CYBERPRZEMOC
I STRATEGIE JEJ PRZECIWDZIAŁANIA
Jacek Pyżalski
Bullying & 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 teachers
Digital 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
Cyberbullying – peer
aggression
• 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)
Representative sample of
Polish adolescents (15 y.o)
• N=2143
• Prevalance and consequences
Grant MNISW Cyberbullying jako mowa
forma agresji rówieśniczej wśród
gimnazjalistów
11
Perpetration
Who was the victim?
Peopleknown only from the Internet
Known peers (from school)
%
42,5
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
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 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
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
Thank you.
Jacek Pyżalski
pyzalski@poczta.onet.pl