Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011 Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

Comparison between T1 and T2 Daphne 2 Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 2. NEW VARIABLES 2. NEW VARIABLES 3. COMPARATIVE T1 & T2 3. COMPARATIVE T1 & T2 4. CONCLUSION 4. CONCLUSION

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION T1 7 secondary schools students Age (M): T2 5 secondary schools 1106 students Age (M): 14.41

2. NEW VARIABLES QUESTIONNAIRENEW VARIABLE 1I haven’t been involvedNot Involved 2Only one or twiceOccasional 3Two or three a month Frequent 4About once a week 5Several times a week or more VICTIM AGGRESSOR Not InvolvedOccasionalFrequent Not InvolvedBystander Occasional Aggressor Frequent Aggressor Occasional Occasional Victim Occasional Bully/Victim Frequent Aggressor Frequent Frequent Victim Frequent Bully/Victim

Victim Direct Bullying Victim Direct Bullying (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %89,3%86,9%88,4% AR1,9-1,9 Occasional f %7,5%9,4%8,3% AR-1,81,8 Frequent f %3,2%3,6%3,4% AR-,6,6 [χ 2 (2,2743) = 3.702, p>.05]

Bully Direct Bullying Bully Direct Bullying (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %88,9%88,0%88,5% AR,7-,7 Occasional f %10,1%8,9%9,6% AR1,1-1,1 Frequent f %1,0%3,1%1,9% AR-4,04,0 [χ 2 (2,2752) = , p<.001]

Victim Indirect Bullying Victim Indirect Bullying (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %84,2%83,5%83,9% AR,4-,4 Occasional f %12,4%12,9%12,6% AR-,4,4 Frequent f %3,4%3,6%3,5% AR-,2,2 [χ 2 (2,2743) =.188, p>.05]

Aggressor Indirect Bullying Aggressor Indirect Bullying (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %84,6%87,4%85,7% AR-2,02,0 Occasional f %14,0%9,4%12,2% AR3,6-3,6 Frequent f %1,4%3,2%2,1% AR-3,33,3 [χ 2 (2,2759) = , p<.001]

Victim Cyberbullying Mobil Victim Cyberbullying Mobil (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %95,7%94,5%95,2% AR1,5-1,5 Occasional f %3,7%4,5%4,0% AR-1,11,1 Frequent f91120 %,5%1,0%,7% AR-1,41,4 [χ 2 (2,2745) = 3.086, p>.05]

Aggressor Cyberbullying Mobil Aggressor Cyberbullying Mobil (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %94,9%95,4%95,1% AR-,6,6 Occasional f %4,2%3,6%3,9% AR,8-,8 Frequent f %,9%1,0%,9% AR-,3,3 [χ 2 (2,2750) =.644, p>.05]

Victim Cyberbullying Internet Victim Cyberbullying Internet (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %92,5%88,3%90,8% AR3,7-3,7 Occasional f %6,2%9,6%7,6% AR-3,33,3 Frequent f %1,3%2,1%1,6% AR-1,71,7 [χ 2 (2,2752 = , p<.001]

Aggressor Cyberbullying Internet Aggressor Cyberbullying Internet (T1) 2008(T2) 2011TOTAL Not Involved f %95,4%93,6%94,7% AR2,1-2,1 Occasional f %3,6%5,2%4,3% AR-2,02,0 Frequent f %1,0%1,2%1,1% AR-,6,6 [χ 2 (2,2743) = 4.525, p>.05]

Roles in Direct Bullying [χ 2 (6,2730) = , p<.01]

Roles in Indirect Bullying [χ 2 (6,2734) = , p<.001]

Roles in Cyberbullying Mobile [χ 2 (6,2721) = 3.720, p>.05]

Roles in Cyberbullying Internet [χ 2 (6,2725 = , p<.05]

Ways of Cyberbulling + + ** ***p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; + p<.1

Overlapping Traditional Bullying [χ 2 (3,2777 = , p<.01]

Overlapping Cyberbullying [χ 2 (3,2777 = , p<.01]

Overlapping Bullying (Both Types) [χ 2 (3,2777 = , 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