MD & Intervention: Results Bully Sub-sample GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 56)=.003, p=.956 –No within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 56)=1.930, p=.150. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 56)=.1,980, p=.143.

16 MD & Intervention: Conclusions Bully Sub-sample No significant effect of intervention for bully sub- sample –Trend: MD decreases more for intervention group bullies

17 Intervention & sub-scale “Blaming the victim” Intention of FearNot!: (among others) changing attitude and promoting empathy towards victims of bullying MD-Scale is composed of a Bullying/ Victim Attitude Questionnaire (see Hymel et al study) “Blaming the victim” sub-scale: items plus item 10 (“Some children need to be picked on just to teach them a lesson”) –Hymel et al subcategorised item 10 under “distorting of negative consequences” but theoretically and statically (factor analysis) it also fits under “blaming the victim” sub-scale Factor Analysis (principal components): one factor explaining 29,3% of the variance Conbach´s alpha: AS1=.59; AS2=.68; AS3=.72

18 BV Sub-scale & Intervention: Results Total Sample GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 911)=.024, p=.877 –No within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 911)=1.258, p=.284. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 911)=..240, p=.787.

19 BV Sub-scale & Intervention: Results Bully Sub-Sample GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 56)=.0.701, p=.406 –Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 56)=3,333, p=.039. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 56)=..1,082, p=.342.

20 BV Sub-scale & Intervention Conclusions No significant effect of intervention for total sample Sig. change over time for both bully sub-samples: –Intervention group bullies: BV mean decreases –Control group bullies: BV mean increases at 2nd and decreases at 3rd Assessment

21 MD Summary I Total Sample at baseline: –Bullies sig. higher level of MD than victims and non- involved children –Boys sig. higher level of MD than girls –UK children sig. higher level of MD than German children Total Sample & Intervention: –No significant effect of intervention on MD score Sub-samples Gender & Intervention –No significant effect of intervention on MD score –Girls MD level decreases over time; interesting pattern: interv. group MD scores decrease after FN!- intervention; control group MD scores decrease from post- to follow-up test –Boys of intervention group sig. higher level of MD than control group boys

22 MD Summary II Sub-samples Country & Intervention –No significant effect of intervention on MD score –UK- sample: Control group lower level of MD than intervention group Sub-Sample Bullies & Intervention –No significant effect of intervention on MD level for bully sub-sample Interesting trend: MD decreases more for intervention group bullies Total Sample & Sub-scale “Blaming the victim” –No significant effect of intervention on `negative attitudes towards victims`

23 MD Summary II Sub-Sample Bullies & Sub-scale “Blaming the victim” –No significant effect of intervention on `negative attitudes towards victims` for bully sub-sample –Sig. change over time for both bully sub-samples: Intervention group bullies: BV mean decreases Control group bullies: BV mean increases at 2nd and decreases at 3rd Assessment

24 Using a virtual role-play environment to reduce bullying in primary schools: The FearNot! evaluation Moral Disengagement Results part Two Uni Wuerzburg

25 Results MD part two Overview Overview: Slides 3-9: –Analyses of Moral Disengagement (MD) score and “Blaming the Victim” (BV) subscale score regarding FN! intervention within the (self reported) Bully sub sample Bully sample: this time focus on self reported bully status regardless of any other self reported status, in other words this bully sub sample include also actually (self reported) “bully-victims” Slides 10 – 21 –Analyses of MD score and BV sub scale score regarding FN! intervention within two peer nominated bully sub samples Sample 1: peer nominated pure bully sub sample Sample 2: peer nominated bully ( regardless of any other nomination in any other category) sub sample

26 Baseline: MD Mean Differences & Bullying roles (self-report) Baseline Roles NMD Mean s.d. Bullies Victims Non-Involved Total Sig. main effect for the Bullying Roles –(F [2,871]=14.41, p<.001); Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni comparisons): Bullies significantly higher level of MD than victims and non-involved children (p=.05)

27 Baseline: MD Mean Differences & Bullying roles (self-report)

28 Baseline: Blaming the Victim (BV) sub scale & Bullying roles (self-report) Baseline Roles NBV sub scale Mean s.d. Bullies Victims Non-Involved Total Sig. main effect for the Bullying Roles –(F [2,870]=14.64, p<.001); Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni comparisons): Bullies significantly higher level of MD than victims and non-involved children (p=.05)

29 Baseline: Blaming the Victim (BV) sub scale & Bullying roles (self-report)

30 MD MEAN & Intervention: Results Bully (self report) Sub-Sample GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 108)=.0.551, p=.460 –Non Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 108)=0.855, p=.427. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 108)= , p=.630.

31 BV Sub-scale & Intervention: Results Bully (self-report) Sub-Sample GroupNMeans.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 108)=.0.005, p=.946 –No sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 108)=1.091, p=.338. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 108)= , p=.911.

32 BV Sub-scale & Intervention: Results Bully (self-report) Sub-Sample

33 MD & Bullying – Bullying roles peer nomination Longitudinal sample = 916/1129 (81,1%) –443 in the intervention group –473 in the control group children UK sub-sample = 500 German sub-sample = 416 Mean age overall: 8,89 years (SD=0.74) Bullying roles by peer nomination: – to account for the different class sizes children were classified as bully/ victim/ bully-victim/ defender or non-involved children who were nominated one SD above the mean nomination within the class : at baseline: 69 (7,5%) pure bullies; 99 (10,8%) pure victims; 54 (5,9%) bully-victims; 64 (7,0%) defenders; 630 (68,8%) non-involved children

34 Baseline: MD Mean Differences & Bullying roles (peer-nomination) Sig. main effect for Bullying Roles (peer nomination) –(F [2,915]=2.593, p=.035); Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni comparisons): Bullies significantly higher level of MD than non- involved children (p=.05)

35 MD MEAN & Intervention: Results pure Bully (peer nomination) Sub-Sample GroupNMD Means.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 67)=.3.331, p=.074 –No Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 67)=0,392, p=.677. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 67)= , p=.897.

36 Baseline: Blaming the Victim (BV) sub scale & Bullying roles (peer nomination) Baseline Roles NBV sub scale Mean s.d. Pure Bullies Bully-Victim Pure Victims Pure Defender Non-Involved Total No Sig. main effect for the Bullying Roles (peer nomination) –(F [4,915]=1,184, p=.316)

37 BV Sub-scale & Intervention: Results pure Bully (peer nomi) Sub-Sample GroupNBV sub scale Mean s.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 67)=.1.699, p=.197 –No sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2, 67)=0.691, p=.503. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 67)= , p=.732.

38 Baseline: MD MEAN & Bullying roles (peer nomination) Baseline Roles NMD Mean s.d. Bullies Victim Defender Non-Involved Total Sig. main effect for the Bullying Roles (peer nomination) –(F [3,915]=3.281, p=.020); Post hoc analyses (Bonferroni comparisons): Bullies significantly higher level of MD than non- involved children (p=.05)

39 MD MEAN & Intervention: Results Bully (peer nomination) Sub-Sample GroupNMD Means.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 121)=.2.225, p=.138 –No Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2,121 )=0,447, p=.640. –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 121)= , p=.804.

40 Baseline: BV sub scale & Bullying roles (peer nomination) Baseline Roles NBV sub scale Mean s.d. Bullies Victim Defender Non-Involved Total No Sig. main effect for the Bullying Roles (peer nomination) –(F [3,915]=1,571, p=.195)

41 BV sub scale & Intervention: Results Bully (peer nomination) Sub-Sample GroupNBV subscale Mean s.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 121)=.726, p=.396 –No Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2,121 )=1,134 p=.323 –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 121)= , p=.390.

42 Peer nominated intervention bullies & Sub samples UK and Germany Even though it is not significant –As the former slides shows descriptively the mean score of MD as well as of the “blaming the victim” (BV) sub scale of the peer nominated intervention bullies (either pure [N=69] or not pure [N=123]) increases (extremely) at post and (somewhat) at follow-up –Analysing both bully sub sample (UK [N=82] and Germany [N=41]) separately regarding “Blaming the victim” (BV) subscale & intervention, also no sig. effects of intervention neither within the UK nor the German sub sample (see next two slides) –But as the mean of BV subscale will be compared between UK and Germany intervention bullies there is no sig difference at baseline [t(50)=1,619, p=.112] but at post test the UK intervention bullies (M=1,86; SD.40; N=34) scored sig higher than the German intervention bullies (M=1,55; SD=.51; N=18) [t(50)=2,437, p=.018] and at follow-up UK interv. Bullies (M=1,80; SD= 47, N=34) score sig. Higher than German interv. Bullies (M=1,49, SD=49;N=18); [t(509=2,288, p=.026] –As the mean of MD Scale will be compared between UK and German intervention bullies there is no sig differences at any of the assessment time points; only descriptive the UK bullies score higher at post and follow-up than the German intervention bullies

43 German sub sample –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 39)=0,984, p=.327 –No Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2,39 )=0,011 p=.989 –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 39)= , p=.577. GroupNBV MEANs.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total

44 UK sub sample –No between groups main effect of ‘Group’, F(1, 80)=0,316, p=.575 –No Sig. within subjects main effect of ‘Time’, F(2,80 )=1,775 p=.173 –No interaction effect of Group vs Time, F(2, 80)=..2,572, p=.080. GroupNBV MEANs.d. Baseline Intervention Control Total Post-Test Intervention Control Total Follow-up Test Intervention Control Total


Download ppt "Using a virtual role-play environment to reduce bullying in primary schools: The FearNot! evaluation Moral Disengagement University of Wuerzburg Natalie."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google