دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 36784
عنوان فارسی مقاله

زورگویی مجازی: بررسی مشخصات روانی شرکت کنندگان دانشجو

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
36784 2014 11 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Cyber-bullying: An investigation of the psychological profile of university student participants
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Volume 35, Issue 3, May–June 2014, Pages 204–214

کلمات کلیدی
سایبر قلدری - سایبری قربانی - دانشجویان دانشگاه - مشخصات شخصیت - علائم روانی - تجاوز آنلاین
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله زورگویی مجازی: بررسی مشخصات روانی شرکت کنندگان دانشجو

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract The present study investigated the psychological profile of 430 Greek university students who reported cyber-bullying/victimization experiences. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire, measuring cyber-bullying, cyber-victimization, Internet frequency and use, personality characteristics, and psychological symptoms. Results indicated that 58.4% of the sample had participated in a cyber-bullying incident assuming any role. Cyber bully/victims, the most common participant role, endorsed more psychological symptoms, more psychopathic traits, and were high sensation seekers, compared to the rest of the groups, whereas cyber-victims scored higher on empathy. Cyber-bullying was predicted by callous/unemotional and impulsive/irresponsible traits, depression, Internet use, as well as lack of social skills. The latter four variables also predicted cyber-victimization along with gender. Findings are discussed in terms of prevention and intervention strategies.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

Results Descriptive Statistics Mean and standard deviations for the total sample for each scale are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Range and Correlations Between CB, CV, Personalilty Characteristics and Psychological Symptoms. Mean SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. CB 1.29 0.50 1.00 4.67 2. CV 1.32 0.50 1.00 4.67 .86⁎⁎ 3. SIA 1.34 0.63 .00 3.80 .12⁎ .10 4. AS 3.94 0.97 1.00 5.00 -.07 -.02 -.15⁎⁎ 5. ES 2.94 1.17 1.00 5.00 .12⁎ .12⁎ -.13⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ 6. DI 3.44 1.03 1.00 5.00 .18⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ -.24⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ 7. BS 3.10 0.97 1.00 5.00 .09 .08 -.01 .26⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ 8. CE 3.11 0.56 1.00 4.00 -.04 .01 -.10 .09 .03 .09 .13⁎⁎ 9. ER 2.98 0.58 1.00 4.00 -.27⁎⁎ -.17⁎⁎ -.14⁎⁎ -.06 -.13⁎⁎ -.10⁎ -.06 .29⁎⁎ 10. SS 3.05 0.69 1.00 4.00 -.21⁎⁎ -.21⁎⁎ -.40⁎⁎ .03 -.04 .05 -.01 .14⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ 11. GM 1.80 0.52 1.05 3.90 .39⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .01 .03 .19⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .12⁎ .13⁎⁎ -.16⁎⁎ -.10 12. CU 1.94 0.42 1.07 3.73 .36⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .03 .01 .24⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .10⁎ -.02 -.34⁎⁎ -.12⁎ .57⁎⁎ 13. II 2.14 0.44 1.07 3.60 .36⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ -.06 .30⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .04 -.30⁎⁎ -.09 .50⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ 14. AN 1.23 0.69 .00 3.00 .17⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .04 -.05 .04 .22⁎⁎ .12⁎ -.01 -.15⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .02 .18⁎⁎ 15. HO 1.13 0.70 .00 3.00 .28⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .10⁎ .02 .16⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .07 .11⁎ -.11⁎ -.13⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎ 16. IS 1.31 0.76 .00 3.00 .13⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .01 -.09 -.02 .15⁎⁎ .07 .03 -.24⁎⁎ .12⁎ -.05 .11⁎ .60⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ 17. DE .83 0.57 .00 3.00 .42⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ -.07 .02 .03 .12⁎ -.02 -.13⁎⁎ -.31⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎ 18. IU 3.48 0.83 .00 7.00 .15⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .01 .05 .07 .12⁎ .09 .01 -.07 -.01 .01 -.02 .11⁎ .05 .09 .04 .09 19. IF 3.43 1.36 1.00 4.00 .13⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ -.04 .05 .16⁎⁎ .07 .02 .04 .01 .04 .04 .02 .08 -.01 .05 -.07 .01 .30⁎⁎ Note. CB = Cyber-bullying, CV = Cyber-victimization, SIA = Social interaction anxiety, AS = Adventure Seeking, ES = Experience Seeking, DI = Disinhibition, BS = Boredom susceptibility, CE = Cognitive empathy, ER = Emotional reactivity, SS = Social skills, GM = Grandiose-manipulative, CU = Callous-unemotional, II = Impulsive-irresponsible, DE = Depression, AN = Anxiety, HO = Hostility, IS = Interpersonal Sensitivity, DE = Depression, IU = Internet use, IF = Internet frequency. *p < .05. **p < .01. Table options Frequency of cyber-bullying/victimization behaviors In terms of the specific CB behaviors, results indicated that spreading rumors and malicious comments for a third person through Short Message Service (SMS;M = 1.51, SD = 0.55), was reported most frequently, while using someone else’s mobile phone or computer for masquerading was the least frequent CB behaviors (M = 0.08, SD = 0.31) and (M = 1.15, SD = 0.51) respectively. In terms of CV, the most commonly reported behavior was having something written on the internet about the victim that s/he didn’t want others to see (M = 1.59, SD = 0.89), and the least reported was being ridiculed by having videos and pictures of him/her being forwarded online (M = 1.23, SD = 0.65). It should be noted, however, that although these behaviors were most frequently reported, they were quite rare, since the mean lies between the two least frequent response categories (i.e., “never” and “once or twice”). Participant role classification, internet frequency and use Students were classified into participant roles on the basis of their CB/V total scores. Scores falling in the upper and lower quartiles of the distribution of both CB and CV scores were indicative of high and low CB and CV respectively. Thus, four groups were formed: 34 students (14%) were classified as cyber-bullies (high on CB and low on CV), 27 (11%) as cyber-victims (high on CV and low on CB), 78 (33%) as cyber-bully/victims (high on both CB and CV), and 99 (42%) as uninvolved (low on both CB and CV). Males were more likely to be classified as cyber-bully/victims, whereas females were more likely to be classified as uninvolved, χ2(3) = 11.07, p < .05. A chi-square test examined the relation between Internet use and participant roles and was found significant, with cyber-bully/victims reporting higher Internet use than other groups, χ2(3) = 13.59, p < .05. Cyber-bully/victims also used chat-rooms more frequently, χ2(3) = 16.96, p < .01, as well as Instant Messaging (IM) programs, χ2(3) = 22.27, p < .001, and SNS, χ2(3) = 17.21, p < .01. Group Differences Gender One-way ANOVAs showed that participants’ scores significantly differed in terms of gender, except for hostility, depression, boredom susceptibility, social skills, adventure seeking and social anxiety (Table 3). More specifically, males scored higher than females in CB, experience seeking, grandiose/manipulative, impulsive/irresponsible and callous/unemotional traits. Females, on the other hand, scored higher on cognitive empathy, emotional reactivity and interpersonal sensitivity. It should be noted, that although the ANOVAs showed significant mean gender differences, the effect sizes ranged from small to medium (range: .02 -.16). Table 3. Gender Differences in CB, CV, Personality Characteristics and Psychological Symptoms. Gender Male (n = 181) Female (n = 244) ANOVA (df = 1, 423) M SD M SD F p Partial Eta2 1. CB 1.42 0.67 1.18 0.28 25.76 .001 .06 2. CV 1.45 0.66 1.21 0.29 25.02 .001 .06 3. SIA 1.27 0.62 1.39 0.62 3.09 ns .01 4. AS 3.97 1.04 3.92 0.92 0.24 ns .01 5. ES 3.28 1.09 2.69 1.17 27.88 .001 .06 6. DI 3.62 0.96 3.30 1.06 9.56 .01 .02 7. BS 3.03 0.99 3.16 0.96 1.72 ns .01 8. CE 3.04 0.62 3.15 0.51 4.02 .05 .01 9. ER 2.85 0.61 3.08 0.54 17.81 .001 .04 10. SS 3.00 0.72 3.08 0.67 1.23 ns .01 11. GM 2.00 0.58 1.67 0.43 39.99 .001 .09 12. CU 2.14 0.45 1.79 0.35 72.77 .001 .16 13. II 2.27 0.46 2.05 0.41 24.92 .001 .06 14. AN 1.07 0.64 1.33 0.70 14.52 .001 .03 15. HO 1.19 0.73 1.08 0.67 2.48 ns .01 16. IS 1.08 0.73 1.47 0.74 29.17 .001 .07 17. DE .83 0.60 .83 0.54 0.01 ns .00 Note: CB = Cyber-bullying, CV = Cyber-victimization, SIA = Social interaction anxiety, AS = Adventure Seeking, ES = Experience Seeking, DI = Disinhibition, BS = Boredom susceptibility, CE = Cognitive empathy, ER = Emotional reactivity, SS = Social skills, GM = Grandiose-manipulative, CU = Callous-unemotional, II = Impulsive-irresponsible, DE = Depression, AN = Anxiety, HO = Hostility, IS = Interpersonal Sensitivity, DE = Depression. Table options Participant roles One-way ANOVAs tested whether participant roles had any significant effect on students’ scores on the variables under study (Table 4). In all cases, post hoc multiple comparisons using the Scheffé test were used. Cyber-victims scored significantly higher in emotional reactivity and social skills (both dimensions of empathy) compared to uninvolved and cyber-bully/victims. Cyber-bully/victims achieved greater scores in most of the rest of the variables compared to the other three groups. Specifically, they scored higher in anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity, and disinhibition, than cyber-bullies and uninvolved. They also scored higher compared to cyber-bullies, cyber-victims and uninvolved in depression and impulsive/irresponsible traits. Finally, they reported higher scores in experience seeking, boredom susceptibility, hostility, grandiose/manipulative and callous/unemotional traits, in comparison to cyber-bullies, cyber-victims or uninvolved. It should be noted that effect sizes varied in sizes from small to large (range: .03 - .21). Table 4. Participant Role Differences in CB, CV, Personality Characteristics and Psychological Symptoms. Participant role Victim (n = 27) Bully (n = 33) Uninvolved (n = 99) Bully / Victim (n = 72) ANOVA (df = 3, 235) M SD M SD M SD M SD F p Partial Eta2 1. CB 1.10a 0.09 1.55 0.27 1.00a .00 2.09 0.71 104.05 .001 .58 2. CV 1.65 0.26 1.22a 0.09 1.00a .00 2.17 0.65 139.99 .001 .66 3. SIA 1.17 0.53 1.39 0.51 1.32 0.71 1.45 0.63 1.23 ns .02 4. AS 4.28 0.85 4.09 0.92 3.92 0.97 3.76 1.14 2.06 ns .02 5. ES 3.09a,b 1.13 2.78a,b 1.06 2.77a 1.15 3.22b 1.12 2.65 .05 .03 6. DI 3.57a,b 1.07 3.81b 0.89 3.04a 1.01 3.86b .90 11.91 .001 .13 7. BS 3.19a,b 0.77 3.21a,b 1.14 2.85a 0.91 3.24b 1.03 2.74 .05 .03 8. CE 3.35 0.53 3.13 0.53 3.06 0.54 3.04 0.64 2.13 ns .03 9. ER 3.25a 0.58 2.85a,b 0.51 3.12a 0.53 2.71b 0.58 10.64 .001 .12 10. SS 3.24a 0.59 2.98a,b 0.63 3.16a 0.65 2.81b 0.75 4.88 .01 .06 11. GM 1.79a,b 0.47 1.95b 0.52 1.61a 0.46 2.11b 0.52 14.14 .001 .16 12. CU 1.84a 0.38 2.02a,b 0.35 1.87a 0.47 2.19b 0.42 8.42 .001 .11 13. II 2.20a 0.41 2.26a 0.45 1.94 0.42 2.43a 0.41 18.15 .001 .19 14. AN 1.19a,b 0.57 1.03a 0.60 1.07a 0.66 1.55b 0.66 9.19 .001 .11 15. HO 1.34a 0.69 1.22a 0.71 .83 0.59 1.55a 0.68 18.44 .001 .19 16. IS 1.43a,b 0.71 1.13a 0.65 1.00a 0.75 1.57b 0.74 9.46 .001 .11 17. DE 0.72a 0.35 .78a 0.44 0.63a 0.53 1.28 0.68 19.64 .001 .21 Note. Means in the same row with the same superscripts are not significantly different at p < .05 based on comparisons conducted using the Scheffé posthoc test. CB = Cyber-bullying, CV = Cyber-victimization, SIA = Social interaction anxiety, AS = Adventure Seeking, ES = Experience Seeking, DI = Disinhibition, BS = Boredom susceptibility, CE = Cognitive empathy, ER = Emotional reactivity, SS = Social skills, GM = Grandiose-manipulative, CU = Callous-unemotional, II = Impulsive-irresponsible, DE = Depression, AN = Anxiety, HO = Hostility, IS = Interpersonal Sensitivity, DE = Depression. Table options Correlation Analysis Pearson correlations were computed to assess the relation between CB, CV, and the rest of the variables. Coefficients ranged between .10 and .86, the greatest correlation was between CB and CV, whereas the lowest between hostility and social anxiety, emotional reactivity and disinhibition, and callous/unemotional trait and boredom susceptibility (Table 2). Both CB and CV had medium positive correlations with all psychopathic traits, medium and low positive correlations with psychological symptoms, and social anxiety, and low positive correlations with Internet frequency and use. Regression Analysis Two four-step hierarchical stepwise multiple regressions were run to determine the extent to which CB and CV can be predicted by gender, personality, psychological symptoms, Internet frequency and use. Variable selection was conducted using a combination of theory-based and statistically recommended procedures. Sets of variables were entered into the analysis in a predetermined order informed by their theoretical significance. Thus, Internet frequency and use were entered in the model last (step 4) in order to evaluate their relative contribution once the effects of personality characteristics and psychological problems were accounted for. Since it is assumed that gender, personality (empathy, sensation seeking, psychopathic traits), and psychological symptoms (anxiety, hostility, depression, interpersonal sensitivity, social anxiety) precede communication media use (i.e. Internet), they were entered in the model in three consecutive steps. However, given the concurrent nature of the data, the findings of the regression analyses simply confirm the presence of shared variance among the sets of predictors rather than a meaningful ordering of effects. CB was predicted by impulsive/irresponsible traits, social skills, callous/unemotional traits, depression and Internet use (Table 5). Significant predictors accounted for 32% of the total variance, with impulsive/irresponsible traits explaining the highest percentage (12%). Gender also predicted CB, but it was not significant. Table 5. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Gender, Personality Characteristics, Psychological Symptoms and Internet Use, Used to Predict Cyber-bulling and Cyber-victimization. Cyber-bulling Cyber-victimization (n = 425) (n = 425) Variable B SE B β Adj R2 F change B SE B β Adj R2 F change Step 1 .04 11.67⁎⁎⁎ .03 8.86⁎⁎ Gender –.17 .05 –.20⁎⁎ –.15 .05 –.17⁎⁎ Step 2 .25 8.95⁎⁎⁎ .17 5.62⁎⁎⁎ Gender –.02 .05 –.03 –.08 .05 –.09 AS –.02 .02 –.05 –.02 .03 –.05 ES –.04 .02 –.10 –.03 .02 –.08 DI .03 .03 .07 .03 .03 .08 BS –.01 .03 –.02 .00 .03 .00 CE –.01 .04 –.01 –.01 .05 –.01 ER –.01 .04 –.01 .06 .05 .08 SS –.15 .03 –.26⁎⁎⁎ –.16 .03 –.27⁎⁎⁎ GM .10 .06 .12 .04 .06 .04 CU .21 .06 .21⁎⁎⁎ .11 .07 .10 II .22 .05 .24⁎⁎⁎ .23 .05 .24⁎⁎⁎ Step 3 .28 3.45⁎⁎ .22 4.26⁎⁎ Gender –.05 .05 –.06 –.11 .05 –.12⁎ AS –.01 .02 –.01 –.02 .03 –.03 ES –.04 .02 –.10 –.02 .02 –.06 DI .04 .03 .11 .04 .03 .11 BS –.00 .03 –.01 .00 .03 .00 CE –.01 .04 –.01 –.01 .04 –.01 ER –.01 .04 –.01 .04 .05 .06 SS –.11 .03 –.18⁎⁎⁎ –.10 .03 –.17⁎⁎ GM .10 .06 .12 .01 .06 .01 CU .19 .06 .19⁎⁎⁎ .09 .07 .08 II .18 .05 .19⁎⁎⁎ .17 .05 .18⁎⁎⁎ SIA .05 .04 .07 –.04 .04 –.06 AN –.01 .04 –.02 .01 .05 .02 HO .02 .04 .03 .05 .04 .08 IS –.06 .04 –.10 –.01 .04 –.02 DE .15 .04 .21⁎⁎⁎ .19 .04 .25⁎⁎⁎ Step 4 .32 9.33⁎⁎⁎ .26 10.17⁎⁎⁎ Gender –.05 .05 –.07 –.11 .05 –.13⁎ AS –.01 .02 –.02 –.02 .03 –.04 ES –.04 .02 –.10 –.03 .02 –.09 DI .04 .03 .09 .03 .03 .09 BS –.01 .02 –.02 .00 .03 .00 CE –.01 .04 –.01 –.01 .04 –.01 ER –.01 .04 –.01 .04 .05 .05 SS –.11 .03 –.20⁎⁎⁎ –.11 .03 –.18⁎⁎⁎ GM .10 .05 .12 .01 .06 .01 CU .21 .06 .21⁎⁎⁎ .11 .07 .11 II .15 .05 .17⁎⁎ .15 .05 .16⁎⁎ SIA .04 .04 .06 –.05 .04 –.07 AN –.01 .04 –.01 .02 .04 .03 HO .02 .04 .02 .04 .04 .07 IS –.05 .04 –.10 .00 .04 .00 DE .15 .04 .20⁎⁎⁎ .18 .04 .24⁎⁎⁎ IU .06 .02 .21⁎⁎⁎ .07 .02 .21⁎⁎⁎ IF .03 .03 .06 .04 .03 .09 Note. CB = Cyber-bullying, CV = Cyber-victimization, SIA = Social interaction anxiety, AS = Adventure Seeking, ES = Experience Seeking, DI = Disinhibition, BS = Boredom susceptibility, CE = Cognitive empathy, ER = Emotional reactivity, SS = Social skills, GM = Grandiose-manipulative, CU = Callous-unemotional, II = Impulsive-irresponsible, DE = Depression, AN = Anxiety, HO = Hostility, IS = Interpersonal Sensitivity, DE = Depression, IU = Internet use, IF = Internet frequency. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table options CV was predicted by gender, social skills, impulsive/irresponsible traits, depression and Internet use (Table 5), accounting for almost 26% of the variance, with the best predictor being social skills (9% of the explained variance).

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.