CC BY
18
Original scientific paper UDK:
316.644-057.87:376-056.262
Received: October, 12.2022.
Revised: November, 28.2022. d 10.23947/2334-8496-2022-10-3-109-115
Accepted: December, 04.2022. ^ CheQk (or updates
The High School Students Attitudes towards Peers with Blindness
Daniela Dimitrova-Radojicic1"
'institute of Special education and rehabilitation, Faculty of Philosophy, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje,
North Macedonia, e-mail: daniela@fzf.ukim.edu.mk
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of high school pupils toward peers with blindness. Using the CATCH-scale (Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes towards Children with Handicaps), 218 high school students' attitudes were assessed. High school students generally had a positive attitude towards students with blindness. The total scores on the CATCH- scale was a little higher for female students, but with no statistically significant difference (p>.05). Generally, the implications of this research suggest that regular schools must implement coexistence programs that will lead to even better attitude in inclusive settings.
Keywords: attitude, peers with blindness, high school students, inclusive education, regular school.
Introduction
Worldwide inclusive education practices have started an intensive development in recent years (Alnahdi, 2020). Moreover, in our country full inclusive education will start from the school year 2022/23. Namely, according to the Macedonian education policy all students with disabilities must be included in regular schools. There will not be any more special schools, only Research centers. in North Macedonia schools are compulsory, publicly funded, and free of charge to everyone from primary to higher education (from 5 till 18 years old).
Although inclusive education for children with disabilities is now widely accepted, it is still challenged by negative peer attitudes (Godeau et al., 2010). But, many studies have shown that when children with typically development spend time and are educated with children with disabilities, they have more positive attitudes towards them (Qigek-Gumu§ and Oncel, 2020). Also, when students have a positive attitude toward their friends with disabilities, it can help their inclusion, but a negative attitude might limit inclusive education (Ketovuori et al., 2010).
Objective
Despite what has been discovered from cross-sectional research concerning low peer acceptance of students with disabilities in inclusive education, there is still a lack of evidence about students' attitudes toward students with blindness. Most researches have examined attitudes towards disability in general, rather than attitudes toward a specific type of disabilities. However, no study has been conducted to measure the attitudes of Macedonian high school students towards their peers with blindness. Therefore, the goal of this study is to analyze their attitudes and to determine whether gender, school grade, and interaction with a person with blindness have a significant effect on these attitudes.
Materials and Methods
Participants
The study's sample contained 218 high school students ranging between the ages of 15 to 18. 54,1% (118) female and 45,9% (100) male, which were randomly selected from seven North Macedonian high schools. The research was approved by the principals of these high schools. Instrument
The CATCH scale was used to examine high school students' attitudes towards peers with blindness.
'Corresponding author: daniela@fzf.ukim.edu.mk
^ I © 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/4.0/).
This scale is divided into three subscales: a) an affective subscale containing emotional remarks about student with disabilities (e.g. 'I would be afraid of a disabled child') b) a behavioral subscale providing examples of what students would do to help a student with disabilities (e.g. 'In class I wouldn't sit next to a disabled child'), and finally, c) a cognitive subscale comprising verbal statements of belief concerning children with disabilities (e.g. 'Disabled children can make new friends') (King et al., 1989; Bossaert and Petry, 2013). It has 36 items in total, 12 in each component, with an equal amount of positively and negatively phrased statements (De Laat, Freriksen and Vervloed, 2013). The items are randomly organized, with positive and negative statements alternating. A 5-point Likert scale is used to rate the CATCH-scale, with values ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items with negative wording were scored in reverse. The points range from 0 to 40 since the final scores are calculated by adding together all the individual scores, dividing the total by the number of items, and multiplying by 10.
According to Rosenbaum et al. (1986), "a higher score means a more positive attitude" (p. 521). CATCH uses a general term (e.g. 'a disabled child') as the attitude object. Unlike other scales, this scale does not differentiate between attitudes toward different types of disabilities. For this study, the word "child with disability" was changed to "student with blindness" because teens do not want to be classified as a "child"; moreover, in the questionnaire was specified that they should consider peers their age. In addition, demographic information of participants, as well as their 'disability knowledge', was collected.
Procedure
All students filled out the CATCH scale independently and anonymously. They were given careful instructions about how to complete the questionnaire.
Results
Table 1 provides an overview of the sample's demographic characteristics. High school students were also asked to rate their general knowledge about peers with blindness - min 1 (absolute no knowledge), and max 5 (complete knowledge). From the results, it's obvious that they have partial knowledge about students with blindness (M=3.12; SD=1.062). On the next question about how they got that knowledge: 39 (17,9%) of them answered from personal experience or contact with a person with blindness; 129 (59,2%) from reading; 22 (10,1%) school and 28 (12,8%) mention others.
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of students
Demographic Variables Groups rt %
Gender Male 100 45,9
Female 118 54,1
Grade 1 70 32,1
II 38 17,4
II! 73 33,5
IV 37 17
Knowledge of peers with blindness 1 {absolute no) 11 5
2 (no) 52 23,9
3 (partially yes) 81 37,2
4 (yes) 48 22
5 (completely yes} 26 11,9
How they got informed personal experience 39 17,9
reading 129 59,2
school 22 10,1
other 28 12,8
All responses to items on the CATCH scale were classified into three categories: disagree, neutral, and agree. Strongly agree, as well as strongly disagree, were included in agree and disagree categories respectively. The results of these 36 questions are shown in the next tables divided in 3 subscales (Affective subscale, Behavioral subscale and Cognitive subscale).
Table 2
Affective subscale
Items Disagree Neutral Agree M (SD)*
1. t wouldn't worry if a siudent with blindness sat next to 35 (10,1%) 33 (15,1%) 150 (68:8%) 2.83 (1309)
me in dass
6.1 feel sony for student with blindness 17 (7,8%) 45 (20,6%) 156 (71,6%) 1.01 [1.034)
10.1 would be afraid of a student with blindness 131 (60,1%} 25 (11,5%) 62 (28,4%) 2.44 [1.474)
13.1 wouid like to have a student with blindness live next 37 (17%) 91(41,7%) 90(41,3) 2.27 [1.026)
door to me
15. f would be happy to have a student with blindness 39 (17,0%) 65 (29,8%) 114(52,3%) 2.40 (1.101)
for a special Jriend
18.1 would not like a friend with blindness as much as 143 (65,6%} 44 (20,2%) 31 (14,2%) 2.82 [1.266)
my other friends
21. ] wouid be pleased If a student with blindness invited 37 (17%) 49 (22,5%) 132 (60,5%) 2.58 [1.122)
me to his house
23.1 would feel good doing a school project with a 23(12,9%) 70(32,1%) 120 (55%) 2.61 [1.095)
student with blindness
26. Being near someone who has blindness scares me 159(73%) 34(15,5%) 25(11,5%) 3.06 [1.167)
28.1 would be embarrassed if a student with blindness 138 (S3,3%) 33 (17,4%) 42 (19,3%) 2.63 [1.356)
invited me to his birthday party
31.1 would enjoy being with a student with blindness 23 (12,3%) 87 (39,9%) 103 (47,3%) 2.43 [1.001)
34.1 feel upset when I see a student with blindness 103 (47,3%} 43 (19,7%) 72 (33%) 2.31 [1.369)
*Mean (Standard Deviation)
The most notable responses from the affective subscale (Table 2) were questions 18, 26, 1, and 6. Namely, results showed that 159 (73%) of students stated they disagree that they would be afraid of students with blindness. One hundred and forty (65.6%) of them stated they would not like a friend with blindness as much as their other friends. Student participants also agree that they feel sorry for students with blindness (n=156; 71,6%) and they wouldn't worry if a student with blindness sat next to them (n=150; 68,8%).
Table 3
Behavioral subscale
Stems Disagree Neutral Agree M (SD)*
2.1 would not introduce a student with blindness to my friends 156(71.5%) 30 (13,3%) 32(14,7%) 3.07(1.214}
4.1 wouldn't know what to say to a student with blindness 119(54,6%) 51 (23,4%) 43(22%) 2.53(1.141)
7.1 would stick up for a student with blindness who was being teased 4 (1,8%) 22 (10,1%) 102(88.1%) 3.33 (0.785)
9.1 would Invite a student with blindness to my birthday party 11(5%) 25 (11,5%) 132(83.5) 3.22(0.919)
11.1 would talk to a student with blindness who 1 didn't know 63(31,2%) 54 (24,8%) 96(44%) 2.20 (1.303)
16.1 would try to stay away from a student with blindness 130(82.6%) 33 (15,1%) 5 (2,3%) 3.30(0.816)
20. In class 1 wouldhtslt nextto a student with blindness 149(68.3%) 3S (17,0%) 30(13,8%) 3.02 (1.107)
22.1 try not to look at someone who is blind 116(53,2%) 61 (28%) 41 (18,8%) 2.53 (1.082)
25.1 would invite a student with blindness to sleep over at my house 34(15,6%) 56 (25,7%) 128(58.7%) 2.58(1.201)
28.1 would tell my secrets to a student with blindness 62(28,4%) 42 (19,3%) 114(52.3%) 2.20(1.328)
32. 1 would not go to a student with blindness hoiise to play 143(65.6%) 42 (19,3%) 33(13,1%) 2.82 [1.212)
35.1 would miss recess to keep a student with blindness company 124(56,9%) 52 (23,8%) 42(19,3%) 1.30(1.202)
*Mean (Standard Deviation)
The frequency of responses to the behavioral subscale (Table 3) indicated that most of the participants disagree with the statement: "I would try to stay away from a student with blindness." (82,6%) and "I would not introduce a student with blindness to my friends." (71,5%). At the same time, they agree that they would stick up for a student with blindness who was being teased (88,1%) and will invite peers with blindness to their birthday party (83,5%).
Table 4
Cognitive subscale
Items Disagree Neutral Agree M (SD)*
3. Students with blindness can do lots of things for 31 (14,2%) 53 (24,3%) 134 (615%) 2.60 [0.939)
themselves
5. Students with blindness like to play 24(11%) 51 (23,4%) 143 (65:6%) 2.80 [1.121)
8. Students with blindness want tots of attention "from 19 (3,7%) 29 (13,3%) 170 (78%) 0.94 (1.050)
adults
12. Students with blindness don:t like to make fnends 179 (82:1%) 36 (16,5%) 3(1,4) 3.23 [0.805)
14. Students with blindness feel sorry1 for themselves SO (36,7%) 101 (46,3%} 37 (17%) 2.34 [1.049)
17. Students with blindness are as happy as I am 27 (12,4%) 35 (39%) 106 (48:6%) 2.46 [0.975)
19. Students with blindness know how to behave 27 (12,4%) 36 (16,5%) 155 (71:1%) 2.63 [1.101)
properly
24. Students with blindness don't have much fun 137(62:S%) 37 (17%) 44 (20,2%) 2.62 [1.217)
27. Students with blindness are interested in lots of 20 (9,2%) 35 (16%) 163 {74,8%} 2.99 [1.000)
things
30. Students with blindness are often sad 69 (31,7%) 77 (35,3%) 72 (33%) 1.89 [1.129)
33. Students with blindness can make new friends 10 (4,6%) 42 (19,3%) 166 (76,1%} 3.00 [0.882)
36. Students with blindness need lots of help to do 53 (26,6%) 75 (34,4%) 85 (39%) 1.79 [1.172)
things
*Mean (Standard Deviation)
When considering the answers on the cognitive subscale (Table 4), 78% of the students agree that students with blindness want lots of attention from adults, and 82,1% claimed that they did not agree with the statement that students with blindness do not want to make friends.
Figure 1. Mean score on CATCH subscales
Higher school students' attitudes towards students with blindness were generally positive (M=30.32, SD=4.689). The mean score on the behavioral subscale (M=32.24, SD=5.508) was the highest while the one on cognitive was the lowest (M=29.29.32, SD=2.856), which shows they do not necessarily understand a child with blindness (Figure 1).
Table 5 Gender
Subscale Female M (SD) Male M [SD) T P
Affective 29.91 (5.776) 28.95 (5.&43) -1.234 .219
Behavioral 31.SO (5.347) 32.59 (5.668) .910 .364
Cognitive 29.98 (3.21t) 28.61 (2.502) -3.475 .001
Total CATCH 30.59 (4.773) 30.05 (4.601) .345 .398
CATCH scores on subscales are shown in Table 5 for both groups, for female (n=118) and male participants (n=100). The Student's t-test was used to compare data between groups. Between the male students and the female students, there were no significant differences in the mean scores on affective, behavioral, and total CATCH scores. But, mean scores on the cognitive subscale as a whole were significantly different (29.98 vs 28.61; p=0.001). Namely, female students have more positive beliefs about children with blindness.
Table 6
Interaction with person with blindness
No (41=179) Yes (n=39)
Dimensions M (SD) M (SD) T P
Affective 25.58 (3.125) 30.29 (5.813) 4.843 .000
Behavioral 29.34 (3.920) 32.83 (5.595) 4.584 .000
Cognitive 27.11 (2.874) 29.83 (2.763) 5.344 .000
Total CATCH 27.34 (3.306) 30.98 (4.725) 4.517 .000
Findings suggest that students who reported having contact or interaction with person with disability (n=38) recorded higher scores on CATCH than those who reported that they did not have contact or interaction with person with disability (n=179). An independent samples t-test suggests a significant difference between the scores on the whole CATCH scale, as well as the three subscales (Table 6).
Table 7
One-wayANOVA for significant difference between subscales and schools grade
Subscale Sunn of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 178.834 3 59.611
Affective Within Groups 22021.221 214 .579 .629
Total 22200.055 217 102.903
Between Groups 311.535 3 103.845
Behavioral Within Groups 18630.538 214 1.193 .313
Total 18942.073 217 87.059
Between Groups 603.517 3 201.172
Cognitive Within Groups 18679.515 214 2.305 .078
Total 19283.032 217 87.287
Table 7, the ANOVA test shows that students from different school grade have no significantly differently score on CATCH subscales: affective (F= .579, p= .629); behavioral (F=1.193, p= .313) and cognitive (F=2.305, p = .078).
Discussions
in studies conducted on students from different countries, their attitudes towards peers with disabilities have proved to be positive. Unfortunately, there aren't many studies that examine attitudes toward a particular disability, such as blindness (Nikolaraizi and De Reybekiel, 2001; De Laat, Freriksen and Vervloed, 2013). in line with most of those studies, this study also shows that high school students have positive attitudes towards peers with blindness.
The attitudes of individuals toward people with disabilities are frequently impacted by a variety of factors. Since an attitude may be thought of as a multidimensional construct comprising of affection, behavior, and cognition, also it is a subject to change and modification (De Laat, Freriksen and Vervloed, 2013). Age, culture, gender, religion, self-esteem, and whether or not one knows a disabled person are the most researched factors that might affect attitude. Several studies have shown that when attitudes are compared based on gender, girls' attitudes are more positive than boys'. in this research gender seems to affect only the positive cognitive components of attitudes toward peers with blindness, specifically female students have statistically a more positive attitude than male students on the cognitive subscale. interestingly, male students have a more positive attitude on the behavioral subscale.
There are studies that show that having a friend with a disability and interacting with a person with a disability or a family member with a disability has a positive effect on children's attitudes (Armstrong et al., 2016). Also, in this CATCH study, the scores were significantly higher in students who had contact or interaction with a blind person than in those who did not.
The last question was whether school grades have a significant effect on the attitudes toward students with blindness. The results showed no age effect on the attitudes of high school students towards peers with blindness.
Conclusions
Hutzler (2003) found attitudes play a significant role in the success of inclusive classroom, which indicates the importance of creating positive attitudes between students with and without disabilities. As Helen Keller noted, a famous deaf-blind writer, "the chief handicap of the blind is not blindness, but the attitude of seeing people towards them" (Vasileiadis and Doikou-Avlidou, 2018).
Implementing coexistence programs is one strategy to influence typical students' attitudes of their peers with disabilities (Vasileiadis and Doikou-Avlidou, 2018). These programs mostly involve students with typically developing, with a lesser proportion also including pupils who have the same disability (Mu, Siegel and Allinder, 2000). In the practice, the main goals of well-known programs like "special friend" or "peer buddy" are to promote social contact, eliminate discrimination, and change attitudes (Vasileiadis, Koutras and Stagiopoulos, 2021).
Acknowledgements
The author states that no commercial or financial connections existed that may be considered as a possible conflict of interest when conducting the research. Thanks to the graduating students of the institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation for their participation in conducting the research.
Conflict of interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Alnahdi, G. H. (2020). Rasch validation of the Arabic version of the Chedoke-McMaster attitudes toward children with handicaps
(CATCH-AR) Scale. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02924 Armstrong, M., Morris, C., Abraham, C., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Tarrant, M. (2016). Children's contact with people with disabilities and their attitudes towards disability: a cross-sectional study. Disability and rehabilitation, 38(9), 879-888. https://doi.or g/10.3109/09638288.2015.1074727 Bossaert, G., & Petry, K. (2013). Factorial validity of the Chedoke-McMaster attitudes towards children with handicaps scale
(CATCH). Research in developmental disabilities, 34(4), 1336-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.007 Qigek-Gumu§, E., & Oncel, S. (2020). Validity and reliability of the Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes Towards Children with Handi-caps Scale in Turkey: A methodological study. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, 28(1), 1-12. https://doi.
org/10.5152/FNJN.2020.426719 De Laat, S., Freriksen, E., & Vervloed, M. P. (2013). Attitudes of children and adolescents toward persons who are deaf, blind, paralyzed or intellectually disabled. Research in developmental disabilities, 34(2), 855-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ridd.2012.11.004
Dunn, D. S. (2015). The Oxford handbook of undergraduate psychology education. Oxford University Press. Godeau, E., Vignes, C., Sentenac, M., Ehlinger, V., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., & Arnaud, C. (2010). improving attitudes towards children with disabilities in a school context: A cluster randomized intervention study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 52(10), e236-e242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03731.x Gumu§, E. Q., & Oncel, S. (2020). Validity and reliability of the Chedoke-McMaster attitudes towards children with handicaps scale in Turkey: A methodological study. Florence Nightingale journal of nursing, 28(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5152/ FNJN.2020.426719
Hutzler, Y. (2003). Attitudes toward the participation of individuals with disabilities in physical activity: A review. Quest, 55(4),
347-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491809 Ketovuori, H., Hirvensalo, S., Pihlaja, P., & Laakkonen, E. (2020). Pupils' Experience of Social Participation in Finnish Primary
Schools. Nordic Studies in Education, 40(4), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v40.2600 King, S. M., Rosenbaum, P., Armstrong, R. W., & Milner, R. (1989). An epidemiological study of children's attitudes toward disability. Developmental medicine & child neurology, 31(2), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1111Zj.1469-8749.1989. tb03984.x
Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R. M. (2000). Peer interactions and sociometric status of high school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of the association for persons with severe handicaps, 25(3), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.3.142 Nikolaraizi, M., & De Reybekiel, N. (2001). A comparative study of children's attitudes towards deaf children, children in wheelchairs and blind children in Greece and in the UK. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250110041090 Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., & King, S. M. (1986). Children's attitudes toward disabled peers: A self-report measure.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11(4), 517-530. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/11.4.517 Vasileiadis, i., & Doikou-Avlidou, M. (2018). Enhancing social interaction of pupils with intellectual disabilities with their general education peers: the outcomes of an intervention programme. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(4), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12410 Vasileiadis, i., Koutras, S., & Stagiopoulos, P. (2021). Changing the attitudes of high school students towards intellectual disabilities: the contribution of a social coexistence programme. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 21(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12498 Vignes, C., Godeau, E., Sentenac, M., Coley, N., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., & Arnaud, C. (2009). Determinants of students' attitudes towards peers with disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51(6), 473-479. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03283.x
Original scientific paper
UDK:
316.624-057.475:077.5(470) 159.923.2.072-057.475:077.5(470) d 10.23947/2334-8496-2022-10-3-99-108
Received: September, 12.2022. Revised: November, 19.2022. Accepted: November, 24.2022.
Check for updates
Cyber Socialization Engagement and Dark Tetrad of Personality among
Young University Students
Sergey L. Lenkov1 , Nadezhda E. Rubtsova2 , Marina Yu. Elagina3" , Elena S. Nizamova4
1Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: new_psy@mail.ru 2Russian New University, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: hope432810@yandex.ru 3Don State Technical University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia, e-mail: kochevanchik@mail.ru 4Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: eslenkova@mail.ru
Abstract: The article considers the relationship between the cyber socialization engagement and the Dark Tetrad of personality (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism). The cyber socialization engagement was understood, according to the author's concept, as having constructive and destructive components. The study purpose was to identify correlation and deterministic relationships between indicators of the cyber socialization engagement and the Dark Tetrad among young university students. The sample included 424 students from Russian universities. For measurements, «The cyber socialization engagement questionnaire» and «The Short Dark Tetrad Scale» were used. It has been established that the relationship between the indicators of the cyber socialization engagement and the Dark Tetrad has a qualitatively heterogeneous character - from the complete absence of connections to mutual determination. The strongest mutual determination is associated with the everyday sadism: it increases the destructive engagement in cyber socialization, explaining 12% of the total variance, and the latter, in turn, increases the severity of sadism (10.5%). It is advisable to take into account the revealed connections between the general cyber socialization engagement and the Dark Tetrad of the personality when organizing psychological support for the socialization of students in the context of expanding social interactions carried out in cyberspace.
Keywords: cyber socialization engagement, constructive engagement, destructive engagement, Dark Tetrad of personality, young university students.
The focus of our research is determined by the integration of three research areas, characterized by the concepts of «the cyber socialization engagement», «the Dark Tetrad of personality» and «the young university students».
In the modern world, young people, as in all times, assimilates the social experience accumulated by previous generations, including ideas about social norms and rules, abilities and skills of a social interaction, heterogeneous social relations, etc. Such processes in a generalized form are traditionally called socialization.
At the same time, modern socialization has an important new component, which is called cyber socialization and is associated with that part of socialization processes that are carried out using digital technologies, i.e., in fact, through various interactions carried out in a specific part of the space of human existence - cyberspace (see, e.g., Lenkov and Rubtsova, 2022). At the same time, the contribution of cyber socialization to the total array of socialization processes has been rapidly increasing in recent years, including under the influence of such force majeure factors as the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Easa and Bazzi (2021), the pandemic has caused a significant lack of the socialization among university students. At the same time, the authors have in mind traditional socialization, and not its specific cyber component. Therefore, the results of their work, taking into account the sharp increase in the activity of young people in cyberspace recorded in many studies during the pandemic, can be interpreted as another significant shift in the relationship between traditional socialization and cyber socialization in favor of the
'Corresponding author: kochevanchik@mail.ru
© 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Introduction
latter.
Cyber socialization in one or another of its aspects has actually been studied for a long time. However, two fundamental difficulties stand in the way of such a study. The first of them is theoretical, related to the debatability of the central construct used to describe this phenomenon: along with the concept of cyber socialization (see Lenkov and Rubtsova, 2019, 2022; Lenkov, Rubtsova and Efremova, 2019), many other competing concepts are used here, such as digital socialization (e.g., Kim, 2015), virtual socialization (Saeed and Hassan, 2020), internet socialization (Honnekeri et al., 2017), media socialization (Milenkova, Peicheva and Marinov, 2018), and others. The second difficulty is methodical, associated with measuring tools for determining the severity of certain processes of cyber socialization, their representation in the life of a particular person, i.e., what we call the cyber socialization engagement.
As a result, the cyber socialization engagement, including among university students, has so far been studied mainly:
- in philosophical and theoretical perspectives (R. M. Aysina, S. Livingstone, V. A. Pleshakov, T. Poell, G. U. Soldatova, A. E. Voiskunsky, B. Zizek, etc.);
- either using primary methods that do not have a reliable psychometric justification, such as questioning (Honnekeri et al., 2017; Kim, 2015), structured interviews and focus groups (Milenkova, Peicheva and Marinov, 2018), qualitative interviews (e.g., Smith, Hewitt and Skrbis, 2015), etc.;
- either taking into account only certain, rather narrow aspects of the cyber socialization engagement, such as motivation or the nature of the use of the internet (e.g., Smith, Hewitt and Skrbis, 2015), smartphones (Servidio, Griffiths and Demetrovics, 2021), social networks (Casale, Musico and Spada, 2021; Kircaburun, Jonason and Griffiths, 2018) and instant messengers (Casale, Musico and Spada, 2021; Honnekeri et al., 2017; Saeed and Hassan, 2020), such specific negative manifestations of destructive cyber socialization as cyberbullying and cyberstalking (Kircaburun, Jonason and Griffiths, 2018), cybervictimization (Shoib et al., 2022), various cyberaddictions (see, for example, (Casale, Musico and Spada, 2021; Siah et al., 2021), cyberloafing (Metin-Orta and Demirtepe-Saygili, 2021), etc.
Similar methods and directions of research are widely demanded today. At the same time, the situation changed fundamentally after Lenkov, Rubtsova and Efremova (2019) developed a questionnaire of the cyber socialization engagement, which underwent extensive psychometric testing. This questionnaire does not replace or exclude other methods for studying the cyber socialization engagement, including those mentioned above. However, it provides for the fulfillment of two important requirements for taking the appropriate research positions:
- approach the understanding of cyber socialization from a generalized view point, integrating private manifestations of cyber socialization;
- operationalize this point of view, moving from philosophical and general theoretical reasoning to quantitative analysis and the construction of specific empirically based psychological models.
The next important aspect of the field of study is related to personality structures. Cyber socialization, like traditional socialization, is associated with the formation of specific personal properties that reflect the assimilation of social experience by the individual. it is quite natural to try to identify the role and place of such specific structures in the overall structure of the personality, in particular, to establish their relationship with the well-known basic personality structures, of which we will focus on only one. This is the structure known as the Dark Tetrad of personality and combines features of Machiavellianism, narcissism, primary (non-clinical) psychopathy, and everyday sadism (Neumann, Jones and Paulhus, 2021; Paulhus et al., 2021), where the addition of the feature of sadism is a relatively new extension of the more traditional Dark Triad, which has been extensively studied for at least at least the last twenty years (see Kircaburun, Jonason and Griffiths, 2018; March and Marrington, 2021; Moor and Anderson, 2019; Siah et al., 2021). it should also be noted that each of the four properties of the Dark Tetrad has been separately studied in psychology for a much longer time, but it is the identification of their coordinated structure that is of fundamental importance here.
Finally, another point specifying our field of study is the selection of young university students as subjects. This choice is due to the following reasons. Firstly, university students are to a significant extent involved in cyber socialization due to the very specifics of the organization of the educational process, especially in the context of the recent COViD-19 pandemic. Secondly, young students are already representatives of the digital generations, for whom the first acquaintance with computers and gadgets occurs, as a rule, even at preschool age; this factor, accordingly, also increases their cyber socialization engagement; therefore, we have limited the age of students to 35 years.
in relation to our research area as a whole, it can be stated that the relationship between the cyber socialization engagement and the Dark Tetrad (as well as the Triad) of the personality has been studied to date only fragmentarily, taking into account certain aspects of the cyber socialization engagement.
