Conference Agenda

Adolescents around the world are part of a distinct generation. They are maturing in a society where social media is not only intensive and widespread but also increasingly incorporated into their everyday lives (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). The swift uptake of these technologies, particularly among the youth, has sparked concerns among scholars, policymakers, educators and the general public globally about the potential negative effects social media may have on adolescent health and well-being (Valkenburg et al., 2022). These worries are primarily driven by two notable trends: a marked rise in the amount of time teenagers spend online and an increase in symptoms of depression and anxiety among adolescents (Twenge et al., 2022). Simultaneously, substantial evidence indicates that adolescents' experiences with social media engagement, social media risks, and associated health outcomes vary significantly, underscoring the issue of equity in young people's opportunities to safe and secure social media use (Kickbusch et al., 2021).

The evidence on the role of social media in explaining adolescent health has thus far been conflicting. On the one hand, numerous reviews have established a connection between social media use and negative health outcomes among adolescents (Ivie et al., 2020). On the other hand, a recent umbrella review concluded that the association between social media use and adolescent health is 'weak' and 'inconsistent' (Valkenburg et al., 2022). Calls have been made for research to shed light on these conflicting findings, focusing on the mechanisms that could make social media harmful to adolescents' health (Beyens et al., 2020; Twenge et al., 2022; Valkenburg et al., 2022). Encounters with social media threats have been proposed as one such mechanism (Smahel et al., 2020). Social media threats are defined as harmful, provocative or dangerous situations arising from the use of social media (Ognibene et al., 2022) and include, but are not limited to, cyberbullying, sexual harassment, racism, and misinformation (Smahel et al., 2020).

Realizing that the use of social media is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon, one of the limitations of earlier scholarly has been the insufficient attention given to the user's individual characteristics and social contexts (Beyens et al., 2020; Twenge et al., 2022; Valkenburg et al., 2022). This is particularly relevant when considering disparities, vulnerabilities, inequities, and opportunities, such as skills (e.g., emotional intelligence) (Davies et al., 2010) and resources (e.g., social support) (Smahel et al., 2020) for safe and secure social media use.

Therefore, in order to shed light on the conflicting findings of the previous research on adolescent social media use and health, this study investigated the prevalence of the nine social media threats: 1) cyberbullying, 2) sexual harassment, 3) racism, 4) unauthorized distribution of sensitive material, 5) phishing attempts, 6) misinformation, 7) the sale or distribution of drugs, 8) harmful or dangerous social media challenges, 9) content causing appearance pressures and their association with self-rated health, depressive feelings, and anxiety symptoms. Bearing in mind inequities (i.e., social media use differs from adolescent to adolescent) (Beyens et al., 2020), the study also investigated how individual (e.g., gender, age, emotional intelligence) and social factors (e.g., family affluence, family support, friend support) are associated with social media threats. Furthermore, to investigate whether vulnerabilities begets vulnerabilities in the digital world, the associations between adolescent problematic social media use (indicated by addiction-like symptoms such as preoccupation and tolerance) (Boer et al., 2022) and online communication with strangers were considered. Theoretical support was derived from The Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (DSMM) (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013).

Bullying is a persistent issue in the school environment and can have significant impact on the mental health of adolescents involved. The challenge in preventing and responding to bullying is in its nature, as traditional forms (verbal, physical, social) are typically limited to the school setting, while cyberbullying can extend itself into the personal space of students outside of school (Kowalski et al., 2014). Thus, a complex phenomenon that is already difficult to detect in its traditional form becomes even harder to assess in cyberspace. Identifying students involved in bullying (i.e. victims, bullies, bully-victims) may become increasingly challenging for teachers and school staff. From a research perspective, person-centred approaches, such as Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) can offer detailed insights into the complex interplay of the bullying roles and associated factors (Antoniadou et al., 2019). This is because students are not grouped in bullying roles based on predetermined criteria, but the data itself leads the creation of the latent profiles based on statistical analyses.

Over the course of development of bullying research, perspectives on why students bully have changed. Early explanations focused on the bullies’ aggressive personalities, but with further research it has become evident that bullying is associated with the bully’s position in the peer group (Salmivalli, 2010). Therefore, bullies bully to achieve the goal of reaching a certain position in the peer group. As social status becomes more important in adolescence, students’ beliefs and motives related to social status become important for understanding bullying. Thus, constructs, such as social status goals and social status insecurity, are relevant in explaining bullying behaviour (Li & Wright, 2014).

Socials goals can be defined as mental representations of what students want to achieve in peer groups and can be further distinguished into popularity goals and social preference goals (Li & Wright, 2014). In previous bullying research, social status goals were operationalized as perceived popularity obtained by peer nominations. Košir et al. (2022) found that higher levels of bullying were reported by students with high popularity goals or high social status insecurity showing that social status is a motive for bullying behaviour. Research on the relationship between social goals and victimization is scarce. However, relational victimization was positively associated with social insecurity goals, but only for the group of less popular students (Long et al., 2020).

Another significant factor contributing to the relationship between social status and bullying is moral disengagement which is defined as having the ability to disengage from moral self-sanction (Hymel & Bonanno, 2014). According to a recent review by Thornberg (2023), moral disengagement is a predictor of subsequent bullying behaviour, while victims and bully-victims reported lower moral disengagement compared to bullies (Menesini et al., 2003; Runions et al., 2019).

The purpose of the present research is to assess what are the differences between (traditional and cyber) bullying roles according to social status goals, social status insecurity and moral disengagement. We have devised two research questions:

1. Which (traditional and cyber) bullying roles can be defined using LPA?
2. How do the identified profiles differ according to social status goals, social status insecurity goals, and moral disengagement?

Early childhood education and Care (ECEC) are current interests in many countries following international studies that show the importance of children starting their early years within a high-quality education and caring environment (Karila, 2012; Lenaerts et al, 2017). ECEC is of great value for their development and learning, which include health and well-being (Shonkoff, el al.,2000). During childhood the trajectories of well-being and health are established for life, which could impact adult life. Studies have shown that a high degree of well-being has positive consequences; such as good health and effective learning (Huppert,2013).

Children´s rest, recovery and well-being are essential and decisions should be based on what is considered best for the individual child (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2016). The Swedish ECEC institutions is divided into preschools for children aged on to five years and preschool classes for six-year-olds before formal schooling starts at seven years. All Swedish children from one year have the right to be educated and cared for in ECEC institutions. The School Act (SFS 2010:800) establishes that the education within the school system, with includes preschool, aims to promote the development of all children and a lifelong desire to learn. The Swedish preschool curriculum (2018) emphasis that the preschool must offer a good environment and a well balanced daily rhythm adapted to children’s need , meaning that activities are a part of the preschools learning environment. It states that preschool education should be planned and implemented to promote the children´s development , health and well-being. Research on children´s own subjective opinions about their well-being has mainly been conducted among children over those from preschool age ( Sandseter & Seland, 2015). Mashford-Scott et al. (2012) point out that research-based knowledge on what promotes and impedes the perception that the youngest children have of subjective well-being in ECEC settings is lacking. Studies using preschool children-based data are relevant and therefore the aim of this study is to explore 4-6-year-old children´s subjective experience of well-being at preschool and how the learning environment can support the early childhood settings. The study is based on an understanding of preschool children as active participants and focus on children´s lived experience of the artefacts, activities and environment that are available at the preschool, both outside and inside the buildings. The intention is to improve more knowledge about what promotes and constrains children´s subjective well-being.

The research question is: How do children experience their subjective well-being in their daily life in the ECEC settings, related to activities, environment and artefacts at the preschool?

Mashford-scott et al (2012) shows that the definition of well-being can differ; is an abstract, multidimensional, social and culturally constructed phenomenom, and different forms for understanding and researching it can be identified. Barblett and Maloney (2010) means that the term well-being is abstract, multi-dimensional and socially and culturally constracted, and that the term is often used in different ways across different fields and contexts. In this study, the perspective of holistic well-being that involves positive emotions/affect and fulfilling way of being (Thoilliez, 2011) with a connection to the development of a positive and healthy sense of self and one´s relation to others (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

Teachers experience various demands in their job, and teachers’ well-being has become a common concern. However, we know less about how teachers’ both positive and negative aspects of teachers’ occupational well-being are related to their quality of interactions with students, at the lower primary school classrooms.
This study investigated the psychological aspects, specifically the occupational well-being of teachers, in diverse primary school classrooms in Finland. Methodological approach that included both self-rated teacher perspectives and third-party observations (Classroom Assessment Scoring System, a systematic observation system developed in the US) was employed.

The aim of the study was to explore the relation between teachers’ occupational well-being and teacher–student interactions in primary school classrooms in Finland, by answering the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1. To what degree does teacher’s experience of work engagement (i.e., vigor, dedication, absorption) relate to the quality of teacher–student interactions?

RQ2. To what degree does teacher’s experience of work-related burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion, cynicism, inadequacy) relate to the quality of teacher–student interactions?