Cyberaggression among primary school pupils in England and Spain

1. 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 *p<0.05; **p<0.01

12. Involvement in cyberaggression 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 SMS 30.50% (N=67) 3.10% (N=34) 7.20% (N=101) 191.82** Email 6.40% (N=14) 3.70% (N=39) 3.80% (N=53) 3.33 Messenger 7.30% (N=16) 6.70% (N=71) 6.20% (N=87) 0.10 *p<0.05; **p<0.01

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: א2 (4df) = 130.61, p<0.01 • Country was a significant predictor • Gender was a significant predictor • Being a traditional victim was a significant predictor *p<0.05; **p<0.01

16. B) Victim via the internet • Model: א2 (4df) = 36.65, p<0.01 • Age was a significant predictor • Being a traditional victim was a significant predictor *p<0.05; **p<0.01

17. C) Aggressor via mobile phone • Model: א2 (4df) = 169.66, p<0.01 • Country was a significant predictor • Gender was a significant predictor • Being a traditional aggressor was a significant predictor *p<0.05; **p<0.01

18. D) Aggressor via the internet • Model: א2 (4df) = 40.34, p<0.01 • Gender was a significant predictor • Being a traditional aggressor was a significant predictor *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. Thank You ! c.p.monks@greenwich.ac.uk