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

Daphne 3 study Results of the first study Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 2. INSTRUMENTS 2. INSTRUMENTS 3. RESULTS 3. RESULTS 4. CONCLUSIONS 4. CONCLUSIONS

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 3 secondary schools. 893 students Age (M): 14.45

2. INSTRUMENTS School climate (Brand, Felner, Shim Seitsinger & Dumas, 2003) Six scales: Teacher support; Consistency and Clarity of Rules and Expectations; Negativer Peer Interactions; Positive Peer Interactions; Support for Cultural Pluralis; Safety Problems Bullying Scale (Daphne 3): Victim and Aggressor Cyberbullying Scale (Daphne 3): Victim and Aggressor Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swanm, 2003): Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Estability, Openess to Experiencies Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliff & Farrington, 2006): Cognitive empathy and Affective empaty Perceived Information Control (Dinev, Xu & Smith, 2009) CERI ( Cuestionario de experiencias relacionadas con internet) (Internet-Related Experience Questionnaire) (Beranuy, Chamarro, Graner & Carbonell- Sánchez, 2009): Interpersonal and Intrapersonal

TOOLDIMENSIONSALPHA SCHOOL CLIMATE Brand, Felner, Shim Seitsinger & Dumas (2003) Teacher support 0,756 Consistency and Clarity of Rules and Expectations 0,695 Negative Peer Interactions 0,717 Positive Peer Interactions 0,694 Support for Cultural Pluralism 0,641 Safety Problems 0,700 Bullying Scale Victim 0,834 Aggressor 0,773 Total0,828 Cyberbullying Scale Victim 0,810 Aggressor 0,859 Total0, INSTRUMENTS VALIDATION

TOOLDIMENSIONSALPHA Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliff & Farrington, 2006) Cognitive empathy 0,734 Affective empaty0,703 Total empathy 0,807 Perceived Information Control (Dinev, Xu & Smith, 2009) Total0,896 CERI (Cuestionario de experiencias relacionadas con internet) (Internet- Related Experience Questionnaire) (Beranuy, Chamarro, Graner & Carbonell-Sánchez, 2009) Interpersonal 0,718 Intrapersonal 0,773 Total0, INSTRUMENTS VALIDATION

4. Instruments validation Validation of bullying and cyberbullying scales Standard procedure with an EFA and subsequent CFA by using software AMOS, wich conffirms a two dimension factor structure in both scales: Aggressor and Victim

4. Instruments validation Bullying α: 0,831 Agressor α: 0,785 Víctim α: 0,828 Χ2DfPRMSEARMRGFIAGFIPGFICFIPCFI 313,297320,000,066,024,948,917,596,938,681

4. Instruments validation Cyberllying Cyberbullying α: 0,874 Agressor α: 0,880 Victim α: 0,801 Χ2Χ2 dfx2/dfpRMSEARMRGFIAGFIPGFICFIPCFI 823, ,000,064,011,916,877,629,935,698

RESULTS: School Climate 0-4

RESULTS: Empathy 0-4

RESULTS: Internet use

RESULTS: Bullying victimization No Yes, one or two times Yes, once or twice a month Yes, about once a week Yes, more than once a week 47. Someone hit, kicked, or pushed me 77.9%16.9%1.8%1.7% 48. Someone said nasty things to me or called me names 43.3%36.5%6%4.5%9.6% 49. Someone said nasty things about me to others 50.2%32.1%6.3%4.8%6.6% 50. Someone threatened me85.5%9.9%2.4%0.8%1.4% 51. Someone stole or damaged my belongings 81.3%14.4%2.6%0.6%1.1% 52. I was excluded or ignored by others 76.4%16.1%2.5%1.5%3.5% 53. Someone spread rumours about me 61.2%29%3.6%3.2%3%

RESULTS: Bullying aggression No Yes, one or two times Yes, once or twice a month Yes, about once a week Yes, more than once a week 76.I hit, kicked, or pushed someone79.3%16.5%1.2%1.6%1.4% 76.I said nasty things to someone or called them names 55.6%34.9%2.5%2.7%4.3% 76.I said nasty things about someone to other people 73%20.5%2.7%1.7%2% 76.I threatened someone91.1%7.3%0.7%0.3%0.6% 76.I stole or damaged someone’s belongings 95.9%3.4%0.3% 0.1% 76.I excluded or ignored someone80.5%16.8%1.2%0.6%0.9% 76.I spread rumours about someone91.2%7.2%0.8%0.3%0.5%

RESULTS: Bullying roles criteria QUESTIONNAIRENEW VARIABLE 0I haven’t been involved Not Involved 1Only one or twice 2Two or three a monthOccasional 3About once a week Frequent 4 Several times a week or more VICTIM AGGRESSOR Not InvolvedOccasionalFrequent Not InvolvedBystander Aggressor OccasionalBystander Aggressor FrequentVictim Bully/Victim

RESULTS: Bullying roles

RESULTS: Cyberbullying victimization No Yes, one or two times Yes, once or twice a month Yes, about once a week Yes, more than once a week 56.Someone said nasty things to me or called me names using texts or online messages 84.3%12.7%1.5%0.3%1.2% 56.Someone said nasty things about me to others either online or through text messages 81.4%14.7%1.5%0.9%1.6% 56.Someone threatened me through texts or online messages90.6%7.1%0.9%0.6%0.9% 56.Someone hacked into my account and stole personal information (e.g. through or social networking accounts) 93.8%5.4%0.1%0.3%0.4% 56.Someone hacked into my account and pretended to be me (e.g. through instant messaging or social networking accounts) 89.7%9.6%0.3%0.2%0.1% 56.Someone created a fake account, pretending to be me (e.g. on Facebook or MSN) 97%2.1%0.4%0.2% 56.Someone posted personal information about me online95.7%2.7%0.6%0.3%0.7% 56.Someone posted embarrassing videos or pictures of me online94.6%4.7%0.1%0.2%0.3% 56.Someone altered pictures or videos of me that I had posted online91.1%7.7%0.6%0.3% 56.I was excluded or ignored by others in a social networking site or internet chat room 95.6%2.8%0.9%0.3% 56.Someone spread rumours about me on the internet88.7%8.9%0.9%0.7%0.8% 56.Someone attacked or insulted me in an online game87..1%7.4%2.3%0.8%2.4%

RESULTS: Cyberbullying aggression No Yes, one or two times Yes, once or twice a month Yes, about once a week Yes, more than once a week 84.I said nasty things to someone or called them names using texts or online messages 89%9.3%0.8%0.5% 84.I said nasty things about someone to other people either online or through text messages 90.2%8%1%0.2%0.6% 84.I threatened someone through texts or online messages96.4%2.9%0.3%0.1%0.2% 84.I hacked into someone’s account and stole personal information (e.g. through or social networking accounts) 97%1.9%0.3%0.5%0.3% 84.I hacked into someone’s account and pretended to be them (e.g. through instant messaging or social networking accounts) 97.2%1.9%0.3%0.2%0.3% 84.I created a fake account, pretending to be someone else (e.g. on Facebook or MSN) 96.6%2.7%0.1% 0.4% 84.I posted personal information about someone online97.6%1.5%0.3% 0.2% 84.I posted embarrassing videos or pictures of someone online98.3%1.1%0.3%0.1% 84.I altered pictures or videos of another person that had been posted online 95.6%3%0.7%0.1%0.6% 84.I excluded or ignored someone in a social networking site or internet chat room 89.8%7.9%1%0.4%0.9% 84.I spread rumours about someone on the internet96.2%2.7%0.6%0.3%0.2% 84.I attacked or insulted someone in an online game90%6.2%1.4%0.6%1.9%

RESULTS: Cyberbullying roles

RESULTS: Bullying & Cyberbullying roles

0-4

4. Conclusions Two new validated instruments Diversity in the quality of school climate: – Discipline and peer interaction vs safety problems More cognitive than affective empathy High perception of information control Some problems related with addition, mainly with interpersonal ones. The relevance of taken an criteria for the analysis

4. Conclusions Traditional bullying is higher than cyberbullying More victims than aggressors in both phenomenons More frequency of verbal (V & B) and social (V) exclusion in traditional bullying. Online game is a new contex of cyberbullying