Cybergrooming - Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying
Download as PPTX, PDF
1 like564 views
This document summarizes a study on cybergrooming presented at an international conference on cyberbullying. The study examined risk factors for cybergrooming, associations with cyberbullying, and how students cope. Key findings include: 1) The prevalence of cybergrooming was 6.5%, with girls and those willing to meet strangers at higher risk. 2) Cyberbullied students were also more likely to be cybergroomed. 3) Effective coping strategies included cognitive-technical approaches, while aggressive coping seemed protective against cybergrooming.
Cybergrooming - Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying
- 1. Cybergrooming Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying Dipl. P辰d. Sebastian Wachs Acknowledgment: Prof. Dr. K.D. Wolf International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 2. Overview Background Method Results Conclusions/Outlook International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 3. Background of the Study International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 4. Background Cybergrooming (CYBGR) Establishing a trust-based relationship between minors and usually adults using ICTs to systematically solicit and exploit the minors for sexual purposes. (Wachs, Wolf and Pan, in review) International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 5. Background Research Questions RQ1: Which factors shape the risk to become a victim of CYBGR? RQ2: Are cyberbullied students more likely to be cybergroomed? RQ3: How students cope with CYBGR and which strategy seems to be effective? International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 6. Background Associations between CYBGR and CYBB Use of ICTs Repetition Intentional aggressive acts Cybergrooming Social Cyberbullying Relationship Imbalance of power Role Association? International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 7. Method International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 8. Method Participants Self-reports from 518 students 5th to 10th Grades (11-17 yr) from 4 German schools 49.0 % of the participants was male and 50.8 % was female; 0.2 % did not answer from a region with a high proportion of immigrant families, and a relatively poor urban economic situation. International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 9. Method Procedure Online Survey Computer Assisted Personal Interview participants sat at a PC in school computer rooms and entered the answers International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 10. Method Questionnaire A cybergroomer is a person who is at least 7 years older than you and who you know over a longer time exclusively through online communication. At the beginning, the cybergroomer seems to be interested in your daily life problems, but after a certain time s/he appears to be interested in sexual topics and in the exchange of sexual fantasies and/or nude material (pictures or video chats). Used Definition International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 11. Method Questionnaire How often did you have contact with a cybergroomer within the last twelve month? Never Once a Once a Once a Several year month week times a week International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 12. Method Questionnaire Items for assessing (cyber-)bullying and coping strategies partly following the Mobbing Questionnaire for students' (J辰ger et al. 2007) Cyberbullying 4 Items each Never, Once or twice, Twice or side thrice, About once a week or Several times a week Coping 10 Items Yes, A little bit, Almost no, No Strategies ICTs Usage and access to PC or Internet at home, ownership of mobile Access phone or smartphone, amount of ICTs usage International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 13. Results International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 14. Results Prevalence Rate Victims of CYBGR: 6.5 % (n=34) 4.6 % 10.4 % 79% 21% 1.9 % 4.3 % once a year once a month At least once a year Never once a week several times a week International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 15. Results Prevalence rate for CYBGR is significantly higher for girls (8.7% vs. 4.3%), t(514) = 3.28, p = .001. lower for adolescents who are not willing to meet strangers (4.4% vs. 15.5%), t(514) = 4.91, p = <.001. lower for adolescents who do not discuss problems with strangers (5.6% vs. 11.4%), t(514) = 3.93, p < .001. International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 16. Results RQ 1: Which factors shape the risk to be cybergroomed? Willingness to discuss Access to Internet at home problems with strangers Ownership of mobile phone Willingness Coefficients to meet Ownership Estimate Std. of smartphone t- strangers Amount of internet usage Error value Being cyberbullied (Intercept) *** 0.041 1.43 Access to PC at home 34.49 Being cybervictim *** 0.46 0.085 5.42 Being a girl *** 0.28 0.083 3.46 Migration background Not willing to meet strangers *** -0.43 0.106 -4.10 F(3, 512) = 23.39, R2=0.12, p < Grade .001. * p .05;** p .01;*** p .001 Gender Tab 1: Model 1 (3 predictors) beta coefficients for standardized variables International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 17. Results RQ 2: Are cyberbullied students more likely to be cybergroomed? Variable O.R. C.I. Being a girl*** 2.35 1.15.2 Being cyberbullied*** 1.75 1.22.4 Not willing to meet strangers *** 0.30 0.140.65 *p .05; **p .01; ***p .001 95 % confidence interval Tab. 2: Results of simple binary logistic regression for Model 1 International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 18. Results RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming? The first three factors of variability summarise 62.1 % of the total inertia.
- 19. Results RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming? Coefficients Estimate Std. t Error value (Intercept) 1.43023 0.03734 38.305 Cognitive-techn. Coping*** 0.33223 0.07537 4.408 Being a girl*** 0.32686 0.07514 4.350 Being cyberbullied*** 0.32565 0.07812 4.168 Not willing to meet strangers* -0.24815 0.09742 -2.547 Aggressive Coping*** -0.76518 0.07775 -9.841 F(2, 512) = 60.71, p < .001, = 0.19 * p .05; ** p .01; *** p .001 Tab. 4: Model 2 (5 predictors) beta coefficients International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 20. Results RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming? Variable O.R. C.I. Being a girl*** 3.37 1.48.6 Being Cyberbullied*** 1.88 1.03.2 Cognitive-techn. Coping*** 1.48 0.82.4 Willingness to meet strangers: No *** 0.39 0.20.9 Aggressive Coping*** 0.30 0.20.5 *p .05;** p .01;*** p .001 95 % confidence interval Tab. 5: Results of simple binary logistic regression for Model 2 International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 21. Conclusions and Outlook on future research International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 22. Conclusion Identified risk factors: being a girl, willingness to meet strangers and being cyberbullied Coping strategies seem to make a difference: aggressive coping protects and technical-cognitive coping increases the risk International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 23. Outlook future research Validated instruments with consistent definition, measuring and period of time Longitudinal studies (causality and directions) Special risk groups (LGBT and children with special needs) need more research attention Traditionally bullied, cyberbullied, cybergroomed? International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
- 24. Thank you for your attention! Dipl. P辰d. Sebastian Wachs Division Education and Socialisation University of Bremen, Germany s.wachs@uni-bremen.de International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012