Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDevin West Modified over 11 years ago
1
CYBERPRZEMOC I STRATEGIE JEJ PRZECIWDZIAŁANIA Jacek Pyżalski Bullying & Cyberbullying – the representative study of Polish adolescents. Info on CAN project.
2
We CAN! – Cyberbullying Action Network for Parents Education
3
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
4
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
5
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.
6
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
7
New quality ? P ublication Invisible audience (D. Boyd) Persistence Psychological mechanism: e.g. disinhibition …but only potentially 7
8
Technologies Sending unpleasant text privately or publicly Happy slapping Outing Impersonation Exclusion
9
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
11
Representative sample of Polish adolescents (15 y.o) N=2143 Prevalance and consequences 11 Grant MNISW Cyberbullying jako mowa forma agresji rówieśniczej wśród gimnazjalistów
12
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
13
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
14
Slected influencing factors Perpetrators and victims – dysfunctional Internet use Bullies and bully-victims – more conflicts in the family Victims – lower SES
15
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
16
Selected influencing factors
17
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
18
What to do in family context Knowledge Positive Internet use – together! Norms and resonable control Technical solutions
19
Jacek Pyżalski pyzalski@poczta.onet.pl Thank you.
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.