Cybergrooming –Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying           Dipl. Päd. Sebastian Wachs   ...
Overview•   Background•   Method•   Results•   Conclusions/Outlook            International Conference on Cyberbullying, P...
Background of the Study    International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
BackgroundCybergrooming (CYBGR)“Establishing a trust-based relationship betweenminors and usually adults using ICTs tosyst...
BackgroundResearch Questions RQ1: Which factors shape the risk to become a victim of CYBGR? RQ2: Are cyberbullied students...
Background Associations between CYBGR and CYBB                                                         • Use of ICTs      ...
MethodInternational Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Method Participants• Self-reports from 518 students• 5th to 10th Grades (11-17 yr) from 4 German  schools• 49.0 % of the p...
MethodProcedure• Online Survey• Computer Assisted Personal Interview• participants sat at a PC in  school computer rooms  ...
MethodQuestionnaire‘A cybergroomer is a person who is at least 7 yearsolder than you and who you know over a longer timeex...
MethodQuestionnaire‘How often did you have contact with acybergroomer within the last twelvemonth?’Never   Once a   Once a...
MethodQuestionnaireItems for assessing (cyber-)bullying and copingstrategies partly following the ‘Mobbing Questionnairefo...
ResultsInternational Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Results Prevalence Rate                                Victims of CYBGR: 6.5 %                                            ...
Results          Prevalence rate for CYBGR is          significantly…                     higher for girls (8.7% vs. 4.3%)...
Results    RQ 1: Which factors shape the risk to be               cybergroomed?    Willingness to discuss                ...
ResultsRQ 2: Are cyberbullied students more likely to             be cybergroomed?                  Variable              ...
ResultsRQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming? The first three factors of variability summarise 62.1 % of the total in...
Results RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming?    Coefficients                                       Estimate        ...
Results RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming?    Variable                                                     O.R.  ...
Conclusions andOutlook on future research     International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Conclusion• Identified risk factors: being a girl, willingness  to meet strangers and being cyberbullied• Coping strategie...
Outlook future research• Validated instruments with consistent  definition, measuring and period of time• Longitudinal stu...
Thank you for yourattention!Dipl. Päd. Sebastian WachsDivision Education and SocialisationUniversity of Bremen, Germanys.w...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cybergrooming - Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying

586 views
543 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
586
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cybergrooming - Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying

  1. 1. Cybergrooming –Risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying Dipl. Päd. Sebastian Wachs Acknowledgment: Prof. Dr. K.D. Wolf International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  2. 2. Overview• Background• Method• Results• Conclusions/Outlook International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  3. 3. Background of the Study International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  4. 4. BackgroundCybergrooming (CYBGR)“Establishing a trust-based relationship betweenminors and usually adults using ICTs tosystematically solicit and exploit the minors forsexual purposes.” (Wachs, Wolf and Pan, in review) International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  5. 5. BackgroundResearch 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. 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. 7. MethodInternational Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  8. 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. 9. MethodProcedure• 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. 10. MethodQuestionnaire‘A cybergroomer is a person who is at least 7 yearsolder than you and who you know over a longer timeexclusively through online communication. At thebeginning, the cybergroomer seems to be interested inyour daily life problems, but after a certain time s/heappears to be interested in sexual topics and in theexchange of sexual fantasies and/or nude material(pictures or video chats).’ Used Definition International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  11. 11. MethodQuestionnaire‘How often did you have contact with acybergroomer within the last twelvemonth?’Never Once a Once a Once a Several year month week times a week International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  12. 12. MethodQuestionnaireItems for assessing (cyber-)bullying and copingstrategies partly following the ‘Mobbing Questionnairefor students (Jäger et al. 2007)Cyberbullying 4 Items each Never, Once or twice, Twice or side thrice, About once a week or Several times a weekCoping 10 Items Yes, A little bit, Almost no, NoStrategiesICTs Usage and access to PC or Internet at home, ownership of mobileAccess phone or smartphone, amount of ICTs usage International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  13. 13. ResultsInternational Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  14. 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 monthAt least once a year Never once a week several times a week International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  15. 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. 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 -4.10F(3, 512) = 23.39, R2=0.12, p <  Grade .001. * p ≤ .05;** p ≤.01;*** p ≤.001  GenderTab 1: Model 1 (3 predictors) beta coefficients for standardized variables International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  17. 17. ResultsRQ 2: Are cyberbullied students more likely to be cybergroomed? Variable O.R. C.I. Being a girl*** 2.35 1.1–5.2 Being cyberbullied*** 1.75 1.2–2.4 Not willing to meet strangers *** 0.30 0.14–0.65 *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. 18. ResultsRQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming? The first three factors of variability summarise 62.1 % of the total inertia.
  19. 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. 20. Results RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming? Variable O.R. C.I. Being a girl*** 3.37 1.4–8.6 Being Cyberbullied*** 1.88 1.0–3.2 Cognitive-techn. Coping*** 1.48 0.8–2.4 Willingness to meet strangers: No *** 0.39 0.2–0.9 Aggressive Coping*** 0.30 0.2–0.5 *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. 21. Conclusions andOutlook on future research International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
  22. 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. 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. 24. Thank you for yourattention!Dipl. Päd. Sebastian WachsDivision Education and SocialisationUniversity of Bremen, Germanys.wachs@uni-bremen.de International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012

×