CYBERPRZEMOC I STRATEGIE JEJ PRZECIWDZIAŁANIA Jacek Pyżalski Bullying & Cyberbullying – the representative study of Polish adolescents. Info on CAN project.

We CAN! – Cyberbullying Action Network for Parents Education

Partners Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Poland MYKOLO ROMERIO UNIVERSITY, Lithuania Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Vocational Education Centre, Greece IFOS – Istituto di formazione sardo – Training postgraduate courses in clinic criminology and legal psychology, Italy

Background A lot of cyberbullying incidents outside educational settings Not reporting incidents – as in traditional bullying Lack of knowledge in specific situations Need to cooperate with teachers Digital gap

Main aim helping and educating parents to deal with cyberbullying, to help their children and pupils to be safe in cyberspace. These adult learners - parents with low competence according to cyberbullying – is target groups of our educational activities.

Electronic aggression Electronic aggression - general term covering all hostile acts when ICT (Internet&mobile phones) are used as a tool (David-Ferdon, Feldman Herz, 2007; Pyżalski, 2009) New tools: what does it mean 6

New quality ? P ublication Invisible audience (D. Boyd) Persistence Psychological mechanism: e.g. disinhibition …but only potentially 7

Technologies Sending unpleasant text privately or publicly Happy slapping Outing Impersonation Exclusion

Traditional bullying Olweus – regular, imbalance of power, intentional Different understanding of those features Different severity of the acts Consequences: similar as in traditional bullying (depression, low self-esteem, etc) Cyberbullying – peer aggression

Representative sample of Polish adolescents (15 y.o) N=2143 Prevalance and consequences 11 Grant MNISW Cyberbullying jako mowa forma agresji rówieśniczej wśród gimnazjalistów

Perpetration Who was the victim?% Peopleknown only from the Internet 42,5 Known peers (from school) 39 Close friends 26,8 Random people 24,2 Groups 15,8 Former partner 16,9 Other people (homeless, disabled) 10,8 Celebrieties 11,1 Teachers 9

Cyberbullying % boys % girls % all N ot involved 65,868,767,1 Perpetrator 22,816,419,5 Victim 5,17,86,6 Bully-victim 6,37,16,8 J. Pyżalski/Grant MNiSW Cyberbullying jako mowa forma agresji rówieśniczej wśród gimnazjalistów/WSP w Łodzi

Slected influencing factors Perpetrators and victims – dysfunctional Internet use Bullies and bully-victims – more conflicts in the family Victims – lower SES

Selected influencing factors Bullies and bully-victims – lower pro-school attitude Bullies and victims – exhausted by learning Bullies and victims – lower grades Bullies – pro-violence peer group Bullies and victims – no friends Bullies and bully-victims – no online norms at school and in a family

Selected influencing factors

Important Only 9% of vivtims reported the proopblem to teachers and 29% to parents 37% of the respondents have sent something as a joke that ended up a suffering for other people

What to do in family context Knowledge Positive Internet use – together! Norms and resonable control Technical solutions

Jacek Pyżalski Thank you.