1. DAPHNE II Questionnaire Bologna Team Thessaloniki, 20-21 June 2011

2. 2 BOLOGNA TEAM COORDINATORS - Maria Luisa Genta - Antonella Brighi - Annalisa Guarini STAFF - Sandra Nicoletti (researcher) - Pia Colangelo (researcher) - Silvia Galli (advice for statistical analyses)

3. METHOD: participants GENDER First data collection Second data collection Male102453%74547% Female92147%83353% First data collection (2007-2008): 1964 questionnaires Second data collection (2010-2011): 1641 questionnaires 3 χ 2 (1, N=3523)=10.30, p=.001

4. AGE 4 First data collection Second data collection 12 years69535%52832% 14 years68935%31319% 16 years58030%47529% 18 years30319% METHOD: participants

5. LIVING LOCATION First data collection Second data collection Large city63132%38624% Town74738%83351% Village/rural community57029%40425% 5 χ 2 (2, N=3571)=62.94, p<.001 First data Collection Second data collection Yes583%188297% No503%156197% DISABILITY χ 2 (1, N=3551)=0.04, p=.844 METHOD: participants

6. FATHER’S EDUCATION First data Collection Second data collection Primary49026%37024% Secondary88647%77249% High education50527%41827% 6 χ 2 (2, N=3441)=2.87, p<.239 First data Collection Second data collection Primary46324%29919% Secondary92948%85553% High education54328%44328% χ 2 (2, N=3532)=16.31, p<.001 MOTHER’S EDUCATION

7. METHOD: the questionnaire Used an anonymous self-report questionnaire Questionnaires were carried out in a school setting, during school time and with teacher and researcher supervision Three sections: I: about you II: about your school III: about bullying and cyberbullying

8. I SECTION: about you Self esteem: Revised version of Melotti & Passini, 2002. Included six measures of self esteem: global, sport, school, body, peers and family. Loneliness: Adapted from Melotti, 2006, included four measures of loneliness related to: –Parents – closeness to family –Peers – closeness to friends, members of their peer group –Aversion – how much participants like/dislike being alone –Affinity – how participants feel about being alone METHOD: the questionnaire

9. II SECTION: about school Eight questions relating to school climate III SECTION: About bullying and cyberbullying Based on existing questionnaire developed by Smith et al (2005), shortened and adapted by Ortega (2006). Includes questions on involvement in four types of bullying: direct, indirect, through mobiles and through the internet METHOD: the questionnaire

10. RESULTS TECHNOLOGIES ACCESSIBILITY 10 First data collection Second data collection Owns a mobile185996%123696% Internet access163583%125095% Internet in own bedroom94948%77359% Internet access χ 2 (1, N=3273)=100.49, p<.001, increase Internet in own bedroom χ 2 (1, N=3273)=33.57, p<.001, increase

11. RESULTS SCHOOL CLIMATE 11 First data collection Second data collection YesNoYesNo 1. Do you feel that your school is a happy and caring school? 84%16%88%12% 2. Do you feel safe at school? 89%11%92%8% 3. Does your school care for and support pupils who are worried? 81%19%85%15% 4. Does your school seek and listen to the opinions of pupils? 85%15%86%14% Question 1 χ 2 (1, N=3170)=10.32, p=.001, increase Question 2 χ 2 (1, N=3106)=7.28, p=.007, increase Question 3 χ 2 (1, N=3091)=6.49, p=.011, increase

12. RESULTS SCHOOL CLIMATE 12 First data collection Second data collection YesNoYesNo 5. Do you have good relationships with most of the teachers in your school? 87%13%89%11% 6. Do you trust most adults in your school? 79%21%82%3% 7. Do you have good relationships with other students in your class? 97%3%97%15% 8. Do you have good relationships with the other students in your school? 93%7%95%5% Question 6 χ 2 (1, N=3114)=3.99, p=.046, increase

13. RESULTS DIRECT BULLYING 13 First data collection Second data collection Not involvedOccasionalSevereNot involvedOccasionalSevere Victims85%11%4%89%7%4% Bullies85%11%4%90%7%3% Bystanders49%34%17%58%30%13% Victims χ 2 (2, N=3263)=13.54, p=.001, decrease Bullies χ 2 (2, N=3248)=20.00, p<.001, decrease Bystanders χ 2 (2, N=3256)=25.31, p<.001, decrease

14. RESULTS INDIRECT BULLYING 14 First data collection Second data collection Not involvedOccasionalSevereNot involvedOccasionalSevere Victims77%16%7%81%12%6% Bullies78%17%6%85%11%4% Bystanders56%28%16%65%22%12% Victims χ 2 (2, N=3254)=9.51, p=.009, decrease Bullies χ 2 (2, N=3245)=23.84, p<.001, decrease Bystanders χ 2 (2, N=3245)=27.86, p<.001, decrease

15. RESULTS CYBERBULLYING (MOBILE) 15 First data collection Second data collection Not involvedOccasionalSevereNot involvedOccasionalSevere Victims91%7%2%92%6%2% Bullies91%6%3%94%4%1% Bystanders77%18%5%82%14%3% Victims χ 2 (2, N=3207)=2.64, p=.267 Bullies χ 2 (2, N=3250)=12.32, p=.002, decrease Bystanders χ 2 (2, N=3250)=14.97, p=.001, decrease

16. RESULTS CYBERBULLYING (INTERNET) 16 First data collection Second data collection Not involvedOccasionalSevereNot involvedOccasionalSevere Victims93%5%2%90%7%2% Bullies93%5%2%93%4%2% Bystanders83%13%4%82%13%4% Victims χ 2 (2, N=3221)=6.68, p=.035, increase Bullies χ 2 (2, N=3223)=1.49, p=.474 Bystanders χ 2 (2, N=3225)=0.31, p=.855

17. How can we explain this decrease in the incidence of traditional bullying (both direct and indirect) and cyberbullying (through Internet) in three years? What about the second data collection in Spain and UK? Which parts of the questionnaire can be analysed in order to compare the two collections among Countries? What about pubblications on such data? OPEN QUESTIONS