Implementing an Intervention Based on Dialogic Argumentation to Prevent Incidents of Cyber-Bullying/ Victimisation

Abstract

The literature shows the negative consequences of bullying/cyberbullying incidents and the need for more effective interventions for prevention. Risk and protective factors may also play a role in these incidents. Recent dialogue-based interventions seem promising for the prevention of bullying/cyberbullying. Thus, the current research project attempted to address the above issues with the implementation of 3 studies. Study 1 aimed to examine potential relationships among bullying and victimisation, argumentation skills, alexithymia, and self-efficacy. It was hypothesised that bullying and victimisation would be correlated to argumentation skills, alexithymia, and self-efficacy. Primary schools in Cyprus were approached and 100 early adolescents were recruited to measure their frequency of bullying and victimisation, their level of alexithymia, their level of self-efficacy for peer interactions, and their argumentative performance. The results showed significant correlations between bullying and victimisation and alexithymia, and between victimisation and self-efficacy for peer interactions, but no correlations between bullying and victimisation and argumentation skills, and between bullying and self-efficacy for peer interactions. Therefore, the results in Study 1 partially supported the hypotheses set initially. Study 2, aimed to examine potential relationships among cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation, argumentation skills, and generalised self-efficacy. It was hypothesised that cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation would be correlated to argumentation skills and generalised self-efficacy. University-level students from Cyprus and the United Kingdom were recruited, 100 in total to measure the frequency of cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation incidents, their level of generalised self-efficacy, and their argumentative performance. The results showed significant correlations between academic self-efficacy and cyber-victimisation, and between academic self-efficacy and arguments strengthening the other position only. No correlations were found between cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation and argumentation skills. Thus, the results in Study 2 did not support the hypotheses set initially.

The main experimental study of this research project was Study 3, which aimed to examine potential changes that engagement in dialogic argumentation would elicit in argumentation skills, cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation, and generalised self-efficacy. It was hypothesised that dialogic argumentation would trigger changes in argumentation skills, cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation, and generalised self-efficacy. University-level students, 40 in total were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n=20) and the control group (n=20). Then, the intervention group engage in an intervention based on dialogic argumentation. The main task of this intervention was the exchange of arguments between students on a social topic in the form of dialogues through an instant messaging platform. The argumentation skills of students, their frequency of cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation, and their level of generalised self-efficacy were assessed before the intervention and 1 month after. The most salient findings came from Study 3, where the participants from the intervention group exhibited larger gains in their argumentation skills and reported fewer incidents of cyber-victimisation compared to the control group. However, significant changes were not found in the frequency of cyberbullying incidents and the level of generalised self-efficacy after comparing the intervention group to the control group. Overall, the results in Study 3 partially supported the hypotheses set initially. Thus, it was concluded that dialogic argumentation can advance argumentation skills, which can help students avoid cyber-victimisation incidents. These findings highlighted the importance of investigating further this programme based on dialogic argumentation to determine whether it can contribute to the effective prevention of cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation.