The Impact of Lockdown in Cyberbullying in Primary Education: Transitions of Cyberbullying and Bullying.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a worldwide socio-sanitary crisis, continuing to impact societies worldwide. With many school systems shifted to online education, the current study presents a unique opportunity to investigate relevant phenomena related to serious health issues during the schooling and later in life, cyberbullying and bullying. This study began just before the COVID-19 lockdown was declared and resumed 5 months later allowing to explore 2 main objectives: first, to explore whether cyberbullying increased during the lockdown, and second, to analyze transitions from to time of bullying and cyberbullying. METHODS: The participants included 792 students from sixth and seventh years of Primary Education (Meanage = 10.81, SD = 0.85) in Ecuador. This is a quantitative longitudinal study. Cyberbullying and bullying scales were used for data collection before the lockdown in January and February 2020 (T1), and after 5 months of lockdown, at the end of the same academic year in July 2020 (T2). Descriptive, comparative and predictive analyses, a latent transition analysis was used to identify latent status of cyberbullying and bullying behavior at T1 and T2. RESULTS: The results revealed a significant increase of cyberbullying after 5 months of the lockdown. Interestingly, only a small percentage of students who were uninvolved in cyberbullying and bullying in T1 remained uninvolved in T2. CONCLUSIONS: The discussion explores the dynamics of cyberbullying involvement and examines changes in the roles and groups of bullying and cyberbullying after 5 months of lockdown. The political- and school-related implications of these findings are thoroughly discussed.

A longitudinal study of protective factors against substance use in early adolescence. An ecological approach.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent substance use has been widely related to different individual, school, family and community factors. Yet, the number of studies with all these variables together in a model from an ecological perspective is still low, and they rarely used a longitudinal design. The aim of this study was to explore, from an ecological perspective, the prospective impact of different individual, school, family and neighbourhood factors on adolescent substance use. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study with a one-year follow up. There were 881 participants (Mage = 12.57; 48.1% females) at wave 1, of which 686 (Mage = 13.51; 51.8% females) were followed-up at wave 2. Validated questionnaires were used for data collection. RESULTS: Regression analyses showed that higher substance use was predicted by high family socio-economic status cross-sectionally and longitudinally, and it was related to low neighbourhood socio-economic status cross-sectionally only. Participants who disliked school and had a poor academic performance were more likely to use substances, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of families in substance use prevention programmes could be a key component in these interventions. Moreover, promotion of a positive school climate could protect adolescents from using substances.

Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family-related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization.

Background: Family-related risk and protective factors are crucial for different antisocial behaviors, but their role in radicalization requires synthesis. Radicalization is likely to have a negative impact on families, and well-designed and implemented family-focused intervention programs have the potential to decrease radicalization. Objectives: Research questions were: (1) What are the family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) Are family-based interventions against radicalization effective? Search Methods: Searches included 25 databases and hand searches of gray literature from April to July 2021. Leading researchers in the field were asked to provide published and unpublished studies on the topic. Reference lists of the included studies and previously published systematic reviews on risk and protective factors for radicalization were scanned. Selection Criteria: Published and unpublished quantitative studies on family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on families, and family-focused interventions were eligible with no restrictions regarding the study year, location, or any demographic characteristic. Studies were included if they measured the relation between a family-related factor and radicalization or if they included a family-focused intervention against radicalization. For family-related risk and protective factors, radicalized individuals needed to be compared to general population. Studies were included if they defined radicalization as support or commission of violence to defend a cause, including support for radical groups. Data Collection and Analysis: The systematic search identified 86,591 studies. After screening, 33 studies focused on family-related risk and protective factors were included, with 89 primary effect sizes and 48 variables grouped in 14 factors. For the factors that included two or more studies, meta-analyses with random effects were conducted. When possible, moderator analyses were performed together with sensitivity and publication bias analyses. No studies on the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included. Results: The current systematic review based on studies with 148,081 adults and adolescents from diverse geographic locations showed that parental ethnic socialization (z = 0.27), having extremist family members (z = 0.26), and family conflict (z = 0.11) were related to more radicalization, whereas high family socioeconomic status (z = -0.03), bigger family size (z = -0.05), and high family commitment (z = -0.06) were related to less radicalization. Separate analyses described family-factors for behavioral versus cognitive radicalization, and different radical ideologies including Islamist, right-wing and left-wing. It was not possible to distinguish risk and protective factors from correlates and the level of overall bias was mostly high. No results regarding the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included. Authors' Conclusions: Although causal relations between family-related risk and protective factors could not be established, it is reasonable to suggest that policies and practice should aim at decreasing family-related risks and increasing protective factors for radicalization. Tailored interventions including these factors should be urgently designed, implemented and evaluated. Studies focused on the impact of radicalization on families and family-focused interventions are urgently needed together with longitudinal studies on family-related risk and protective factors.

PROTOCOL: Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family-related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization.

This systematic review aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) To what extent are family-based interventions against radicalization effective? The review will answer these research questions by systematically gathering and synthesizing published and unpublished scientific literature on family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on family, and studies that evaluate the impact of family-based interventions on radicalization. This review will also explore what components of family-based interventions are most effective for countering radicalization. Thus, this systematic review will provide a global vision of scientific literature focused on family and radicalization including quantitative research.