قلدری و مزاحمت سایبری: متغیرهای پیش بینی کننده همگرا و واگرا

There is certain controversy on whether cyber-bullying is a category of bullying as it appears in a very different scenario away from the schools. The objective of this research has been to know if the variables that predict the involvement of youngsters in traditional bullying are also predictor of the appearance of cyber-bullying. Accordingly, we have looked for the similarities and the differences existing in the involvement on these phenomena. The sample is composed by secondary school pupils (n = 893, 45.9% girls; age View the MathML sourcex¯=13.80, SD = 1.47). The results show that there are multiple relations between the predictor variables of school bullying and the specific variables of virtual environments that predict cyber-bullying. It has been obtained a new model that explains both phenomena which could be a strong evidence to base future interventions to prevent and reduce these problems.

Although bullying was only described for the first time in the late 1970s (Heinemann, 1972), there now exists a solid corpus of scientific research into the phenomenon (Rigby & Smith, 2011). Taking Olweus’ definition of bullying (Olweus, 1999) as a point of departure, and bearing in mind later modifications to that description incorporating moral and practical considerations (Ortega, 2010 and Smith and Sharp, 1994), bullying can be described as an essentially psychosocial problem involving the intentional, repetitive harming of another person and the creation of a power imbalance between the victim and the aggressor, with negative consequences for both parties. The consequences for the victim differ from those for the aggressor (Nansel et al., 2001) because the effects of the power imbalance established between the two are of a moral nature (Ortega, 2010). The effects of bullying are also felt in the social circles of those involved: research has shown how the quality of peer network relationships deteriorates when bullying takes place (Ortega & Mora-Merchán, 2008). Indeed, bullying is a complex phenomenon encompassing both the personality and background of those involved and also contextual factors (Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012) school climate has been described as a factor of risk or protection, depending on its quality (Bear, Gaskins, Blank, & Chen, 2011). In fact prevention and intervention programs against bullying (Baldry and Farrington, 2004 and Gregory et al., 2010) are base on the improvement of the school climate (Haynes, Emmons, & Ben-Avie, 1997), particularly in the configuration of rules, values and expectations of support to deal with this kind of problems (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). In fact evaluation of such bullying prevention and reduction programs has shown significant decreases in levels of both victimization and, albeit to a lesser extent, bullying (Ttofi and Farrington, 2011 and Williams and Guerra, 2007). At the individual level, empathy is considered one of the personality traits which most influence the prevention of involvement in bullying in the aggressor role (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a). Likewise, the ability to perceive the moods of others, to acquire both a cognitive and affective awareness of others (Garaigordobil, 2009), to understand the victim’s feelings and to realize the potential impact an unjustified attack may have on the victim (Ortega, 2010) are equally important elements in anti-bullying programs insofar that they seem to contribute to reducing problems of unjustified harassment and abuse (Gini et al., 2007 and Merrell et al., 2008). It should be pointed out that the most interesting research into bullying has been undertaken in the psycho-educational field, and that many of the studies carried out have sought to establish preventive and palliative measures to combat the problem. However, as research into bullying has made gradual progress in identifying the key elements of successful action, the nature of the phenomenon itself has changed – thanks above all to the impact of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) on interpersonal relationships (Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010). Consequently, researchers are also now focusing their attention on bullying perpetrated in the context of social interaction via digital devices (Tokunaga, 2010), resulting in a completely new construct: cyberbullying. Considered an extension of traditional bullying, cyberbullying is defined as aggressive, intentional acts carried out using ICTs and resulting in power imbalance (Beran and Li, 2005 and Slonje and Smith, 2008). It seems to be emerging as a form of aggression among school children and young people (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). But cyberbullying does have its own identifying characteristics. These include the possible anonymity of the bully, the larger potential audience for the abuse being carried out, the difficulty of disconnecting oneself from the cyber environment (Juvonen & Gross, 2008) and certain emotional considerations stemming from the absence of the direct face to face contact which is present in many types of traditional bullying (Law, Shapka, Domene, & Gagné, 2012; Ortega et al., 2012). Cyberbullying has the same risk factors found in traditional bullying, but, perhaps thanks to its specific nature, also involves other factors which should not be overlooked. One such factor is the little control exerted over personal information, which may result from ignorance about the risks involved in sharing personal information on Internet (Sengupta and Chaudhuri, 2011 and Valcke et al., 2011), sharing passwords, communicating with strangers, openly displaying very personal information such as addresses and telephone numbers (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). This lack of control, with the associated vulnerability of the victim, can be considered a characteristic feature of cyberbullying. Relationships have also been discovered between cyberbullying and Internet addiction (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), the latter being understood as a continuous urge to connect to Internet which restricts forms of entertainment and social relationships, seriously affects an individual’s moods and irritability, induces violent, aggressive behavior that makes it impossible to disconnect (Beard & Wolf, 2001) and increases the user’s own social isolation and the destruction of their own closest relationships (Del Rey, Casas, et al., 2012 and Tsai and Lin, 2001). Excessive use of some technologies predicted cyberbullying beforehand. For instance, variables influencing cyberbullying victimization in a considerably large sample were listed as gender; marital and socioeconomic status; purpose; frequency; location; time and nature of Internet use and language proficiency (Akbulut, Sahin, & Eristi, 2010). Even, psychiatric symptomatology was addressed as a predictor of cyberbullying among university students in another recent study by Aricak (2009). Again, this type of situation shows no behavioral correlation with victims or aggressors in traditional bullying. As mentioned earlier, however, cyberbullying is still considered a form of bullying despite these differences (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Studies have revealed that individuals involved in traditional forms of harassment also tend to become involved in cyber-harassment (Hemphill et al., 2012): in some cases the rate of overlap has been as high as 80% (Campbell, 2005, Juvonen and Gross, 2008 and Riebel et al., 2009). In addition, being a victim in the cyberspace predicted the degree of bullying in a recent study, which further addressed the reasons of cyberbullying among undergraduate students (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011). A high degree of correlation has also been found between cyberbullying and other forms of school violence (Álvarez García et al., 2011). Such close similarities have led researchers to consider the possibility that the predictor variables identified for traditional bullying may also be used to predict cyberbullying (Pearce, Cross, Monks, Waters, & Falconer, 2011). If this were the case, existing scientific and practical knowledge about the key elements in successful programs for reducing and preventing traditional bullying could be transferred to the field of cyberbullying. To this end, the main predictor variables for traditional bullying, such as school climate and empathy (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), and even the relationship between variables in the physical school environment and cyberbullying and the variables associated with ICT usage should be taken into account when developing cyberbullying reduction programs and policies (Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012), so that prevention programs could be implemented based on evidence collected in the actual physical school environment.

Having carried out this study we can conclude that bullying, whether traditional or perpetrated using digital devices, is strongly influenced by direct personal and contextual factors. This is true in both the physical school environment and in virtual environments, and there is a clear overlap between these two areas. Although the models described very effectively explain victimization in both types of abuse, the evidence we found of interconnections between the two leads us to assume that educational programs aimed at preventing bullying may also play an important role in preventing cyberbullying, since the different factors involved – personality (empathy), contextual (school climate) and roles (victimization/aggression) – are closely interlinked in both types of phenomena. This does not mean that there is no need to design, implement and evaluate specific programs aimed at preventing cyberbullying (Del Rey, Casas, et al., 2012 and Pearce et al., 2011) it merely indicates that the positive effect of measures which have proved effective in preventing and alleviating traditional bullying – above all programs affecting school environments – are equally positive as a means of preventing cyber-victimization.