301 / 658
299
Friday, November 11
1 4 : 3 0 – 1 6 : 0 0
PS 070
Perpetrators, Victims and Bystanders – Longitudinal Links of Cyberbullying Involvement Patterns
T. Quandt
1
, R. Festl
2
1
University Munster, Department of Communication, Munster, Germany
2
German Youth Institute DJI, Munich, Germany
Bullying via the Internet often includes a large and partially unknown audience that is not limited to a specific local context (as it is usually the case in
traditional school bullying). Pre-vious research confirmed that the behavior of the audience affects perpetrators and victims and therefore contributes to
the intensity and continuation of cyberbullying incidents. When observing cyberbullying, adolescents can react in three different ways: (1) doing nothing,
(2) defending the victim using direct (e.g., verbal assistance) or indirect support (e.g., reporting the incidence to others) and (3) reinforcing the perpe‑
trator by providing verbal or non-verbal approval. It can be assumed that a person’s previous or current experiences with cyberbully-ing influence these
reactions. However, due to a lack of longitudinal data, links between ac-tive involvement and bystander behavior in the context of cyberbullying are still
rare. In the present study, we therefore analyzed the interdependencies of reinforcing and defending by-stander behavior with direct experiences as per‑
petrator and victim. Using a three-wave panel study, 1802 adolescents between 12 and 15 years (56% female; 66% higher-track; 28% mid-dle-track, 6%
lower-track education schools) indicated their own and observed cyberbullying experiences. The results revealed that at each panel wave nearly nine out
of ten adolescents have observed incidents of online harassment during the last year. Almost two third of the respondents indicated that they at least once
reinforced a harassment incident (T1: 60%, T2: 66%; T3: 68%), whereas slightly less adolescents also defended the victim (T1: 56%, T2: 63%; T3: 58%).
Active cyberbullying involvement as perpetrator and victim as well as rein-forcing and defending behavior were (moderately to highly) positively correlated
and also quite stable over time. A certain decrease in stability could only be observed for the perpetra-tion behavior between the second and third panel
wave. Perpetrating cyberbullying at time 1 increased the reinforcing behavior at time 2, which in turn again enhanced the perpetration of cyberbullying
at time 3 (the second path also found for T1 & T2). A more intensive reinforc-ing behavior at time 2 not only favored the perpetration of cyberbullying,
but also enhanced the own victimization risk at time 3. Defending the victim resulted in a slightly more intense own victimization, confirmed for the first
and second as well as the second and third panel wave. In general, perpetration and victimization were highly correlated at all three panel waves. A more
intense perpetration behavior at time 1 predicted higher victimization rates at time 2, which in turn again tended to favor the perpetration behavior. Overall,
the results con-firm that both forms of bystanding behavior are closely interconnected to adolescents’cyber-bullying experiences and even seem to induce
a direct involvement.The results need to be discussed in the context of prevention and intervention strategies. For example, it is crucial to note that the often
targeted defending behavior, but also a reinforcement of the perpetrators seem to foster an own victimization in the online context.
PS 071
Virtual Team Efficacy Assessment
M. Raappana
1
1
University of Jyväskylä, Department of Communication, Jyväskylä, Finland
Group efficacy is an essential characteristic of working life teams and one of the most examined research topics in team communication, and recently also in
virtual team communication research. The concept of group efficacy can be defined variously as: the capacity of a group to complete a task (Whiteoak et al.
2004); as a group’s general effectiveness (Guzzo et al. 1993); and as the potency a group is convinced it does have (Hardin et al. 2006). The widest definition
acknowledges all three. Research studies are not, however, uniform in their usage of the concept of group efficacy, nor in the operationalization or mea‑
surement of it. It is also unclear if virtuality is particularly connected to teams’efficacy, which in working life is mostly evaluated according to the outcomes
of teams. This paper uses the concept virtual team efficacy (VTE) to refer to virtual teams’communication processes, in which the tasks are occurring, being
recognized, and being accomplished. Consequently, the purpose of this qualitative study is to explore howVTE is assessed by interpersonal communication
professionals when asked for an open-ended evaluation focusing on observations of effective communication processes. In previous studies of virtual
teams, the data have usually been collected from either or both university students and in laboratory settings, also teammembers have assessed their own
team communication (Hardin et al. 2006). The present study is based on natural data from contemporary working life gained from communication profes‑
sionals assessing virtual teams’communication. The data were collected from two geographically dispersed teams in Finland, each of which attended one
of two video-recorded meetings. Five academic researchers, either MAs or PhDs, in the discipline of communication, analyzed the meetings qualitatively.
These five where asked to make assessments of the various dimensions of, and highlight issues involving the assessment of, VTE. Preliminary findings show
that the processes in VTE not only seem to differ but also that those processes are linked to different kinds of tasks. The researchers’assessments show that
identifying effective processes can vary according to the details, and that VTE can have different kinds of emphasis. However, all five researchers identified
tasks occurring in virtual teams communication and all of them were able to evaluate the processes where tasks were recognized and being completed.
The concept of VTE should be broadened to cover the various tasks a virtual team confronts. Furthermore, the assessment of the efficacy should take into
account the communication processes as a whole. Efficacy could mean, for example, increasing the cohesion and the knowledge exchanged between team
members, which would lead to stronger interdependency and more accurate solutions in future projects. At the same time, teams may not solve problems
concerning their main goals. Previous studies imply the existence of an ideal team, which can be assessed by its outcomes. However, it would be important
to understand the diversity of teams, the multiple tasks teams fulfill, and the complexity of the communication processes where those tasks are being
accomplished effectively.