Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools 2018
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-811423-0.00007-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cyber-Friendly Schools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on needs categories 1 and 2 (Table 1), young people reflected interest in learning more information and cognitive skills to mitigate problems associated with EIS, for both preventative (“don’t send”) as well as ex post (“after sent”) interventions aimed at limiting harms to self and others. Previous research found intervention strategies aimed at enhancing self-awareness and self-efficacy of young people useful in cyberbullying prevention (Cross et al, 2018; Cross, Lester, Barnes, Cardoso, & Hadwen, 2015)—a unique finding where young people reported being aware of the influence of their mood, desire for peer-approval, and lack of knowledge (e.g., about SNS rule/rights, social norms, EIS consequences across people and time) on decisions about sending images that could cause harm to themselves and others. There are many studies that link sexting and emotional well-being (Cooper et al, 2016; Reed et al, 2016); however, few refer to young people’s awareness of their mood affecting their EIS behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on needs categories 1 and 2 (Table 1), young people reflected interest in learning more information and cognitive skills to mitigate problems associated with EIS, for both preventative (“don’t send”) as well as ex post (“after sent”) interventions aimed at limiting harms to self and others. Previous research found intervention strategies aimed at enhancing self-awareness and self-efficacy of young people useful in cyberbullying prevention (Cross et al, 2018; Cross, Lester, Barnes, Cardoso, & Hadwen, 2015)—a unique finding where young people reported being aware of the influence of their mood, desire for peer-approval, and lack of knowledge (e.g., about SNS rule/rights, social norms, EIS consequences across people and time) on decisions about sending images that could cause harm to themselves and others. There are many studies that link sexting and emotional well-being (Cooper et al, 2016; Reed et al, 2016); however, few refer to young people’s awareness of their mood affecting their EIS behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ‘Cyber Friendly Schools’ intervention aimed to transform school and family (as microsystem factors) to reduce violence perpetration and victimisation by increasing family awareness of cyberbullying and modifying school organisational structures to reduce cyberbullying. A trial of the intervention reported no effects on violence perpetration or victimisation 29. Such evidence is not useful in testing the MRT when the empirical study cannot examine the breadth of factors required.…”
Section: Testing Of Mrt In Public-health Interventions: Evidence From...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, we found in a systematic review of interventions aiming to modify school environments to reduce substance use and violence that the theories of change for some interventions drew on MRTs proposing that human health or development is influenced by multiple mechanisms operating at different levels 28. The ‘Cyber Friendly Schools’ intervention, for example, was informed by ecological systems theory 29. This MRT suggests that human development is influenced by mechanisms concerning the: microsystem (institutions and groups with which the child interacts); mesosystems (interconnections between microsystems); exosystem (links between social settings not directly involving the child with those that do); macrosystem (the overarching culture) and chronosystem (broader environmental events and transitions, and changing sociohistorical circumstances) 30.…”
Section: Testing Of Mrt In Public-health Interventions: Evidence From...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…89,196 Sixteen reports covering 13 studies of 10 interventions evaluated processes and all of these also described a theory of change, addressing both RQs 1 and 2. 63,66,69,71,88,98,110,113,167,[189][190][191][192][193][194][195] Forty-eight reports covering 23 studies and 20 interventions evaluated outcomes (including moderator and mediator analysis) and all of these were also included in the synthesis of theories of change, addressing RQs 1 and 3. 52,61,64,67,68,73,80,85,87,103,108,109,115,117,123,124,[197][198][199][200] of these, 19 reports were included in the synthesis of moderator analysis 61,64,68,80,85,87,103,108,117...…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…52,61,69,71,73,80,88,89,98,[108][109][110]113,123,124,161,[165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172]175,176,[178][179][180][181][184][185][186][187][188][189]191,192,[194][195][196][197]199,200 Twenty-three of the reports included in the review (35%) were published in 2018 or later. 89,98,113,161,[165][166][167]…”
Section: Rate Of Report Publicationmentioning
confidence: 99%