STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

XIVth European Conference on Developmental Psychology & COST Action IS0801 Workshop “Cyberbullying: Definition and Measurement”

Report of Short Term Scientific Mission funded by COST Action IS0801 Hosted by Prof. Rita Zukauskiene, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania August 17-24, 2009 Anja Schultze-Krumbholz Freie Universität Berlin Department of Educational Science and Psychology Division of Developmental Science and Applied Developmental Psychology, PF 19 Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14195 Berlin Germany http://www.ewi-psy.fu-berlin.de/einrichtungen/arbeitsbereiche/entwicklungswissenschaft/index.html E-mail: [email protected]

1

STSM Scientific Report

1

August 2009

Purpose of the visit

The subject of my dissertation research is “Bullying and violent films in the era of new media” and is mainly concerned with cyberbullying. The project aims to provide insight into the phenomenon of cyberbullying and violent films in Germany in regards to frequency, impact and awareness as well as to identify potential risk and protective factors and to provide a basis for the development of successful prevention and intervention strategies. The purpose of the visit was to attend the XIVth European Conference on Developmental Psychology and the following post-conference “Cyberbullying: Definition and Measurement” organised by the Workgroup 1 of COST Action IS0801 and hosted by Rita Zukauskiene and the Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius. As this year’s European Conference on Developmental Psychology (ECDP 2009) focused very strongly on the research fields of bullying and cyberbullying, I expected to gather a lot of information on these phenomena as well as receive new impulses und inspirations for my further work on my dissertation, and especially to receive invaluable insight and information on the phenomenon of cyberbullying itself as well as on related topics such as methodological aspects, the overlap with traditional bullying, developmental and life-span psychology and many more. Another aim was to get acquainted with the state of the art in bullying and cyberbullying research. Furthermore, I expected to receive feedback on my previous work in this area as I received the opportunity to be a presenter in a symposium chaired by Prof. Ann Frisén. There I planned to present preliminary results from my dissertation research project. Also, a poster for the post-conference was submitted beforehand. The ECDP and the post-conference would also provide many occasions and possibilities to come into contact with established international researchers as well as many other doctoral students in this area of research. This would provide the opportunity to broaden by professional network by meeting the COST members and also many non-members as well as other researchers and professionals active in cyberbullying research. As I am also a member of Workgroup 1 of the COST Action IS0801, I was also designated to chair one of the discussion sessions on the second day of the post-conference.

2

STSM Scientific Report

2

August 2009

Work description

2.1 XIVth European Conference on Developmental Psychology On the first day of the conference (Tuesday, 18 August 2009) I attended the opening ceremony as well as the keynote speech held by Prof. Fox who presented his work on the psycho-social development of young children from Romanian orphanages. The subsequent welcoming reception already provided an opportunity to socialise with other doctoral students (e.g. from the research group of Prof. Georges Steffgen in Luxembourg) as well as with other bullying and cyberbullying researchers already familiar to me from former COST meetings. Starting on Wednesday, 19 August 2009, I attended numerous talks, presentations and poster presentations concerning bullying, cyberbullying, school-related intervention and prevention programs as well as methodological issues of developmental data (for a detailed list see Appendix). One of the sessions on Wednesday was concerned with methodological and practical challenges of interventions in the family and school context. Studies of the research group of Ana Almeida from Portugal and a research group from Spain focused on parental education to enhance positive effects for children. The Portuguese group emphasised the focus on resources and needs in parenting education and examined already existing programs being implemented and their potential impact on child protection policies. The Spanish group also aimed to improve parents’ competencies as well as resources in the form of social support systems to prevent unnecessary placement of children into foster care. For the school context, a program for the promotion of Life Long Learning for teachers and students was presented from the Austrian research group of Christiane Spiel and a German research group introduced their reattribution training to change students’ attributions of lack of ability to lack of effort. All four groups also reported about their difficulties and challenges in conducting their studies. Presentations of this kind are of great benefit for 1.) the realisation of others encountering similar problems as oneself and 2.) discussing with them the way they have resolved these problems and potential alternatives. Many problems encountered in intervention studies – especially by doctoral students – are not new and have been encountered by other researchers before that. It can be a great support to receive ideas and input from other research groups on how they coped with these difficulties and whether they are satisfied with the solutions they have found. Methodological challenges were also the topic of the talk of Lars Bergman who pointed out the problems posed by the use of mean treatment effects on their interpretation of individual causality. He made some suggestions for statistical analyses and methodological strategies for developmental data,

3

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

which should be used more in the future, e.g. cluster analyses, latent class analyses, etc. (Bergman, 2009). Methodological inspirations could also be gained from the following thematic session dedicated to methodological approaches to developmental data. This session covered a great variety of approaches: from qualitative analyses of processes and transformation, the use of telephone surveys for data acquisition, the measurement of motor activity of infants to the use of a computer program to test specific hypotheses statistically. A presentation which broadened my view on bullying and bullying research greatly was the one held by Louise Arsenault on behavioural genetics studies on bullying. One of her main results was that a correlation of r = .72 for bullying victimisation between monozygotic twins versus r = .38 for dizygotic twins indicates genetic influences on being victimised by peers. The author attributed these associations of genetics with behaviour to the common inheritance of traits that make these children more vulnerable to peer victimisation, e.g. anxiousness (Arsenault & Ball, 2009). Following this, Ted Barker presented his research from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development and the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime. He analysed trajectories of peer victimisation prior to school entry and identified “harsh” parenting, insufficient income/low SES and physical aggression as significant predictors of peer victimisation in pre-school/school entry children. He also identified decreasing trends in victimisation, but emphasised that these are misleading (Barker, 2009). The trajectories presented in this talk showed clearly that there are different patterns in bullying behaviour and the experience of peer victimisation across time and although the majority of children belongs to the group that starts out low and stays low on peer victimisation across time, the number of children with a high level as well as an increasing (low to high) trajectory on peer victimisation (4% and 25%, respectively; Barker, 2009) is still alarming, especially at this young age. As a possible prolongation of traditional bullying, Antonella Brighi from Italy presented international results on cyberbullying from the DAPHNE II study. She focused mainly on the theoretical background of this study and the different typologies for cyberbullying behaviour. She also emphasised the controversy about the definition of cyberbullying which has so far been an adaptation of the definition for traditional bullying (for the definition most commonly cited see Smith et al., 2006). To round up this symposium on a quarter century of bullying research, Christina Salmivalli talked about school-based intervention programs. She described general methodological problems of school-based antibullying programs, especially reasons for the small effect sizes found in numerous intervention studies so far. She reported findings from a meta-analysis by Ttofi et al. (2008; cited in Salmivalli, 2009) showing only small overall effect sizes and controversial findings. About 50% of programs have even been shown to be not effective at all. Salmivalli (2009) raised a few questions 4

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

about where these problems might stem from, for example “are low effect sizes due to low incidence rates of bullying?”, “are the programs not well implemented?” and “are the materials possibly not guided by research findings?”. She pointed out that the processes taking place during an intervention are still unknown. As a positive outlook, she also talked about the new KiVa program (www.kivakoulu.fi) currently implemented in Finnish schools and greatly supported by the Finnish government. The day ended with a very interesting round table discussion on the “Interface between media, policy and developmental psychology”. Established researchers like Christiane Spiel, Peter Smith and John Lochman, but also a representative from the Jacobs Foundation, Simon Sommer, talked about their experiences with the media and how media presence can be of use for the support of research. They pointed out that a balanced relationship between media and research should be aimed for by the researcher to relieve the search for funding, but also to use media to raise awareness on the specific subject in the population. Simon Sommer also provided advice on how studies should be designed to raise the chances of receiving funding from the Jacobs Foundation. I presented my own first results from my dissertation research on the following day in a symposium on “Cyberbullying: New Advances in Understanding the Negative Impact of New Technology”. I received some very helpful feedback from Ersilia Menesini for example, who pointed out that I should include the bully-victim group into further analyses as my analyses so far only focused on comparisons between cyberbullies vs. non-cyberbullies and cybervictims vs. non-cybervictims, respectively. She also noted that possibly more potential risk and protective factors need to be included than the ones I presented. Further presentations in this symposium suggested to take a closer look at cyberbullying during online gaming as this has been shown to be a major venue of cyberbullying in South Korea (Kwak, 2009) and to take motives of cyberbullying more into consideration. Above all, these should not be attributed to victim characteristics as motives are defined to explain internal states that initiate actions (Sanders et al., 2009). This presentation was also very interesting as it presented a new approach to data collection: semi-structured interviews were conducted through MSN Messenger, therefore using the same technology that cyberbullying research aims at among others. Furthermore, Slonje and colleagues (2009) subdivided their analyses by new categories: e.g. private forms of cyberbullying vs. public forms of cyberbullying. This may also need to be taken into account in future research. Additionally, they identified reasons for the impact that cyberbullying has on the victims. Concerning the comparisons with traditional bullying, this research group reported that in younger age children traditional bullying takes place more often, but this difference disappears in older age groups. Also, more remorse is felt in traditional bullying which should pose implications for future prevention and intervention strategies.

5

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

Similar research questions were also examined in studies by other research groups and presented in further sessions. The Spanish research group, for example, also went a step beyond these aspects and analyzed coping profiles (Elipe et al., 2009). While they found very detailed profiles for traditional bullying (groups were: “not bothered”, “angry”, “afraid & worried”, “depressed, alone and defenceless” and “few emotions”) patterns for cyberbullying by internet and mobile phone could only be group into two more general categories (“affected” vs. “not bothered”). Further research is needed in this area especially to establish and empirically support implications for local and national policy makers as well as to justify the need for future research and funding. Another interesting methodological approach was presented by Murphy and Faulkner, who implemented a computer game (Shopping Task developed by Radziszweska & Rogoff, 1988) to measure cooperation and interactions and how these differed for pairs of students with different bullying roles (participant roles according to Salmivalli, 1999). The first session on Friday morning was dedicated to peer education and peer support systems as strategies to tackle bullying and cyberbullying. Houlston and colleagues examined the kinds of peer support systems implemented in Great Britain and found gender differences for the reception of these programs. They could also show that there are systematic differences for school types and age, respectively. Befriending schemes were implemented significantly more often in primary schools and students were trained by internal staff while in secondary schools mentoring and peer counselling programs were more popular and students were more often trained by external experts (Houlston et al., 2009). The following presentation examined whether peer support poses an effective intervention against bullying. Due to some methodological limitations there was only little empirical evidence of the effect of a peer counselling intervention (James et al., 2009). The Italian research group of Ersilia Menesini implemented and evaluated an online peer education program to address cyberbullying. This approach seems to be very promising and future results will be very interesting. However, this presentation has already shown that online peer support is not less elaborate and requires the same amount of effort as traditional peer support approaches. The hosts of the conference also organised a “Meet the Editor” session which they highly recommended especially to young researchers. Representatives of several journals dedicated to Developmental Psychology (European Journal of Developmental Psychology, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, European Psychologist, International Journal of Behavioral Development) were present and gave an overview of the characteristics and requirements of their journals. They also presented a range of topics these journals are interested in, encouraged the audience to submit papers and provided helpful advice on successfully submitting a publication. 6

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

The day closed with a symposium where further anti-bullying interventions and the corresponding evaluation studies from different countries were presented. Apart from symposia, invited talks, thematic sessions, round table discussions and special-interest sessions (e.g. “Meet the editor”) I also visited numerous poster sessions (which took place twice per day). This presented the great opportunity to meet and talk with other researchers and especially doctoral students. There were many discussions on methodology and problems encountered during the research work, exchange about the different situations concerning cyberbullying research in different countries and discussion of results contrary to hypotheses and expectations. I was able to collect many copies of posters as well as literature references which might be useful for my future work. These sessions provided a great opportunity to get to know people and to connect, and thus to broaden my professional network extensively.

2.2 COST Action IS0801 Workshop “Cyberbullying: Definition and Measurement” The morning of Saturday, 22 August 2009, was reserved for a number of meetings. As a member of Workgroup 1 I was invited to join the meeting of Workgroup 1 for the last preparations for the Workshop 1. Chairs for the discussion groups and tasks for the plenary session were assigned as well as taking care of last organisational issues. This was followed by a meeting of the Subgroup 2 (“Measurement Issues”, consisting of Ann Frisén, Catarina Katzer, Ersilia Menesini and me) of Workgroup 1 to discuss about a potential publication: necessary steps, a preliminary outline, dividing and assigning tasks, deciding on a methodological approach, etc. Also, administrative issues were discussed. The COST Workshop 1 with the title “Cyberbullying: Definition and Measurement” started in the afternoon of this day. The welcoming speech by Ersilia Menesini was followed by the presentation of two invited speakers. Peter Smith gave an overview of bullying and cyberbullying research from the 1970s until today. He highlighted limitations of bullying like the focus on the individual mostly leaving out class and school level factors, the sole use of quantitative measures in many studies and deficits in the use of theory. However, he also pointed out the achievements reached in cyberbullying research so far and emphasised the opportunities in future studies. Peter Smith referred to some important publications currently in press like the book by Li and colleagues (in press) and a special issue of Journal of Psychology (Zeitschrift fuer Psychologie) on cyberbullying. Looking to the future, he voiced his hopes of the use of a broader disciplinary base consisting not only of psychologists, a broader method base, 7

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

taking into account a broader developmental perspective and a broader context beyond the school (e.g. leisure time) (Smith, 2009). Directly related to the topic of the Workshop, Michelle Ybarra presented results of comparisons between different measures to assess cyberbullying. She showed that the majority of instruments independent of their type (“behavioural items only”, “definition of cyberbullying + questions about different media used”, “definition of cyberbullying + behavioural items” and “definition of cyberbullying only”) results in prevalence rates between about 5% to 30%. Prevalence rates analysed by timeframe were generally very similar. However, prevalence rates seem to be associated with the type of sample chosen (self selection vs. convenience sample vs. random sample) with self selection leading to higher and random samples to lower prevalence rates. Ybarra pointed out that there is a great variability in measurement across studies limiting the possibility to compare prevalence rates across different studies. She also noted that behaviour based item lists have a high sensitivity, but low specificity. Concluding, she emphasised the great need for agreement on a best practice method or “gold standard” for future research (Ybarra, 2009). These results were followed by an extensive discussion which measures should best be chosen for the assessment of cyberbullying. As this talk focused on quantitative measures, in the subsequent session the invited speakers from Australia presented their results of the definition of cyberbullying from qualitative research. Phillip Slee and Barbara Spears (2009) aimed to gain insights from the student voice to inform the development of appropriate measures. This is necessary to cope with the fact that self reports and peer nominations require students’ understanding. They authors conducted audio recordings and set up a website as a resource for schools and policy makers. These materials were also analysed in regards to lived experiences, understandings of the phenomenon and knowledge of different parties involved (e.g. students, parents, school personnel, etc.). They also wanted to establish how cyberbullying is perceived (e.g. what it looks like, what it feels like) and what kind of impact it has. These authors as well as the next presenter(s) pointed out the importance to recognise students as co-researchers and coconstructors of the definition and meaning of cyberbullying. Donna Cross (2009) sees the term “cyberbullying” as an adult term whereas students do not group behaviours under this term, but rather refer to specific forms of behaviours. Gender differences and differences for school types could be shown depending on the form of measurement and the definition used, respectively. She recommends the use of a student reference group (e.g. in form of a committee) and to meet with them regularly for revisions of the measurement and definition developed. The second day of the post-conference workshop was dedicated to the poster discussion. Participants were allowed a first session to view the presented posters and then asked to join one of the four 8

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

thematic discussion groups: 1. “Definition & Measurement Issues of Cyberbullying”, 2. “Prevalence and Surveys”, 3. “Risk Factors and Correlates of Cyberbullying” or 4. “Interventions and Preventions Strategies”. Poster presenters were asked to summarise the main results presented on their poster in front of the discussion group and to answer questions before the general discussion. Together with Ann Frisén I was assigned to chair the discussion group 3. Since I had also submitted a poster to the topic of the discussion group 1, I first presented my summary there and answered questions and received very helpful feedback (e.g. to reduce answer categories in my confirmatory factor analyses to avoid problems with the covariance matrix). I then joined my initial discussion group and took over my task as co-chair by taking notes for the plenary session. During the plenary session, the results from the different discussion groups were presented. This required having prepared a short Powerpoint presentation from the poster abstracts beforehand and inserting the notes from the discussion group during a short break before the plenary session. Here, I presented the results of discussion group 3 which can also be found in the form of slides on the website http://www.gold.ac.uk/is0801/vilnius-workshop/ and included the suggestions to control for traditional bullying while conducting analyses of the risk and protective factors of cyberbullying, to examine moral aspects to understand bullies and conceptualise interventions, to look more closely for statements about causality for the results of the association between gender identity and cyberbullying, and to include further factors like internet addiction, the need for connectedness, the importance of the internet for the participants of studies and the importance of a virtual personality and the possible threat to the real identity when the virtual identity is attacked. This first workshop of the COST Action IS0801 closed with a look to the future of cyberbullying research by Peter Smith, who is chair of this Action. In the afternoon after the COST workshop 1 I also met with Catarina Katzer, the other German representative, to discuss about and plan a cyberbullying symposium at the XIV. Workshop Aggression which is being hosted by the Technische Universität Berlin (Prof. Angela Ittel) and the Freie Universität Berlin (Prof. Herbert Scheithauer; my home institution) in Berlin on November 6-8, 2009. We agreed on who to invite as presenters and divided tasks for further organisational steps. The symposium has been submitted on September 1 and the notice of acceptance will be received during the next few days.

9

STSM Scientific Report

3

August 2009

Workshop summary and main results

The STSM reported on here consisted of two parts: 1. attending the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology (ECDP) and 2. attending and taking an active part in the COST Action IS0801 Workshop on “Cyberbullying: Definition and Measurement”. This year’s ECDP put great emphasis on bullying and cyberbullying research. The presented papers can be group into four main categories: •

methodological approaches and challenges,



the nature of bullying and cyberbullying,



risk and protective factors,



prevention and intervention approaches.

Main results from these presentations were an insight into the nature of bullying and cyberbullying as well as knowledge about effective coping, prevention and intervention strategies. Methodological challenges arise, but in some cases there are also suggestions on how to handle these. Concerning risk and protective factors it has become evident that it is not enough to examine a few selected factors but rather a more comprehensive model should be developed and the results achieved so far should be integrated. The topics of the post-conference workshop were already grouped by the organisers and are very similar to those of the ECDP: •

definition and measurement (methodological),



prevalence and surveys,



risk and protective factors,



prevention and intervention strategies.

It has become very clear that a consensus needs to be reached within the scientific community to reach a “gold standard” (Ybarra, 2009). The approaches are still too diverse to enable reliable comparisons between studies. Repeatedly, it has been pointed out that students should be involved in the research concerning them. The definition of cyberbullying has been criticised in all aspects and needs to be revised to fit the context of Web 2.0 better. Also, recommendations for valid and reliable measurement instruments are urgently needed as the form of measurement seems to influence the results. Possibly, qualitative and quantitative designs need to be combined to develop measures that are developmentally appropriate for study participants who are usually children and adolescents in this area of research.

10

STSM Scientific Report

4

August 2009

Benefits and future collaborations

4.1 Benefits The main results of this STSM for me personally can be summarised as follows: •

acquaintance with general conference proceedings,



practical insights into the world of research (e.g. how to successfully present at a conference),



general overview of projects being conducted in the scientific community,



knowledge about publishing in journals,



contact with many researchers (among others from the COST Action IS0801) and doctoral students from the same research field (broadening of professional network),



ideas, suggestions and recommendations on what to change in own research designs,



empirical knowledge for my future research work,



literature references,



lower inhibition threshold for contacting researchers for cooperation.

Another benefit was that I was able to present first results from my own work in front of the scientific community and thus receive helpful feedback by experts from the cyberbullying research field. As the scientific community on the subject of cyberbullying is very small in Germany, it was also very important to be present at an international conference and to let other researchers know about our research project and results. I was able to give out my contact data to interested individuals as well as handout of my poster at the post-conference. Also, I have already received requests to share my presentation slides with some other researchers.

4.2 Future collaborations A future collaboration will probably take place at the XIV. Workshop Aggression in Berlin on November 6-8, 2009. If accepted, I will be organising a symposium on cyberbullying together with Catarina Katzer from the COST network. Also, we have invited and received submissions from other COST members (e.g. Sonja Perren from Switzerland and Georges Steffgen from Luxemburg). Another possible collaboration could be the publication planned and currently discussed in the Subgroup 2 of Workgroup 1. Also, I have been made aware by COST members of a potential training school on cyberbullying in April 2010. This might pose even further opportunities for collaborations. Further, I am also planning on attending the COST workshop 2 in Antwerp, Belgium in May 2010. 11

STSM Scientific Report

5

August 2009

References

Arsenault, L. & Ball, H. (2009). Behavioural Genetics Studies on Bullying Behaviour, Bullying Victimisation and their Impact on Psychopathology. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Barker, E. (2009). Trajectories of Peer Victimization during Preschool and Adolescence: Predictors. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Bergman, L.R. (2009). Methodological Challenges for Developmental Psychology. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Cross, D. (2009). National prevalence study of cyber bullying in Australia: Measurement and findings. Paper presented at the Post Conference Workshop “COST ACTION IS0801: Cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings”, 22.-23. August 2009, Vilnius. Elipe, P., Ortega, R., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Vega, E. & Calmaestra, J. (2009). Emotional Impact of Bullying and Cyberbullying on Victims. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Houlston, C., Smith, P.K. & Jessel, J. (2009). Investigating the Extent and Use of Peer Support Initiatives in English Schools. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. James, A., Smith, P.K. & Radford, L. (2009). Is Peer Support an Effective Anti-Bullying Intervention? A Longitudinal Case Study in an English Secondary School. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Kwak, K. (2009). Aspects of Cyberbullying in South Korean Pupils. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Li, Q., Cross, D. & Smith, P.K. (in press). Bullying goes to the global village: Research on cyberbullying from an international perspective. Wiley-Blackwell. Radziszewska, B. & Rogoff, B. (1988). Influence of adult and peer collaborators on children's planning skills. Developmental Psychology, 24, 840-848. Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant Role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453-459. Salmivalli, C. & Karna, A. (2009). School-Based Interventions: Success, Limitations and Future Challenges. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. 12

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

Sanders, J.B.P., Smith, P.K. & Cillessen, A.H.N. Cyberbullies: Their Motives, Characteristics, and Types of Bullying. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Slee, P. & Spears, B. (2009). Defining cyberbullying: Insights and Issues from an Australian qualitative study. Paper presented at the Post Conference Workshop “COST ACTION IS0801: Cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings”, 22.-23. August 2009, Vilnius. Slonje, R., Smith, P.K. & Frisén, A. (2009). The Nature and Impact of Cyber Bullying in Swedish Schools. Paper presented at the XIV. European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Aug 18-22, 2009, Vilnius. Smith, P.K. (2009). Studies of cyberbullying in Europe – progress and challenges? Paper presented at the Post Conference Workshop “COST ACTION IS0801: Cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings”, 22.-23. August 2009, Vilnius. Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M. & Tippett, N. (2006). An Investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. London: Unit for School and Family Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London. Ybarra, M. (2009). Issues of language and frequency in measuring cyberbullying: Data from the Growing up with Media survey. Paper presented at the Post Conference Workshop “COST ACTION IS0801: Cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings”, 22.-23. August 2009, Vilnius.

13

STSM Scientific Report

6

August 2009

Appendix: List of (attended) presentations and participants

Monday, 17 Aug 2009 20.00

Arrival

Tuesday, 18 Aug 2009 8.00

Registration

18.00 – 19.30

Opening Ceremony

18.00 – 18.25

Welcoming Addresses: Alvydas Pumputis, Christiane Spiel, Gintaras Steponavicius, Leta Dromantiene, Rita Zukauskiene

18.25 – 18.35

Presentation of Butterworth Award Winner: B. Pierrehumbert

18.35 – 18.45

Presentation of Preyer Award Winner: C. Spiel

18.45 – 19.30

Key Note: Prof. Nathan A. Fox “The Effects of Early Experience on the Brain and Behavioral Development: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project”; Chair: N. Reissland

19.45

Welcome Reception

Wednesday, 19 Aug 2009 9.00 – 10.45

Symposium “Interventions in Context: Methodological and Practical Challenges” Chair: C. Spiel; Discussant: K. Salmela-Aro - Almeida, A., Pinto, I.M., Cruz, O., Santos, M.R., Gaspar, M.F., Alarcao, M. & Brandao, T. “Parenting Education – Looking at Resources and Needs of Intervention” - Rodrigo, M.J. Byrne, S. Maiquez, M.L. & Martin, J.C. “Promoting Parental Competences in At-Risk Family Contexts: Implementation and Results of a Prevention Programme” - Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., Lüftenegger, M., Wagner, P. & Spiel, C. “Promoting Lifelong Learning in Schools: Challenges, Implementation, Results” - Moschner, B. & Anschütz, A. “Promoting Motivation and Goal Orientations in Schools by Teacher Feedback: Application of a Reattribution Training”

11.15 – 12.00

Invited Talk: Lars R. Bergman “Methodological Challenges for Developmental Psychology” Chair: K. Salmela-Aro

13.00 – 14.45

Thematic Session “Methodological Approaches for Developmental Data” Chair: J. Worobey - Rzechowska, E. “Processual Approach: Analysis of Phenomena at the Scale of Individual Events and Developmental Transformations” - Van De Schoot, R. Hoijtink, H., Romeijn, J-W. & Van Aken, M.A.G. “Directly Evaluating Expectations or Testing the Null Hypothesis? Bayesian Model Selection Explained Non-Statistically” 14

STSM Scientific Report -

August 2009 Barquero, B. & Eckhardt, A.G. “Analyzing the Influence of Parenting on Young Children’s Development by Using Telephone Interviews” Worobey, J., Espinosa, C. Vetrini, N. & Rozo, E.M. “Measuring Motor Activity in Human Infants: Developmental Considerations”

13.30 – 16.00

Poster Session

16.15 – 18.00

Invited Symposium “Bullying in Schools: Findings and Policy Implications After a Quarter Century of Research” Chair: P. Smith; Discussant: D. Olweus - Arsenault, L. & Ball, H. “Behavioural Genetics Studies on Bullying Behaviour, Bullying Victimisation and their Impact on Psychopathology” - Barker, E. “Trajectories of Peer Victimization during Preschool and Adolescence: Predictors” - Genta, M.L., Brighi, A., Ortega, R. & Smith, P.K. “Cyberbullying: Evolution and/or Transformation of Traditional Bullying?” - Salmivalli, C. & Karna, A. “School-Based Interventions: Success, Limitations and Future Challenges”

18.00 – 19.00

Round Table “Interface Between Media, Policy, and Developmental Psychology” Chair: C. Spiel, W. Koops; Discussants: J.E. Lochman, P.K. Smith, S. Sommer, M. de Winter

Thursday, 20 Aug 2009 9.00 – 10.45

Symposium “Cyberbullying: New Advances in Understanding the Negative Impact of New Technology” Chair: Ann Frisén; Discussant: Ersilia Menesini - Schultze-Krumbholz, A. & Scheithauer, H. “Cyberbullying: Frequency, Risk and Protective Factors in a German Population” - Kwak, K. “Aspects of Cyberbullying in South Korean Pupils” - Slonje, R., Smith, P.K. & Frisén, A. “The Nature and Impact of Cyber Bullying in Swedish Schools” - Sanders, J.B.P., Smith, P.K. & Cillessen, A.H.N. “Cyberbullies: Their Motives, Characteristics, and Types of Bullying”

9.00 – 13.00

Poster Session

13.00 – 14.45

Thematic Session “Risk Behavior and Protective and Risk Factors” Chair: P. Elipe - Elipe, P., Ortega, R., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Vega, E. & Calmaestra, J. “Emotional Impact of Bullying and Cyberbullying on Victims” - Ortega, R., Calmaestra, J., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Elipe, P. & Vega, E. “Cyberbullying in Spain: Some Comparisons with Traditional Forms of Bullying”

15.15 – 16.00

Preyer Award Winner: P. Harris “The Development of Trust and Doubt” Chair. C. Spiel

16.15 – 18.00

Thematic Session “Developmental Issues” Chair: S. Murphy 15

STSM Scientific Report -

-

August 2009 Murphy, S. & Faulkner, D.M. “Children’s Everyday Interactions and their Influence on Bullying Behaviour” Lee, S., Smith, P.K. & Monks, C. “Definitions of Bullying in South Korea: A Life-Span Perspective” Cecen Erogul, A. & Kaf Hasirci, O. „An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-Based Sexual Abuse Prevention Programme for Turkish Primary School Students“ Jarmi, E. & Ribiczey, N. „Direct and Indirect Forms of Bullying in Hungarian Secondary Schools – How Social Context Effects Bullying Roles“

Friday, 21 Aug 2009 9.00 – 10.45

Invited Symposium “Peer Education and Peer Support to Reduce Bullying and Cyberbullying” Chair: P. Smith; Discussant: P. Naylor - Houlston, C., Smith, P.K. & Jessel, J. “Investigating the Extent and Use of Peer Support Initiatives in English Schools“ - James, A., Smith, P.K. & Radford, L. “Is Peer Support an Effective AntiBullying Intervention? A Longitudinal Case Study in an English Secondary School“ - Menesini, E., Nocentini, A. & Calussi, P. “Assessing the Effects of a School Peer Education Approach on Cyber-Bullying“ - Pisano, L., Saturno, M.E.& Pinna, N. “An Evaluation of an Italian “Peer to Peer” Service to Prevent Cyberbullying, Targeted to Students, Teachers, and Parents“

9.00 – 12.00

Poster Session

13.00 – 14.45

Meet the Editors

13.00 – 16.00

Poster Session

16.15 – 18.00

Symposium “Bullying, Children at Risk, Coping Styles, and the Impact of Anti-Bullying Interventions in School“ Chair: P. Naylor; Discussant: D. Strohmeier - Marfleet, R., Iqbal, Z. & Naylor, P. “Bullying, Schizotypy and Coping Styles in Adolescence: A Cross-Sectional Study“ - Naylor, P. & Petch, L. “Existential Group Counselling for Schoolchildren with High Anxiety: Impact on Bullying Roles” - Toda, Y. & Kurihara, S. „From a Q&A Handout Method of Peer Support to a Hierarchical on-Line Support System: A 10-Year Evaluation Study“ - Van Der Meulen, K., Granizo, L., Rodriguez, M.P. & Juanes, A. “The Equip Programme for Educators in Secondary School: Evaluation of this Approach to Preventing Peer Victimization“ - Naylor, P., Del Barrio, C., Iqbal, Z., Van der Meulen, K. & Gutiérrez, H. „The Pepe Anti-Bullying Intervention in Schools: Cross-National Evaluation in England & Spain“

16

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

Saturday, 22 Aug 2009 10.00 – 12.00

Meeting with Workgroup 1 for last preparations for Workshop 1 (post-conference workshop)

12.00 – 14.00

Meeting with Catarina Katzer and Ann Frisén for possible publication in Workgroup 1

14.30

Opening and Welcome “CYBERBULLYING: DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES“ E. Menesini

14.40 – 15.20

Invited Speakers P. Smith “Studies of cyberbullying in Europe – progress and challenges?“

15.20 – 16.10

Invited Speakers M. Ybarra “Issues of language and frequency in measuring cyberbullying: data from the Growing up with Media survey“

16.10 – 16.40

Discussion Chair: E. Menesini

16.40 – 17.00

Poster Exhibition

17.00 – 17.40

Invited Speakers Slee, P. & Spears, B. “Defining cyberbullying: Insights and Issues from an Australian qualitative study”

17.40 – 18.20

Invited Speakers Cross, D. (Slee, P., Spears, B. & Campbell, M.) “National prevalence study of cyber bullying in Australia: Measurement and findings“

18.20 – 18.50

Discussion Chair: A. Frisén

18.50

Conclusion

Sunday, 23 Aug 2009 9.00 – 9.45

Poster Session

9.45 – 11.00

Poster Workshop Discussions Chair: C. Katzer, Discussion Group 1 “Definition & Measurement issues of Cyberbullying” Chair: J. Pyzalski , Discussion Group 2 “Prevalence and Surveys” Chair: A. Frisén & A. Schultze-Krumbholz, Discussion Group 3 “Risk factors and Correlates of Cyberbullying” Chair: E. Menesini, Discussion Group 4 “Interventions and Preventions Strategies”

11.30 – 13.00

Plenary Session and Group Discussion Results Chair: C. Katzer Speakers: C. Katzer, J. Pyzalski, A. Schultze-Krumbholz, E. Menesini

13.00 – 13.30

Conclusion and Future Developments – P. Smith

14.00

Meeting with Catarina Katzer to organise Cyberbullying-Symposium at the XIV. 17

STSM Scientific Report

August 2009

Workshop Aggression, November 6-8, 2009, Berlin Monday, 24 Aug 2009 9.30

Departure

18

XIVth European Conference on Developmental ...

Aug 17, 2009 - well as resources in the form of social support systems to prevent .... the great need for agreement on a best practice method or “gold standard”.

62KB Sizes 2 Downloads 153 Views

Recommend Documents

CONFERENCE Late Romanasque Sculpture in European Cathedrals ...
CONFERENCE Late Romanasque Sculpture in European Cathedrals-1.pdf. CONFERENCE Late Romanasque Sculpture in European Cathedrals-1.pdf. Open.

14th Conference of the European Colloid and Interface ...
We study the capabilities of the Scanning Flow Cytometer (SFC) [1] to determine the geometry and hemoglobin concentration of native Red Blood Cells (RBC).

FINAL Program - Conference on Contemporary Rome.pdf ...
Page 3 of 4. FINAL Program - Conference on Contemporary Rome.pdf. FINAL Program - Conference on Contemporary Rome.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with.

15th CONFERENCE ON AUSTRALASIAN ... -
Sep 1, 2015 - Hailing from South Africa, Anusuya is recognised as a global expert on palaeohistology, ... sub-saharan prize for the popularisation of science.

04212017 Conference on the DeploymentRedeployment of Master ...
04212017 Conference on the DeploymentRedeployment of Master Teachers.pdf. 04212017 Conference on the DeploymentRedeployment of Master Teachers.

Americas Conference on Information Systems
Aug 17, 2008 - between software applications. ..... Benslimane, D., Daboue, D., Maamar, Z. and Onana, F. S. M. (2007) WSRS: A Web Service Recommender.

12th International Conference on Romani Linguistics_Draft ...
12th International Conference on Romani Linguistics_Draft Program_1608.pdf. 12th International Conference on Romani Linguistics_Draft Program_1608.pdf.

12th ANNUAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE on 'ELECTORAL ...
Mar 12, 2016 - ... AP& TEW). 20:00 onwards Dinner ... Impact of the Internet, Social Media and Data Analysis on Elections & Governance. Chairperson: Dr.