1. LOGO Cyberaggression among primary school pupils in England and Spain Claire P. Monks, Rosario Ortega, Susanne Robinson, Mónica Alfaro, Penny Worlidge With funding from: University of Greenwich (England) and Proyectos de Excelencia (05-07-05 HUM2175) (Spain)

2. Definition and means of Cyberbullying  Cyberbullying:  Aggression carried out using electronic forms of contact  Intentional  Repeated  Power imbalance (Smith, et al., 2008; Ortega, Calmaestra y Mora-Merchán, 2008).  Rivers et al. (2011) cyberbullying can take a variety of forms;  via phone calls, text or video/picture messages,  via e-mail,  in chatrooms,  via instant messenger,  ‘slambooks’  on social network sites,  ‘griefing’ in online games,  within virtual environments (e.g. Second Life)  in blogs.

3. Levels of involvement in cyberbullying  UK:  Smith et al. (2008) 6.6% of adolescents (11- 16y) surveyed reported being cyberbullied ‘often’ and 15.6% ‘once or twice’.  Spain:  Ortega, et. al., (2008) approximately a quarter of 12-16 year olds were victims of cyberbullying, 4% reported severe cybervictimisation.

4. Gender differences  Inconsistent findings regarding gender differences in roles in cyberbullying (Rivers et al., 2011)  No significant gender differences (Smith et al., 2008)  Li (2006) 11-14 year olds  Cyberbullies: 22% of boys and 12% of girls.  Cybervictims: 25% of boys and 26% of girls.  Types?

5. Links with traditional bullying  Juvonen & Gross (2008) most cybervictims knew their aggressor(s) from school  Raskauskas & Stoltz (2007) and Smith et al. (2008) found links between cyberbullying and traditional bullying among adolescents:  Many cybervictims were also victims of traditional bullying  Many cyberbullies also bullied using traditional methods  Guarini, Brighi & Genta (2009)

6. Use of ICT by children under 12 years  High levels of internet access and mobile ownership in general in both countries (e.g. INE, 2009; Bryon Review, 2008; MobileLife Report, 2006)  UK  Children under 11 years are using the internet and mobile phones (Byron Review, 2008 & MobileLife Report, 2006). Average age first going online 8 years (EU KidsOnline, 2010)  Spain  Average age first going online 9 years (EU KidsOnline, 2010). 75.5% of homes in Spain have a mobile phone (INE, 2009)

7. Extent of involvement in cyberbullying  Little research has examined the nature and extent of cyberbullying among younger age groups.  UK:  Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA, 2009) found that about 20% of 10- 11 year olds reported being cyberbullied.  Similar levels were found among 7-11 year olds; 5% aggressors and 23% victims (Monks et al., 2009).

8. Aims of current study  To examine:  the prevalence of internet and mobile phone use among 7-11 year olds  the methods of aggression via the internet/mobile phone which are most commonly reported among this age-range  how age, gender, country and involvement in ‘traditional’ aggression may be related to involvement in cyberaggression.

9. Method  Participants  England: 220 participants (52.7% boys, 47.3% girls) aged between 7 and 11 years of age (mean=9.67y, SD=1.34) were recruited from five primary schools in the South East of England  Spain: 1192 participants (51.7% boys and 48.3% girls) aged between 10 and 11 years of age (mean=10.50y, SD=0.50) were recruited from 15 primary schools in Andalucía, Southern Spain

10.  Assessments  Anonymous self-report questionnaire (Ortega et al., 2007) was used to ask participants about: their use of ICT. their experiences of aggression and cyberaggression.  Procedure  The questionnaires were administered to participants in a large group setting.

11. Access to ICT by country % own a mobile phone % internet access at home % internet access somewhere England67.00% (N=146) 92.90% (N=200) 95.90% (N=208) Spain72.30% (N=818) 68.50% (N=764) 84.70% (N=921) Chi-square (1df) 2.5750.80**19.46** *p<0.05; **p<0.01

12. Involvement in cyberaggression Victim via mobile phone Victim via the internet Aggressor via mobile phone Aggressor via the internet England34.10% (N=75) 15.00% (N=33) 32.30% (N=71) 2.70% (N=6) Spain7.20% (N=80) 12.70% (N=136) 4.00% (N=43) 7.70% (N=81) Total11.00% (N=155) 12.00% (N=169) 8.1% (N=114) 6.2% (N=87) 45.5% (N=100)35.0% (N=77) 16.1% (N=173)9.50% (N=99) 19.3% (N=273)12.5% (N=176)

13. Types of cyberaggression experienced EnglandSpainTotalChi-square (1df) SMS30.50% (N=67)3.10% (N=34)7.20% (N=101)191.82** MMS4.10% (N=9)1.60% (N=17)1.80% (N=26)6.01* Calls1.40% (N=3)2.10% (N=23)1.80% (N=26)0.53 Email6.40% (N=14)3.70% (N=39)3.80% (N=53)3.33 Chatroom3.60% (N=8)2.40% (N=25)2.30% (N=33)1.20 Messenger7.30% (N=16)6.70% (N=71)6.20% (N=87)0.10 Website2.30% (N=5)1.20% (N=13)1.30% (N=18)1.45 *p<0.05; **p<0.01 SMS 30.50% (N=67) 3.10% (N=34) 7.20% (N=101) 191.82** Messenger 7.30% (N=16) 6.70% (N=71) 6.20% (N=87) 0.10 Email 6.40% (N=14) 3.70% (N=39) 3.80% (N=53) 3.33

14. Factors predicting involvement in cyberaggression  4 Logistic Regressions performed to examine involvement in cyberaggression  A) Victim via mobile phone  B) Victim via the internet  C) Aggressor via mobile phone  D) Aggressor via the internet  Predictors: age, gender, country, involvement in traditional aggression

15. A) Victim via mobile phone  Model: א 2 (4df) = 130.61, p<0.01  Country was a significant predictor  Gender was a significant predictor  Being a traditional victim was a significant predictor Wald (1df)Exp(B) Age0.021.02 Country84.04**7.08 Gender10.57**1.91 Victim (traditional)15.77**0.46 *p<0.05; **p<0.01

16. B) Victim via the internet  Model: א 2 (4df) = 36.65, p<0.01  Age was a significant predictor  Being a traditional victim was a significant predictor Wald (1df)Exp(B) Age6.68*1.37 Country2.591.45 Gender0.071.05 Victim (traditional)28.88**0.38 *p<0.05; **p<0.01

17. C) Aggressor via mobile phone  Model: א 2 (4df) = 169.66, p<0.01  Country was a significant predictor  Gender was a significant predictor  Being a traditional aggressor was a significant predictor Wald (1df)Exp(B) Age2.490.85 Country104.03**14.87 Gender8.73**2.02 Aggressor (traditional)18.77**0.33 *p<0.05; **p<0.01

18. D) Aggressor via the internet  Model: א 2 (4df) = 40.34, p<0.01  Gender was a significant predictor  Being a traditional aggressor was a significant predictor Wald (1df)Exp(B) Age0.000.99 Country3.340.42 Gender5.70*1.86 Aggressor (traditional)23.60**0.30 *p<0.05; **p<0.01

19. Discussion  Children of upper primary school age (7-11 years) are using the internet and many have mobile phones  Some report involvement in cyberaggression via the internet and mobile phone.  The most common types of aggression reported by victims were similar:  England: SMS, Messenger, Email  Spain: Messenger, Email, SMS  Less common was aggression in Chatrooms, Calls, MMS and Websites

20.  Country differences:  The level of involvement and types of cyberaggression appear to differ between countries  More pupils in England reported being victimised by mobile phone (SMS or MMS)  A significantly higher proportion of pupils in England reported being an aggressor or victim of aggression via mobile phone.  UNICEF (2006) and Monks et al. (2011)

21.  Gender differences:  Boys are more likely than girls to be aggressors (Li, 2006) and more likely to be victims of aggression via mobile phone  Age differences:  Older children were more likely to be victims of aggression via the internet, perhaps due to their more extensive use of the medium.

22.  Involvement in traditional aggression:  There was a significant link between being a ‘traditional’ and ‘cyber’ aggressor and being a ‘traditional’ and ‘cyber’ victim.  These findings support those of Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) and Smith et al. (2008) and Guarini et al. (2009)

23. Limitations and Future Directions for Research  Examine gender differences in the specific types of cyberaggression used/experienced  Explore these issues across a broader age-range  Examine the issue of repetition of the behaviour

24. Implications  Other studies have found children this age find cyberaggression as hurtful/upsetting as traditional forms of aggression (e.g. Monks et al., 2009).  Work should begin early on teaching children how to stay safe on the internet.  Aggression via mobile phones should be addressed with primary school-aged pupils.

25. LOGO c.p.monks@greenwich.ac.uk