تدوین و اعتباریابی بسته پیشگیری از قلدری/ قربانی فضای مجازی نوجوانان مبتنی بر نقش عوامل فرهنگی، شناختی و هیجانی
محورهای موضوعی :فاطمه علی پور 1 , ابوالفضل فرید 2 , رامین حبیبی 3 , غلامرضا گل محمد نژاد 4
1 - دانشجوی دکتری روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران.
2 - دانشیار گروه روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران.
3 - استاد گروه روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران.
4 - دانشیار گروه روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران.
کلید واژه: بسته پیشگیری, قلدری و قربانی فضای مجازی, روایی محتوایی, نوجوانان,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: جرم‌شناسان اتفاق‌نظر دارند که افزایش جرائم سایبری ازجمله قلدری سایبری نتیجه پیشرفت‌های تکنولوژیکی است که تعامل اجتماعی و رفتار مردم را تغییر داده است و به یک ناسازگاری و مشکل روانی- اجتماعی رایج در جمعیت کودک و نوجوان مطرح شده است. هدف این پژوهش تدوین و اعتباریابی بسته پیشگیری از قلدری و قربانی فضای مجازی مبتنی بر نقش عوامل فرهنگی، شناختی و هیجانی بود.
روش: روش این پژوهش از نوع کیفی و به روش سنتز پژوهی ترکیبی بود. به منظور طراحی بسته پیشگیری، از مبانی نظری موجود در پژوهشهای انجامشده استفاده شد و برای کسب اطمینان از روایی مطلوب بسته پیشگیری، از روش روایی محتوایی با استفاده از مدل لاوشه با پانل خبرگان 11 نفری و از دو ضریب کمی نسبت روایی محتوایی و شاخص روایی محتوایی استفاده شد.
یافته ها: نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد که تمامی جلسات بسته طراحی‌شده ضروری است. محتوای تمامی جلسات، کاملاً مرتبط با اهداف و یا مرتبط اما نیازمند بازبینی جزئی تشخیص داده شد. در ادامه، بازبینی‌های خواسته‌شده توسط متخصصان که 17 درصد تمامی پاسخ‌ها را در برمی‌گرفت، اعمال و بسته نهایی در ده جلسه تدوین شد.
نتیجه گیری: با توجه به روایی مطلوب این بسته پیشنهاد می‌شود محتوای بسته حاضر به‌عنوان یک فصل درسی برای کتاب تفکر و سبک زندگی متوسطه اول در نظر گرفته شود. هم‌چنین، به مشاوران مدارس و مسئولان ذی‌ربط پیشنهاد می‌شود برنامه مداخله حاضر را در صورت لزوم به‌صورت بالینی و آموزشی مورد استفاده و بهره‌برداری قرار دهند.
Background and purpose: Criminologists agree that the increase in cybercrimes, including cyberbullying, is the result of technological advances that have changed social interaction and people's behavior, and it has been suggested as an incompatibility and psychosocial problem common in the child and adolescent population. The purpose of this research was the development and validation of the package for the prevention of cyberspace bullying and victimization based on the role of cultural, cognitive and emotional factors.
Methods: The method of the present research was qualitative type and mixed research synthesis method. In order to design the prevention package, the theoretical foundations of the conducted researches were used, and in order to ensure the validity of the prevention package, the validity method was used. Content was analyzed using Lavshe's model with a panel of 11 experts and two quantitative coefficients, content validity ratio and content validity indices.
Findings: The results of the present study showed that all closed sessions of the package are necessary and the content of all sessions was found to be completely related to the goals or related but in need of partial revision. In the following, the revisions requested by experts, which included 17% of all answers, were applied and the final package of 10 sessions was compiled.
Conclusion: Considering the favorable validity of this package, it is suggested that the content of this package be considered as a lesson for the book of thinking and lifestyle of the first secondary school. It is also suggested to school counselors and relevant officials to use and exploit the present intervention program in a clinical and educational manner if necessary.
1. Bloemen N, De Coninck D. Social media and fear of missing out in adolescents: The role of family characteristics. Social Media+ Society. 2020 Oct;6(4).
2. Martínez-Monteagudo MC, Delgado B, Inglés CJ, Escortell R. Cyberbullying and social anxiety: a latent class analysis among Spanish adolescents. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020 Jan;17(2):406.
3. Englander E, Donnerstein E, Kowalski R, Lin CA, Parti K. Defining cyberbullying. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov 1;140(Supplement_2):S148-51.
4. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of suicide research. 2010 Jul 28;14(3):206-21.
5. Arabshahi F, Fakhri A, Serami M, Ketabi M, Golestaneh Z, Akbari H, Asadollahezare M. An investigation of the bullying through social networks among junior high school students: an experience in Kashan, Iran. International journal of school health. 2018 Jan 1;5(1):1-6.
6. Fajardo-Bullón F, Rasskin-Gutman I, Redondo Pacheco J, León-del Barco B, Burguillo B, Felipe-Castaño E. Analysis of mental health in cyberbullying victims and perpetrators in Spanish and Colombian adolescents. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología. 2021 Dec;53:122-32.
7. Tran HG, Thai TT, Dang NT, Vo DK, Duong MH. Cyber-victimization and its effect on depression in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2023 Apr;24(2):1124-39.
8. Ushakov D, Fedorova N, Shatila K. Predictors for Cyberbullying Practices on the Academic Performance of Lebanese University Students. InInternational Conference on Digital Technologies in Teaching and Learning Strategies 2021 Apr 26 (pp. 14-28). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
9. Arnon S, Klomek AB, Visoki E, Moore TM, Argabright ST, DiDomenico GE, Benton TD, Barzilay R. Association of cyberbullying experiences and perpetration with suicidality in early adolescence. JAMA network open. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2218746.
10. Cañas E, Estévez E, Martínez-Monteagudo MC, Delgado B. Emotional adjustment in victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Social Psychology of Education. 2020 Sep;23(4):917-42.
11. Pichel R, Feijóo S, Isorna M, Varela J, Rial A. Analysis of the relationship between school bullying, cyberbullying, and substance use. Children and youth services review. 2022 Mar 1;134:106369.
12. Ryoo Y, Kim W. Approach versus Avoidance: A Self-Regulatory Perspective on Hypocrisy Induction in Anti-Cyberbullying CSR Campaigns. Journal of Business Ethics. 2023 Mar 2:1-20.
13. Lowry PB, Zhang J, Wang C, Siponen M. Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research. 2016 Dec;27(4):962-86.
14. Blaya C. Cyberhate: A review and content analysis of intervention strategies. Aggression and violent behavior. 2019 Mar 1;45:163-72.
15. Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and violent behavior. 2019 Mar 1;45:134-53.
16. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2014 Nov 1;55(5):602-11.
17. Cross D, Barnes A, Papageorgiou A, Hadwen K, Hearn L, Lester L. A social–ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviours. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2015 Jul 1;23:109-17.
18. Yosep I, Hikmat R, Mardhiyah A. Nursing intervention for preventing cyberbullying and reducing its negative impact on students: a scoping review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2023 Dec 31:261-73.
19. de Souza SB, Ferreira PC, Simão AM, Fernández DF. The dynamic of cyberbullying in university students: Moderating effects of gender and culture. REMIE: Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research. 2022;12(3):322-48.
20. Pfeiffer SI. Emotional intelligence: Popular but elusive construct. Roeper Review. 2001 Apr 1;23(3):138-42.
21. Al-Sarayra K. The Predictive Power of Emotional Intelligence in Cyberbullying among Jordanian University Students. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology. 2022;12(1):1-31.
22. Touloupis T, Athanasiades C. Evaluation of a cyberbullying prevention program in elementary schools: The role of self-esteem enhancement. Frontiers in psychology. 2022 Sep 23;13:980091.
23. Sánchez-Álvarez N, Extremera N, Fernández-Berrocal P. The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2016 May 3;11(3):276-85.
24. Gibb BE, Abela JR. Emotional abuse, verbal victimization, and the development of children’s negative inferential styles and depressive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2008 Apr;32:161-76.
25. Fernández MR, Soria IN, Collado-Valero J, Lavigne-Cervan R, Domenech BD. Cyberbullyingand Executive Functions in children and adolescents: a systematic review Ciberacoso y Funciones Ejecutivas en niños y adolescentes: una revisión sistemática. Revista de Educación. 2022 Jul;397:67-92.
26. Arán Filippetti V, López MB. Las funciones ejecutivas en la clínica neuropsicológica infantil. Psicología desde el Caribe. 2013 May;30(2):380-415.
27. Blakemore SJ, Robbins TW. Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature neuroscience. 2012 Sep;15(9):1184-91.
28. Hossein Hosseini M, Matoor M. Designing, developing and validating a cooperative learning model for elementary school Farsi curriculum of “let’s read and write”(bekhanim & benevisim). Educational Innovations. 2013 Jun 22;12(2):9-50.
29. Ranjbar, H., Haqdoost, A., Salsali, Mahosh, Khushdel, A., Soleimani, M., & Bahrami, N.(). Sampling in qualitative research: a guide for getting started. Journal of Army University of Medical Sciences The Islamic Republic of Iran, 10(3), 238-250. (in Persian).
30. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975 Dec 1;28(4):563-75.
31. Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. Davis Fa; 1981 Jan 1.
32. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied nursing research. 1992 Nov 1;5(4):194-7.
33. Hyrkäs K, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner K, Oksa L. Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel. International Journal of nursing studies. 2003 Aug 1;40(6):619-25.
34. Barlett, C. P., Seyfert, L. W., Simmers, M. M., Hsueh Hua Chen, V., Cavalcanti, J. G., Krahé, B., Suzuki, K., Warburton, W. A., Wong, R. Y. M., & Pimentel, C. E. (2021). Cross‐cultural similarities and differences in the theoretical predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: Results from a seven‐country study. Aggressive behavior, 47(1), 111-119.
35. Migliaccio T, Raskauskas J. Bullying as a social experience: Social factors, prevention and intervention. Routledge; 2016 Mar 3.
36. Ferreira PC, Simão AV, Ferreira A, Souza S, Francisco S. Student bystander behavior and cultural issues in cyberbullying: When actions speak louder than words. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016 Jul 1;60:301-11.
37. Forbes G, Zhang X, Doroszewicz K, Haas K. Relationships between individualism–collectivism, gender, and direct or indirect aggression: A study in China, Poland, and the US. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2009 Jan;35(1):24-30.
38. Richardson DS, Hammock GS. Social context of human aggression: Are we paying too much attention to gender?. Aggression and violent behavior. 2007 Jul 1;12(4):417-26.
39. Yudes C, Rey L, Extremera N. The moderating effect of emotional intelligence on problematic internet use and cyberbullying perpetration among adolescents: Gender differences. Psychological Reports. 2022 Dec;125(6):2902-21.
40. de la Barrera U, Schoeps K, Gil-Gómez JA, Montoya-Castilla I. Predicting adolescent adjustment and well-being: The interplay between socio-emotional and personal factors. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019 Dec;16(23):4650.
41. Divecha D, Brackett M. Rethinking school-based bullying prevention through the lens of social and emotional learning: A bioecological perspective. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 2020 Jun;2:93-113.
42. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2003 Aug;85(2):348.
43. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Spinrad TL. Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological inquiry. 1998 Oct 1;9(4):241-73.
44. Roberton T, Daffern M, Bucks RS. Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression and violent behavior. 2012 Jan 1;17(1):72-82.
45. Den Hamer AH, Konijn EA. Can emotion regulation serve as a tool in combating cyberbullying?. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016 Nov 1;102:1-6.
46. Arató N, Zsidó AN, Rivnyák A, Péley B, Lábadi B. Risk and protective factors in cyberbullying: the role of family, social support and emotion regulation. International journal of bullying prevention. 2022 Jun;4(2):160-73.
47. McCarthy MC, Lumley MN. Sources of emotional maltreatment and the differential development of unconditional and conditional schemas. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2012 Dec 1;41(4):288-97.
48. Calvete E, Orue I, Gámez-Guadix M. Cyberbullying victimization and depression in adolescents: The mediating role of body image and cognitive schemas in a one-year prospective study. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 2016 Jun;22:271-84.
49. Rivera R. Funciones ejecutivas y cognición social en adolescentes agresores, víctimas y espectadores en contexto de bullying. Revista de Psicología. 2018;8(1):39-66.
50. Linero R. Funciones ejecutivas, funcionalidad familiar y desajuste conductual relacionado con la cognición social en estudiantes en situación de Bullying [Trabajo de grado, Universidad de la Costa]. Repositorio CUC. Universidad de la Costa, CUC. 2019:1-19.