Expert answer:Three articles Summary

Solved by verified expert:Write a one paragraph brief description for each of the research articles attached (3 articles, one paragraph each).Please include the following:-What they did or measured in their study-What their main finding(s) was/wereDon’t include:-Specific details of their study methods (e.g., the specific number of people in each condition)or their results (e.g., statistics)This will be turned in on turnitin.com so no plagiarism!!
campbell.pdf

gorzig.pdf

randa.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the
psychosocial correlates of their victimisation
Marilyn Campbell1, Barbara Spears2, Phillip Slee3, Des Butler1 and Sally
Kift1
1
Queensland University of Technology, 2University of South Australia, 3Flinders
University. Australia
Address for correspondence:
A/Prof Marilyn Campbell MAPS
School of Learning and Professional Studies
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove Campus Qld 4059
Australia
Tel: +617 3138 3806
Fax: +617 3138 8265
Email ma.campbell@qut.edu.au
Dr Marilyn Campbell is currently an associate professor at the Queensland University of
Technology. She is a registered teacher and a registered psychologist. Previous to this Marilyn
supervised school counsellors and has worked in infants, primary and secondary schools as a
teacher, teacher-librarian and school counsellor. Her main clinical and research interests are the
prevention and intervention of anxiety disorders in young people and the effects of bullying,
especially cyberbullying in schools.
Barbara Spears is Co-director of the Citizenship and Wellbeing Research Group in the Centre
for Research in Education at the University of South Australia. She is the co-editor of The
Impact of Technology on Relationships In Educational Settings and lead author of the Insights
Into the Human Dimension of Covert Bullying report. She is a member of the National
Technology and Wellbeing Roundtable, the National Centre Against Bullying and is a leading
researcher with the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre.
Phillip Slee is a professor in Human Development in the School of Education at Flinders
University. He is a trained teacher and registered psychologist. He has published extensively in
the field of child development, bullying, school violence, stress, and mental health. He has a
particular interest in the practical and policy implications of his research. Details of some of his
work is available on the web site http://www.caper.com.au
Des Butler is a Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology
where he served as Assistant Dean, Research (1997-2002). He was awarded his doctorate in
1996 for a study of legal liability for psychiatric injury caused by negligence and is the author or
co-author of 16 books on topics including psychiatric injury caused by negligence, contract
law and media law. He has been a chief investigator on Australian Research Council grants
studying teachers’ duties to report suspected child abuse and cyberbullying in schools.
Sally Kift is a Professor of Law at Queensland University of Technology, where she has served
as Law Faculty Assistant Dean, Teaching & Learning (2001-2006) and QUT’s foundational
1
Director, First Year Experience (2006-2007). Sally is a national Teaching Award recipient, an
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Senior Fellow and an ALTC Discipline
Scholar: Law. She has published widely in legal education and criminal law and is a chief
investigator on Australian Research Council grants investigating cyberbullying in schools.
2
Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the
psychosocial correlates of their victimisation
It is well recognised that there are serious correlates for victims of traditional bullying.
These have been shown to include increased levels of depression, anxiety and
psychosomatic symptoms, in addition to often severe physical harm and even suicide.
Bullied students also feel more socially ineffective; have greater interpersonal
difficulties, together with higher absenteeism from school and lower academic
competence. In the emerging field of cyberbullying many researchers have
hypothesised a greater impact and more severe consequences for victims because of the
24/7 nature and the possibility of the wider audience with this form of bullying.
However, to date there is scarce empirical evidence to support this. This study sought to
compare victims’ perceptions of the harshness and impact of bullying by traditional and
cyber means. The major findings showed that although students who had been
victimised by traditional bullying reported that they felt their bullying was harsher,
crueller and had more impact on their lives than those students who had been
cyberbullied, the correlates of their mental health revealed that cyber victims reported
significantly more social difficulties, higher anxiety levels and depression than
traditional victims. The implications for school counsellors and mental health workers
are discussed.
Keywords: cyberbullying; bullying; anxiety; depression; perceptions; students
3
Introduction
It is well established that traditional bullying has negative associations for both the
students who are victims and those who bully. The correlates of traditional bullying for
victims include increased levels of depression, anxiety and psychosomatic symptoms
(Reijntjs, Kamphuis, Prinzie, and Telch 2010). While the direction of causality is still
not established, some longitudinal studies in the last decade have shown that students
who have been victimised by bullies are at greater future risk for somatic symptoms,
anxiety and depression (Fekkes et al. 2006; Kim et al. 2006) and that young children
with internalising problems such as withdrawal and anxiety-depression show an
increased risk of being bullied (Arseneault et al. 2006, 2008). It has also been found in
one longitudinal study (Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, and Bick 2010) that there were
different detrimental associations for girls and boys who had been bullied; girls who had
been indirectly bullied increased their drug use whereas boys did not, and while
victimised girls showed lower self-esteem this did not occur for boys. In a meta-analysis
of 18 longitudinal studies, Reijntjs et al. (2010) found that there were significant
associations between peer victimisation and subsequent changes in internalising
problems, as well as vice versa: between internalising problems and subsequent changes
in peer victimisation. Thus, it was shown that internalising problems function as both
antecedents and consequences of peer victimisation. Although these longitudinal studies
are not proof of a causal relationship between bullying victimisation and mental health
problems, they do suggest a cyclical pattern of influence.
As cyberbullying differs from traditional bullying due to the characteristics of
the medium used to bully, it has been hypothesised that its effects could be more severe
than those from traditional bullying (Campbell 2005). Depending on the particular
circumstances, reasons for this may include a wider audience, anonymity of the bully,
the more enduring nature of the written word and images, and the ability to reach the
target at any time and in any place, including the target’s home. Furthermore,
cyberbullies may feel emboldened because they cannot see their targets or their
immediate responses and believe that, because of their anonymity, they will not be
detected. It has been suggested that this anonymity may increase the intensity of the
attacks and encourage them to continue for longer than they would otherwise do faceto-face (Conn 2004).
4
While it is true that cyberbullying can only threaten physical violence rather
than inflict it, research has shown that verbal and psychological bullying may have
more negative long term effects for the victims (Reid, Monsen, and Rivers 2004). To
date, cross-sectional studies of cyberbullying victimisation have measured the impact in
terms of emotional correlates, the subjective perception of impact and the association
with mental health through relatively simple measures, identifying that students who
have been cyberbullied do report increased emotional stress, compared with those not
bullied. This has been shown where students were asked to self-report which specific
emotion they had experienced when cyberbullied. In an Australian study of 548
cyberbullying victims, it was reported that students said they felt sad, annoyed,
embarrassed and afraid (Price and Dalgleish 2010). This reflects what is known about
the emotions associated with the earliest studies of traditional bullying (e.g., Rigby and
Slee 1993). Anxiety, feeling bad about oneself and not trusting people have also been
reported by cyber victims (Raskauskas 2010). Anger was the most dominant emotion
for both cyber and traditional victims in a Spanish sample of 12-17-year-olds (Ortega et
al. 2009). More severe cyberbullying however, was correlated with a profile of
emotions labelled “alone, defenceless and depressed” (Ortega et al. p. 202).
Cyberbullying can also have a subjective impact as measured by students’
perceptions of the harshness and impact of the bullying on them. Student interview data
recently collected in Australia showed that many young people feel that cyberbullying is
far more harmful than traditional bullying. Some reasons for this include: the finding
that nearly 50% of those bullied indicated they did not know who was doing the
bullying, many finding it hard to get away from the bullying which now followed them
into their home, and more young people claiming they would bully others more often
using technology and that they could be nastier than they could be face-to-face (Cross et
al. 2009). Spears, Slee, Owens, and Johnson (2009) in their qualitative study of the
impact and human dimension of covert and cyberbullying, found that cyberbullying in
particular, evoked more than anger and sadness: viz strong, negative feelings and
emotions and fear and concerns for safety; impacting on self; and dislocating and
disrupting relationships (p. 194). However, Smith et al. (2008) found that students
qualified the impact of cyberbullying according to the medium employed; they felt text
messaging and email bullying had less of an impact than traditional bullying, but that
bullying by pictures or video clips had a higher negative impact than traditional
5
bullying, suggesting a continuum of subjective impact overlapping both forms of
bullying. However, the data from the three preceding studies were collected from all
students and not only those who were victims of cyberbullying.
So far as victims are concerned, as well as the potential for impacting on
wellbeing, cyberbullying has been found to impact on their mental health in the form
of depression (Gradinger, Strohmeier and Spiel 2009). Raskauskas (2010) found in a
New Zealand study of secondary school students (11-18 years old) that cyber victims
reported significantly more depressive symptoms than non-victims, with all victims
reporting above the cut-off score of mild to moderate symptoms on the depression
measure, and those experiencing cyberbullying more frequently having an increase in
self-reported depressive symptoms. These findings were supported by an Australian
and Swiss comparison of secondary school students where cybervictimisation was a
significant predictor of depressive symptoms. In addition, this predictor was found to
be over and above that of being victimised by traditional bullying (Perren et al. 2010).
Students who have been cyberbullied have also been shown to have significantly lower
self-esteem than those who were not cyberbullied (Patchin and Hinduja 2010).
This study aimed to ascertain the perceptions of students who had been
cyberbullied and their mental health. We hypothesised that those students who had been
cyberbullied would perceive this bullying as harsher and more impactful on their lives
than students who had been traditionally bullied. Additionally we examined the
association of being bullied by any form with students’ mental health, as measured by
their symptoms of social difficulty, depression, anxiety and stress. We hypothesised that
cyberbullied students would report more elevated scores on these measures than
traditionally bullied students.
Method
Participants
Data came from a large-scale school-based survey of students’ bullying experiences;
3,112 students from grades 6 to 12 (1,572 girls 50.5 % and 1,535 boys 49.4%, 5 missing
data) from 29 different schools, both government and non-government in three
Australian states participated. The age range was from 9 to 19-years (M = 13.96, SD
=1.87). Most students were able to access the Internet from their home (87.5%) and
owned their own mobile (cell) phone (83.1%).
6
Procedure
Ethical clearance was obtained from the universities involved and the various
educational systems as well as the participating schools. Participation was voluntary and
only students who wished to participate and had written parental consent took part.
Approximately 30% of eligible students undertook the survey due to the active parental
consent required. No data was available from students who did not return the parental
consent form and therefore the demographics of non-responders were not available. The
surveys were administered to students in their classrooms during class time by a
research assistant, and standardised instructions were read out loud to participants prior
to survey administration. There were between 15 and 25 students per testing session and
each session took 30 to 45 minutes. The anonymity of the survey responses was
emphasised verbally and in writing to the students. The survey was conducted between
August and September 2009 (Term 3) when students had spent the previous 6-7 months
of the school year together.
Measures
An anonymous, self-report paper-based survey was conducted, consisting of four
sections. The first section asked for demographic information of gender, age and year of
school, internet access at home and ownership of a mobile (cell) phone.
The second section obtained information about cyberbullying experiences. The
following definition of cyberbullying was provided (following recommendations of
Solberg and Olweus (2003) that definitions improve the validity of responses).
Cyberbullying is when one person or a group of people repeatedly try to hurt
or embarrass another person, using their computer or mobile phone, to use
power over them. With cyberbullying, the person bullying usually has some
advantage over the person targeted, and it is done on purpose to hurt them,
not like an accident or when friends tease each other.
A filter question of “Have you been cyberbullied this year?” (since January this
year) was used to establish cybervictimisation and a question “Have you cyberbullied
someone this year” to establish cyberbullies and cyber bully-victims (the data on bullies
will be published in another paper). If the students answered no they were directed to
skip this section. If they answered yes, they were asked three questions concerning
feelings when cyberbullied: (1) how did they feel (2) how harsh or cruel the
cyberbullying experienced was considered to be and (3) how much of an impact the
cyberbullying was thought to have had on their life. The first question used forced
7
choice from a set of emotions previously found in the literature. The following two
questions were answered on a 5 point Likert scale from ‘’not at all harsh’ to ‘really
harsh’, and from ‘no impact’ to ‘huge impact’.
The third section asked about traditional or face-to-face bullying experiences
mirroring the cyberbullying questions. The following definition of face-to-face bullying
was provided.
There are lots of different ways to bully someone. A bully wants to hurt the
other person (it’s not an accident) and does it repeatedly and unfairly (the
bullying has some advantage over the victim). Sometimes a group of students
will bully another student.
The fourth section of the survey used the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire to ascertain interpersonal difficulties; and the DASS-21 to ascertain
mental health symptoms.
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman 1997) is a selfreport (11-17 years version) behavioural screening device that measures both positive
and negative attributes. It has 25 items divided into five subscales: emotional
symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems and
pro-social behaviour; each subscale has 5 items. All subscales except for pro-social
behaviour are summed to obtain a total ‘difficulties’ score. For each item, participants
indicate, on a three point scale, how things had been for them over the last six months.
The reliabilities for the SDQ for the current study using Cronbach’s alpha were: 0.75 for
emotional symptoms; 0.61 for conduct problems; 0.66 for hyperactivity/inattention 0.57
for peer relationship problems; 0.75 for pro-social behaviour and 0.82 for the total
difficulties scale.
The Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21) (Lovibond and Lovibond
1995) is a 42-item self-report measure. We used a short form of 21 items, with three 7item subscales of depression, anxiety and stress. Participants rate the extent to which
they experienced each state over the past week on a 4-point Likert rating scale.
Summed scores can be calculated for each subscale, and a total score obtained by
summing all 21 items. The scores for all items were doubled to ensure consistency with
the original 42 item version of the scale. The alpha coefficients obtained for the current
study were 0.90 for Depression; 0.85 for Anxiety; 0.87 for Stress, and 0.95 for the Total
scale.
8
The survey ended with a list of counselling services available in the area for any
students who became distressed or wanted more information on bullying.
Results
Students self-reported whether they had been traditionally or cyberbullied and
traditionally or cyberbullied others by a filter question of yes or no during that school
year: This resulted in six groups of victims: 16.1% (500) classified as traditional
victims only (Group 1) and 4.5% (139) as cyber victims only (Group 2), 4.5% (140)
both cyber and traditional victims (Group 3), 4.7% (147) as traditional bully-victims
(Group 4), 1.5% (48) as cyber bully-victims (Group 5), and 5.4% (169) both cyber and
traditional bully-victims(Group 6) (See Table 1).
Insert Table 1 about here
Gender and age
There was no significant difference in gender in the traditional victim only group (G1)
or the traditional “bully-victim” group (G4). There was a significant difference in
gender, with more girls than boys in the cyber victims only group (G2) (t (3105) = 2.65, p < .01) ; the combined traditional and cyber victims group (G3) (t (3105) = 5.24, p < .001) and the combined traditional and cyber “bully-victims” (G6) (t (3105) = -2.14, p < .05). However, more boys than girls were classified as cyber “bully-victims” (G5) (t (3105) = 2.41, p < .05). There were age differences found for the following groups; traditional victims (r=--.135, p<0.001), both traditional and cyber victims (r=-.080, p<0.001) and traditional bully-victims only (r=-.069, p<0.001) (all slightly less frequent at older ages). No other groups had any significant age differences. Harshness Of the traditional victims, 66% perceived this type of victimisation as being harsh or very harsh; the corresponding figures were 58.7% for victims of cyberbullying, 59% for traditional bully-victims, and 50% for cyber bully-victims. There were no gender differences found in ratings of harshness for traditional victims only or for traditional bully-victims. However, female cyber victims rated the harshness of their cyberbullying (M =2.14) more than male cyber victims (M=1.63) (t 9 (130) = -2.23, p<.05). There were no age differences found for ratings of the harshness of their experiences for three of the groups of victims: cyber victims, traditional victims or cyber bully-victims. There were however, age differences in the perception of harshness of the bullying experienced for the traditional bully-victims (r=-.231, p<0.01) with younger age groups rating the bullying as harsher than older age groups. Impact Of the traditionally bullied victims, 36 ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades