CYBERPRZEMOCI STRATEGIE JEJ PRZECIWDZIAŁANIA

Jacek PyżalskiBullying & 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 teachersDigital 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?

• Publication

• 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 actsConsequences: 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

PerpetrationWho was the victim? %

Peopleknown only from the Internet 42,5Known peers (from school) 39Close friends 26,8Random people 24,2Groups 15,8

Former partner 16,9Other people (homeless, disabled) 10,8Celebrieties 11,1Teachers 9

Cyberbullying%

boys%

girls% all

Not involved 65,8 68,7 67,1

Perpetrator 22,8 16,4 19,5

Victim 5,1 7,8 6,6

Bully-victim 6,3 7,1 6,8

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 factorsBullies 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 Pyżalskipyzalski@poczta.onet.pl

Thank you.Thank you.