Methods in Human Geography is an essential textbook for undergraduate students taking courses in geography and social sciences. It can be used as a handbook for taught courses in research methods or as a stand-alone resource for students undertaking independent research projects and dissertations. A significantly revised new edition covering a number of new topics such as biotechnology, rural, food, media and tech, borders and tourism, whilst also reflecting developments in established subjects including animal geographies.
Edited and written by the leading authorities in this fast—developing discipline, and features a host of new contributors to the second edition. Traces the historical evolution of cultural geography through to the very latest research. Provides an international perspective, reflecting the advancing academic traditions of non—Western institutions, especially in Asia Features a thematic structure, with sections exploring topics such as identities, nature and culture, and flows and mobility.
But what about those markets we might label noxious--markets in addictive drugs, say, or in sex? What considerations, she asks, ought to guide the debates about such markets? Satz contends that categories previously used by philosophers and economists are of limited use in addressing such markets because they are assumed to be homogenous. Accordingly, she offers a broader and more nuanced view of markets--one that goes beyond the usual discussions of efficiency and distributional equality--to show how markets shape our culture, foster or thwart human development, and create and support structures of power.
Wie kann man Cybermobbing vermeiden? Ist Sexting im Jugendalter normal? Welche Computerspiele sollte man generell verbieten, damit Kinder und Jugendliche nicht aggressiv werden? Medien sind aus dem Alltag vieler Kinder, Jugendlicher und Erwachsener nicht mehr wegzudenken. This 5-class model yielded one group of bully-victims, a very small group of assistants, a group of outsiders and two groups of defenders, one with a more prosocial profile, the other with a more aggressive profile. Based on statistical parameters the 5-class solution was able to differentiate satisfactorily between the classes, although we had to acquiesce with a decrease in entropy.
Content-wise, the resulting patterns were easy to interpret, and showed high levels of coherence within and differentiation between the different classes. However, the statistical evidence was not as clear as hoped: no one latent class model was clearly the most fitting.
A possible 3-class solution yielded a defender class However, this 3-class solution was not able to inform about more fine-grained differences between patterns of participating roles as the 5-class solution did. It is not unusual for LCA to produce inconclusive results making it necessary to decide for a solution based on theoretical considerations. LCA looks for similar patterns and groups individuals according to their closeness to these patterns.
However, within the different groups classes , differences between individuals might still be comparatively large, especially if the classes consist of only few individuals. Opportunity to differ from each other is increased with a growing number of indicators. In our case, fifteen indicators might have been too large a number to produce classes where members are very closely alike to each other.
Like in other studies e. The high prevalence of defenders could be influenced by a social desirability bias Paulhus, and by the fact that participants mainly answered question about hypothetical scenarios and not real life experiences. The scenarios referred to a classmate, but did not indicate the type of relationship with this classmate. If students imagined a classmate they liked, they might also have answered with prosocial reactions more often. It remains to be investigated whether this is applicable for the context of the present study. The present result of a mixed perpetrator and victim class is in line with previous findings, which we conducted on the basis of the separate cyberbullying and victimization items and using additional participants from other countries Schultze-Krumbholz et al.
Not surprisingly, this group is not likely to be very supportive towards targets of cyberbullying, although based on empathy theory one might expect victims to show more empathy towards other victims. However, the significant predictors in our analyses indicate that this group is characterized by lower levels of social competences and higher levels of aggression. With regard to the present results one might argue that the group of cyberbully-victims is best characterized by applying a social deficit hypothesis as formulated by Sutton and colleagues whereas the skilled manipulators represent no distinct group in the cyber-context.
Age and gender only were significant predictors when no other predictors were included in the analyses. Thus, age and gender do not predict allocation to the bully-victim class over and above aggression and lack of social competences. Our bully-victim class seems to show more characteristics of bullying while victim characteristics do not seem to be able to suppress antisocial characteristics. Adolescents might tell peers about cyberbullying as a sort of sharing, making fun of or passing on an incident even though we assessed this specifically with additional items.
The same might apply to the outsider class. The term outsider might be ambiguous since in our study it did not refer to students who do not notice cyberbullying, but rather to those who are not involved in cyberbullying in any of the classic roles. They actually do not stay completely passive, because they talk to friends and parents, but hardly become active in other ways. Thus, this group might be comparable to passive bystander groups of other studies e.
These studies often assessed specific situations as compared to hypothetical in our study and online intervention of bystanders. In our study, students could also indicate offline intervention or offline support, which was not assessed in those studies. The hypothetical situation on the one hand and the possibility of offline support on the other hand might be reasons why levels of outsiders are rather low in our study in comparison It is a very positive result that about two thirds of the adolescents in our sample were identified as defenders, although they were not completely prosocial in nature.
Interestingly, these defenders could further be differentiated into rather aggressive defenders and prosocial defenders. This difference is also supported by the predictors in the logistic regression analysis: membership in the class of aggressive defenders was predicted by higher levels of reactive aggression as expected as compared to outsiders while membership in the class of prosocial defenders is predicted by lower levels of proactive aggression, also in line with our expectation.
The prosocial aspect of the prosocial defenders is emphasized by the significant predictors of cognitive and affective empathy for membership in this class. Further, it seems that these prosocial defenders make use of a variety of courageous and confronting the bully as well as more defensive strategies telling adults to intervene in cyberbullying situations. Their other-oriented cognitive and affective involvement motivates them to help in an appropriate way fitting the current situation.
In contrast, the present results indicate that actions of aggressive defenders in cyberbullying situations might be rather maladaptive, due to several reasons. First, they show higher levels of reactive aggression suggesting that they might be prone to react impulsively when confronted with cyberbullying situations. And third, these adolescent do not show outstanding levels of social-emotional competencies as compared to communicating outsiders. However, as the present results are cross-sectional in nature, it is rather difficult to delineate the actual mechanisms behind these findings.
At least three mechanisms might be proposed to better understand the characteristics of aggressive defenders: First, one might speculate that insufficient attempts to defend others might result in own victimization. Second, one might argue that own experiences of victimization are the driving force behind aggressive defending actions that are not easy to delineate from bullying.
Third, low social-emotional competencies paired with high levels of impulsivity and reactive aggression might produce aggressive defending and make it prone to cause more interpersonal trouble. Allocation to the prosocial defenders class was also predicted by younger age, which is in line with our expectations and the findings of Pabian et al.
Surprisingly, not female but male gender predicted being categorized a prosocial defender as compared to the outsiders , which stands in contrast to what we expected as well as to previous research like the study of Bastiaensens et al. The class of assistants had a rather simple profile. It is a comparably small group, but very outstanding in their pattern. Their scores in reactive aggression are comparable to those of the bully-victims and a lack of empathy was also a significant predictor for being a member of the assistant class, similar to the bully-victims.
Interestingly, they did not report cyberbullying perpetration. The similarities to the bully-victims might, however, indicate that assistants run a risk of becoming cyberbullies and cybervictims in the future. Different from the bully-victims where age and gender effects disappeared after including aggression and social competences, being male was a significant predictor of allocation to the assistant class indicating that this might be a very specific, albeit small, risk group.
As the previous discussion of the participant roles in cyberbullying suggested, the method of LCA produces classes that are highly distinct from each other. The results of this cross-sectional analysis might also have implied that the roles are stable roles. However, previous research found that cyberbullying roles are neither clearly distinct from each other nor stable over time.
According to a study by DeSmet et al. The present results do not depict these influences. Since participants were allowed to choose multiple answers and we were able to see that, for example, bully-victims did to some degree endorse prosocial items like comforting, we may have succeeded in depicting overlap of roles in our results. Some limitations of our study should be mentioned. The instructions we used were very general and undifferentiated and the responses of the participants concerning bystander behavior were related to hypothetical scenarios.
A further limitation is that the actor in the scenario was a classmate. Previous studies have shown several contextual factors to influence behavioral intentions in cyberbystanders. For example, the severity of the incident seems to be of great importance as well as the presence and identity of other bystanders Bastiaensens et al. Future studies should therefore use more specific instructions that clarify the hypothetical situation and do not assume cyberbullying roles to be traits of the study participants, but rather allow for them to be states that change across contexts.
Another limitation is that the choice of a latent class model was not a clear and indisputable choice. There was a contesting model with three classes, which showed the best fit on two indicators, while the five-class model fared better on three other indicators. In the end, we made a decision based on content-related considerations and the assumption that more knowledge and insight could be gained from the five-class model.
The rationale for our choice has been explained in detail in the previous sections. The present study shows that based on answer patterns, cyberbullying roles beyond the bullying-triad can be found. Two of these classes showed helping behavior although in different ways and made up almost two thirds of the sample. The results of the post-hoc regression analyses showed that students in the classes especially differed regarding types and levels of aggression and social competencies.
Some age and gender differences were also found, although not for every cyberbullying role. The presented results presumably have implications for the development of intervention measures and preventive interventions, respectively. Interventions, preventive interventions respectively, not addressing differences with regard to cyberbullying roles and associated characteristics may result in a lower impact or even no change in the negative behavior at all. In the present study, this may be the case for example for participants allocated to a cyberbullying role involving antisocial behavior e.
Future studies will have to shed light on this issue as well as replicate our present findings. The views expressed in this article are ours and do not represent the granting agency.
Coups de coeur
Anderson, C. Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 , Ang, R. Understanding the relationship between proactive and reactive aggression, and cyberbullying across United States and Singapore adolescent samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29 , Barlett, C. A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying behavior: The moderating role of age.
Shop now and earn 2 points per $1
Aggressive Behavior, 40 , Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. The role of short- and long-term cognitive empathy activation in preventing cyberbystander reinforcing cyberbullying behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 , Bastiaensens, S. Cyberbullying on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 31 , Batson, C.
These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena.
Feeling cybervictims' pain-The effect of empathy training on cyberbullying. - PDF Download Free
Ickes Eds. Campbell, M. Cyberbullying bystanders: Gender, grade, and actions among primary and secondary school students in Australia. International Journal of Technoethics, 8 1 , Collins, L. Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences.
Cook, C. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25 , Craig, W. Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom.
Prof. Barbara Krahé
School Psychology International, 21 , Crick, N. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67 , Davis, M. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Empathy: A social psychological approach. Del Rey, R. Plichta, P. Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50 , Does empathy predict cyber bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender and nationality affect this relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 45 , DeSmet, A. Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17 , DiFranzo, D.
Upstanding by design: Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Eisenberg, N. The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, , Erikson, E. Identity: youth and crisis. Evans, C. Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Evers, K.
Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools.
Educational Research, 49 , Fend, H. Inventar zu Selbstkonzept und Selbstvertrauen [Inventory for self-concept and self-confidence]. Gibbons, F. Reasoned action and social reaction: Willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 , Gini, G. Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33 , Gollwitzer, M.
Kelava Eds. Heidelberg: Springer. Gradinger, P. Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Guo, S. A meta-analysis of the predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 53 , Hoffman, M. Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Hoijtink, H. Confirmatory Latent Class Analysis: Model selection using Bayes factors and pseudo likelihood ratio statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36 , Measurement of Cyber-bullying severity.
The New Educational Review, 47 , Jenkins, L. Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43 , Kabert, S. A mixed-methods analysis of the effect of self-esteem on bullying frequency, bullying behaviors, and motivations to bully in adolescence Doctoral dissertation. Kowalski, R. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin , , Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 , SS Lamsfuss, S. Empathie und Motive sozialen Handelns [Empathy and motives of social actions] 2nd ed. Langos, C. Cyberbullying: The challenge to define.
- Ore bastarde (Italian Edition)!
- Sexuelle Viktimisierung, Pornografie Und Sexting Im Jugendalter.
- Index of 964YDMWNX aa924!
- Coups de coeur — Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg (BnL);
Sell one like this. We found something similar. About this product. Brand new: lowest price The lowest-priced brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging where packaging is applicable. Die Nutzung von Pornografie und Sexting wird dabei nicht ausschlie lich als Risiko betrachtet. See details. Buy It Now. Add to cart.
Be the first to write a review About this product. About this product Product Information Verena Vogelsang untersucht mittels einer explorativ ausgerichteten Studie, uber welche Kenntnisse, Fahigkeiten und Einstellungen Jugendliche im Umgang mit Pornografie, sexueller Viktimisierung in Onlinekommunikation und Sexting verfugen.
Die Ergebnisse liefern einen tiefen Einblick in die sexuelle Sozialisation im digitalen Zeitalter und leisten einen zentralen Beitrag zur Ausdifferenzierung einer sexualbezogenen Medienkompetenz. Die Nutzung von Pornografie und Sexting wird dabei nicht ausschlielich als Risiko betrachtet. Vielmehr rucken ebenfalls die Nutzungspotenziale sexueller Medieninhalte, Kommunikations- und Interaktionsformen in den Blick.