1 / 23

Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011

Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011. Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra. Comparison between T1 and T2 Daphne 2. Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra. SUMMARY. 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION. 2. NEW VARIABLES.

mircea
Download Presentation

Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ΣυνάντησηστηΘεσσαλονίκηMeeting Thessaloniki June 2011 Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

  2. Comparison between T1 and T2 Daphne 2 Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra

  3. SUMMARY 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 2. NEW VARIABLES 3. COMPARATIVE T1 & T2 4. CONCLUSION

  4. 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION T1 T2 5 secondary schools 1106 students Age (M): 14.41 • 7 secondary schools. • 1671 students • Age (M): 14.45

  5. 2. NEW VARIABLES

  6. Victim Direct Bullying [χ2 (2,2743) = 3.702, p>.05]

  7. Bully Direct Bullying [χ2 (2,2752) = 16.620, p<.001]

  8. Victim Indirect Bullying [χ2 (2,2743) = .188, p>.05]

  9. Aggressor Indirect Bullying [χ2 (2,2759) = 22.332, p<.001]

  10. Victim Cyberbullying Mobil [χ2 (2,2745) = 3.086, p>.05]

  11. Aggressor Cyberbullying Mobil [χ2 (2,2750) = .644, p>.05]

  12. Victim Cyberbullying Internet [χ2 (2,2752 = 14.034, p<.001]

  13. Aggressor Cyberbullying Internet [χ2 (2,2743) = 4.525, p>.05]

  14. Roles in Direct Bullying [χ2 (6,2730) = 21.273, p<.01]

  15. Roles in Indirect Bullying [χ2 (6,2734) = 24.856, p<.001]

  16. Roles in Cyberbullying Mobile [χ2 (6,2721) = 3.720, p>.05]

  17. Roles in Cyberbullying Internet [χ2 (6,2725 = 15.543, p<.05]

  18. Ways of Cyberbulling + ** ** + ***p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; + p<.1

  19. Overlapping Traditional Bullying [χ2 (3,2777 = 15.259, p<.01]

  20. Overlapping Cyberbullying [χ2 (3,2777 = 13.730, p<.01]

  21. Overlapping Bullying (Both Types) [χ2 (3,2777 = 14.387, p<.01]

  22. 4. Conclusions • Higher percentages of implication in T2 vs T1 • Direct traditional bullying: more occasional victims and frequent aggressors • Indirect traditional bullying: less occasional aggressors and bully/victim, but more frequents aggressors • Mobil Cyberbullying: no significant differences • Internet Cyberbullying: more occasional victims

  23. 4. Conclusions • Ways of Cyberbullying are changing • From IM to Social Network • More overlapping: • Traditional bullying: less indirect more both • Cyberbullying: more internet • Cyberbullying and Bullying: less only traditional, more overlap

More Related