DAPHNE III – Current status of the German team

Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, Anne Siebenbrock & Herbert ScheithauerUnit of Developmental Science and Applied Developmental PsychologyDepartment of Educational Science and Psychology

DAPHNE III –Current status of the German teamMeeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

2DAPHNE III Meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20-21, 2011

DAPHNE III timetable - Germany1) Investigation of diffusion and characteristics of cyberbullying in schools1.1 Revision and translation of questionnaire Finished

1.2 Contact with schools and permission from families and ethical authorities

Finished

1.3 Collection of questionnaires In progress (t3 in Fall 2011)

1.4 Coding and analysis of data in each country In progress

and comparison among countries To-Do


DAPHNE III timetable - Germany2) Testing effective strategies of intervention in European schools and in contexts at risk2.1 Application of the intervention in at least 3 [5] schools with small groups of students [12 classes + 7 classes], parents [indirectly] and teachers for each country

Finished

2.2 Evaluation of the intervention Pre/post data collectedAnalyses in progress

and comparison among countries To-Do


DAPHNE III timetable - Germany3) Dissemination of the main outcomes3.1 Books and pamphlets in each country In progress

and national To-Do

and international articles To-Do

3.2 National To-Do

and international conferences To-Do


ParticipantsSchool Long intervention

(8-10 weeks)Short intervention

(1 day)Control group

1 124 - 129

2 18 - 46

3 119 - 75

4 - 108 120

5 25 64 69

Total N = 286(31.9 %)

N = 172(19.2 %)

N = 439(48.9 %)

- 36 classes with 18 to 32 students each- 51.3 % females, 46.7 % males, 2 % no information- 93.3 % born in Germany


Participants - AgeAge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17% 0.6 16.2 40.1 26.9 9.0 4.8 0.4

Grade 7 8 9 10% 29.8 44.7 16.5 7.1

- M = 13.45 years, SD = 1.07


MeasuresConstruct/Scale Reference No. of items

Socio-demographic information DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 5

Migrational background DAPHNE Core Questionnaire[Klöckner, C.A., Beisenkamp, A. & Kuhlmann, U. (2005).]

4

Internet/Mobile phone use DAPHNE Core Questionnaire[Livingstone & Helsper, 2008]

2

Social Networking Sites Characteristics

Fogel & Nehmad, 2009 12

Identity Information Disclosure Stutzman, 2006 8

Traditional Victimisation DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 7

Traditional Victimisation - Bystander

DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 1

Cybervictimisation DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 12

Cybervictimisation - Bystander DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 1



Characteristics of cybervictimisation incident


Traditional Bullying DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 7

Cyberbullying DAPHNE Core Questionnaire 12

Characteristics of cyberbullying incident


Descriptive norms DAPHNE Core Questionnaire[Lai, Ho, & Lam, 2004; Lazuras et al., 2009; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003]

4

Attitudes towards cyberbullying Ajzen, 1991 4

Group norm Self-developed 1

Willingness to cyberbully Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995; Gibbons et al., 1998

4

Coping Cyberbullying Bystander Adaptation of DAPHNE II 1

Coping Cyberbullying Victim Adaptation of DAPHNE II 1



Readiness to show empathy Empathy Reactivity InstrumentVolland et al., 2008

14

Readiness to show perspective-taking

IRI; Davis, 1980 8

Self-esteem Rosenberg, 1965; Fend et al., 1984 8

Psychosomatic symptoms Grob et al., 1991 8

School absenteeism due to illness

1

Loneliness ULS-8; Russell, 1996 8

Depressive tendencies Schwarzer & Bäßler, 1999 6

Life satisfaction Mittag, 1999 6

Enjoyment of life Grob et al., 1991 5

Class coherence Freitag, 1998 5

Enjoyment of school Self-developed 1



School Climate DAPHNE Core Questionnaire[ISC-S; Brand et al., 2003]

31

Reactive and instrumental aggression

Little et al., 2003; Gradinger et al., 2009 14

Sensation Seeking Slater, 2003 2

Subjective evaluation of intervention (t2)

Self-developed 14 - 31

- Further measures for teachers and parents, but return rates low- Teacher forms for process evaluation (treatment integrity/fidelity)


Descriptive results – Media use

- Internet use is normally distributed- Mobile phone use is not normally distributed

N = 883 N = 879


Descriptive results – Bullying and CyberbullyingNever Once or

twiceOnce or twice a month

About once a week

More than once a week

Traditional victim

28.8%(253)

45.2%(397)

10.1%(89)

7.5%(66)

8.4%(74)

Cybervictim 55.3%(489)

32.1%(284)

4.8%(42)

2.1%(19)

5.7%(50)

Traditional bully

34.1%(300)

44.5%(391)

9.3%(82)

3.8%(33)

8.3%(73)

Cyberbully 63.3%(551)

23.2%(202)

4.8%(42)

3.1%(27)

5.5%(48)

Bystander No YesTraditional bullying 43.0% 57.0%

Cyberbullying 58.6% 41.4%


Most serious incident - Cybervictimisation

Trad. B

ullyin

g

Nasty/

name-c

alling

texts

Nasty

thing

s said

to ot

hers

Threats

Data th

eft

Impe

rsona

tion

Fake a

ccou

nt

Outing

Embaras

sing p

hotos

/vide

os

Altered

photo

s/vide

os

Exclus

ion

Rumou

rs

Attack

in on

line g

ame

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

N = 150


Characteristics of cybervictimisation incidents

68.3

16.7

6.73.3

5

Duration

1-2 weeksabout a monthabout 6 monthsabout a yearseveral years

32.6

40.3

10.1

2.36.2 8.5

Identitydon't know

school mate

offline friend

online only friend

offline acquain-tance

online only acquaintance

22.5

2.3

58.9

14.71.6

Age

don't knowyoungersame ageolderadult

25.6

36.4

22.5

15.5

Gender

don't know

male

female

mixed


Most serious incident - Cyberbullying

N = 120

Trad.

Bullying

Nasty/ n

ame-ca

lling t

exts

Nasty th

ings s

aid to

others

Threa

ts

Data th

eft

Imper

sona

tion

Fake

acco

unt

Outing

Embara

ssing

photos/v

ideos

Altere

d photo

s/vide

os

Exclusio

n

Rumours

Attack

in onli

ne ga

me0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22


Characteristics of cyberbullying incidents

78.8

16.3

2.9 1.9

Duration

1-2 weeksabout a monthabout 6 monthsabout a yearseveral years

23.3

39.7

9.52.6

11.2

13.8

Identitydon't know

school mate

offline friend

online only friend

offline acquain-tance

online only acquaintance

19.1

7.8

54.8

15.72.6

Age

don't knowyoungersame ageolderadult

17.9

39.3

33.3

9.4

Target’s Gender

don't know

male

female

mixed


School climate – Factor structureScale Item F1

SafetyF2

TeacherF3

Neg PeerF4

RulesF5

Cul Plur.F6

Pos PeerF7

Enjoymt.

Teacher Support 1 .664 .399

5 .652

11 .671

14 .517 .403

16 .758

18 .786

Consistency and clarity of rules 2 .356 .550

6 .691

8 .685

12 .494

15 .750

Negative peer interactions 3 .702

7 .788

9 .616

13 .742

19 .751

Positive peer interactions 4 .696

10 .637

17 .771

20 .838

21 .765


School climate – Factor structureScale Item F1

SafetyF2

TeacherF3

Neg PeerF4

RulesF5

Cul Plur.F6

Pos PeerF7

Enjoymt.

Support for cultural pluralism 1 .618

2 .771

3 .730

4 .404 .517

Safety problems 5 .826

6 .801

7 .725

8 .726

9 .683

10 .658

- Method: EFA, PCA, Varimax rotation (SPSS 19.0), loadings < .30 not included- Factor structure of original instrument replicated- 1 additional factor: „enjoyment of classes/work in classes“

- To-do: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Mplus 6) and comparisons across countries


School climate – Preliminary resultsScale Mean

(1-5)SD Cronbach‘s

Teacher support 2.78 0.71 .84

Consistency and clarity of rules 3.56 0.66 .77

Negative peer interactions 2.60 0.61 .79

Positive peer interactions 3.43 0.66 .75

Support for cultural pluralism* 2.97 0.62 .67

Safety problems* 1.31 0.54 .86

*answer categories: 1-4

- MANOVA for differences between intervention groups and control group at t1- Teacher support: IGlong < CG- Positive peer interactions: IGlong < IGshort , CG- Support for cultural pluralism: IGshort < IGlong , CG


Outlook

More analyses and results to come …

Documents

DAPHNE III – Current status of the German team