Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, Anne Siebenbrock & Herbert Scheithauer Unit of Developmental Science and Applied Developmental Psychology Department of Educational Science and Psychology DAPHNE III – Discussion and Decisions Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

2 Greece‘s points for discussion -Broader categories of CB? -Both for victims and self-reported acts -Severity, type? -Validity of self-reported acts? -Item „attack in online game“ -Refusing facebook invitations = cyberbullying? DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

3 Discussion of Greek Presentation -intention? Perceived as joke, form of communication where no one feels insulted -How much do players know about their counterparts and do they then realise that they might insult the counterpart when they make a sexist joke assuming the other is also a male? -No indirect indices to assess emotional impact …  suggestion Greece: follow-up focus groups -Where does cyberbullying end? -Comparing victim and bully perspective of most important incidents? Might be different DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

4 Discussion of German presentation -cut-off scores for bullying/cyberbullying scales DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

5 Spanish presentation -Exclude subscale „support for cultural pluralism“ due to low consistencies across countries? -Suggestion: not involved/once or twice  not involved, 2-3 times  occasional, once a week/several times a week  frequent -Use three different criteria: e.g. compute scale score like American researchers -Take online games out of instrument or leave it in? DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

6 Polish presentation -Help seeking -Online behavior, experiences with being criticised online for actions (e.g. by moderators) DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

7 UK presentation DAPHNE II -Most cyberbullying by SNS -Decrease in traditional bullying/victimisation  due to anti-bullying work in UK? -No change in cyberbullying/victimisation  no focus on anti-cyberbullying interventions DAPHNE III -Not collected yet  problems with EU DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

8 Italian presentation DAPHNE II -How can the decrease be explained?  sample composition? -Comparisons among countries? Which data are comparable? -Publications? DAPHNE III -Code different cyberbullying items differently? E.g. photos/videos? Weight single items differently? When cyberbullying affects something that can be permanent? Scales -10 subscale structure not confirmed -Problems with „cultural pluralism“ DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

9 Data coding Scoring of SES: -Compute separately for parents -Do descriptives of this School climate: -Run CFA on original subscales -Italy has used all original scales and will reduce to the common 6 scales -Scales should be recoded to 0-4 or 0-3, respectively Media use -Discussion about scale level -Code the same in all countries so that data is comparable DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

10 Data coding Bullying/Cyberbullying scoring: -Discussion: median vs. mean vs. sum score -Suggestion: use LCA (decisions based on statistics) Categorisation approach: -1. victim: 3 or 4 in any of the victim items and less than 2 in bully items -2. bully: 3 or 4 in any of the bully items and less than 2 in victim items -3. bully/victim: 3 or 4 in any of the victim items AND 3 or 4 in any of the bully items -Rosario will send the syntax, everyone will do it for own data set Latent Class analysis approach: -Whole European data set -Compare to categorisation approach -Responsible person: Anja DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

11 Data analyses -Latent Class Analyses: Anja (GER) -Validation Bullying/Cyberbullying: Rosario (ESP) -Validation of School Climate: Vassilis (GRE) -Prevalence comparison and socio-economic factors: Jacek (POL) -Combination of school climate and bullying/cyberbullying: Antonella/Annalisa (IT) DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

12 Publication decisions -Teams who make the work can include 3 names, the other partners two authors -Suggestion to have ONE name for the whole group, e.g. „Cyberbullying Research Group“  but problems for internal (universities) evaluations and dissertations -National data and national parts of core questionnaire can be published by national groups any time -Which journals to choose? -International journals with impact factor -Citation of bullying/cyberbullying instrument (European Cyberbullying Questionnaire – ECQ): -Instrument specifically developed for this study -Publish technical report on the internet with the name „European Cyberbullying Collaborative Research Group“ and cite this report as a source of the instrument; electronic citation -Put questionnaire on the internet DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

13 Deadlines Send data set with core data to Antonella  Italy will form a complete common data set across all countries -Italy will create new variable for country -Antonella will send example file by end of June -Send national data set by July 15, First draft of manuscript by end-October, 2011 DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

14 Miscellaneous -Use Drop Box for saving the data of the group -International book on intervention approaches (DAPHNE III outcome)  with national guidelines and data -But use English/international publisher and not national publisher -Suggestion: E-Book in english and national language -Italy will prepare a national AND international book -Book proposal: Italy -No spending of budget after March 31, if DAPHNE money is needed for publication, contract needs to be made BEFORE March 31, 2012 !!! DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

15 Some common instruments -Greece: moral disengagement, basic empathy scale, descriptive norms -Send presentations with overview of instruments to Vassilis  Vassilis will make overview of overlap on second day of meeting DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011