Cybergrooming –Risk factors, coping strategies and
associations with cyberbullyingDipl. Päd. Sebastian Wachs
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Acknowledgment: Prof. Dr. K.D. Wolf
• Background
• Method
• Results
• Conclusions/Outlook
Overview
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Background of the Study
Cybergrooming (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)
Background
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Research Questions
RQ2: Are cyberbullied students more likely to be
cybergroomed?
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Background
RQ1: Which factors shape the risk to become
a victim of CYBGR?
RQ3: How students cope with CYBGR and
which strategy seems to be effective?
CyberbullyingCybergrooming
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
• Repetition
• Imbalance of power
• Intentional aggressive acts
• Use of ICTs
• Role Association?
• Social Relationship
Associations between CYBGR and CYBB
Background
Method
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
• 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
Participants
Method
Procedure
• 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
Method
‘A cybergroomer is a person who is at least 7 years older than you and who you know over a longer time exclusively through online communication. At the beginning, the cybergroomer seems to be interested in your daily life problems, but after a certain time s/he appears to be interested in sexual topics and in the exchange of sexual fantasies and/or nude material (pictures or video chats).’ Used Definition
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Questionnaire
Method
‘How often did you have contact with a cybergroomer within the last twelve
month?’
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Never Once a year
Once a month
Once a week
Several times a week
Once a week
Several times a week
Method
Questionnaire
Never Once a year
Once a month
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Cyberbullying 4 Items each side
Never, Once or twice, Twice or thrice, About once a week orSeveral times a week
Coping Strategies
10 Items Yes, A little bit, Almost no, No
ICTs Usage and Access
access to PC or Internet at home, ownership of mobile phone or smartphone, amount of ICTs usage
Items for assessing (cyber-)bullying and coping strategies partly following the ‘Mobbing Questionnaire for students' (Jäger et al. 2007)
Method
Questionnaire
Results
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
21%79%
At least once a year Never
Results
Prevalence Rate Victims of CYBGR: 6.5 % (n=34)
10.4 %
4.3 %
1.9 %
4.6 %
once a year once a month
once a week several times a week
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
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.
Results
Prevalence rate for CYBGR is significantly…
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Access to PC at home
Access to Internet at home
Ownership of mobile phone
Ownership of smartphone
Amount of internet usage Being cyberbullied
Gender
Migration background
Grade
Willingness to meet strangers
Willingness to discuss problems with strangers
RQ 1: Which factors shape the risk to be cybergroomed?
Results
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
F(3,512)=23.39,R2=0.12, p<.001.*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.001
Tab1:Model1(3predictors)betacoefficientsforstandardizedvariables
Coefficients
Estimate Std.Error
t-value
(Intercept)*** 1.43 0.041 34.49
Beingcybervictim*** 0.46 0.085 5.42Beingagirl*** 0.28 0.083 3.46
Notwillingtomeetstrangers*** -0.43 0.106 -4.10
*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.00195%confidenceinterval
Variable O.R. C.I.
Beingagirl*** 2.35 1.1–5.2
Beingcyberbullied*** 1.75 1.2–2.4
Notwillingtomeetstrangers*** 0.30 0.14–0.65
Results
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
RQ 2: Are cyberbullied students more likely to
be cybergroomed?
Tab. 2: Results of simple binary logistic regression for Model 1
Results
RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming?
The first three factors of variability summarise 62.1 %of the total inertia.
F(2,512)=60.71,p<.001, =0.19*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.001
Tab.4:Model2(5predictors)betacoefficients
Coefficients
Estimate Std.
Error
t
value
(Intercept) 1.430230.03734 38.305
Cognitive-techn.Coping*** 0.332230.075374.408
Beingagirl*** 0.326860.075144.350
Beingcyberbullied*** 0.325650.078124.168
Notwillingtomeetstrangers* -0.24815 0.09742 -2.547
AggressiveCoping*** -0.76518 0.07775 -9.841
Results
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming?
*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.00195%confidenceinterval
Tab.5:ResultsofsimplebinarylogisticregressionforModel2
Variable O.R. C.I.
Beingagirl*** 3.371.4–8.6
BeingCyberbullied*** 1.881.0–3.2
Cognitive-techn.Coping*** 1.480.8–2.4
Willingnesstomeetstrangers:No*** 0.39 0.2–0.9
AggressiveCoping*** 0.30 0.2–0.5
Results
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
RQ 3: How students cope with cybergrooming?
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Conclusions and Outlook on future research
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
• 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?
Outlook future research
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012
Thank you for your attention!
Dipl. Päd. Sebastian Wachs
Division Education and Socialisation
University of Bremen, Germany
International Conference on Cyberbullying, Paris, June 2012