76 Spirituality Studies 10-2 Fall 2024 Table 6 Regression Analysis of Selected Variables Effect Estimate SE 95% CI p LL UL Victim Spirituality importance 0.094 0.07 −0.04 0.22 0.166 Emotional loneliness −0.07 0.05 −0.16 0.02 0.147 Social loneliness −0.14 0.04 −0.22 −0.05 0.002 Aggressor Emotional loneliness −0.21 0.09 −0.40 −0.02 0.032 Social loneliness −0.03 0.09 −0.20 0.09 0.750 Defender Emotional loneliness −0.4 0.04 −0.11 0.03 0.264 Social loneliness −0.05 0.04 −0.12 0.02 0.181 Bystander Emotional loneliness −0.01 0.04 −0.09 0.06 0.701 Social loneliness −0.05 0.04 −0.13 0.02 0.136 Based on the correlation analysis, for the other roles, we focused only on the predictive power of loneliness, given the absence of association of the roles with experiencing spirituality, which is a requirement for regression analysis. For aggressors, our model composed of emotional and social loneliness proved significant, explaining 5.23% of the total variance (p=0.009; R2N=0.0523). Collinearity did not exceed 1.50, and thus it is possible to work with the data as is. Emotional loneliness figures as a significant predictor in our dataset (p=0.032; z=-2.149), where an individual with lower levels of social loneliness is 0.811 times less likely to be the aggressor of bullying (OR=0.811). Social loneliness did not show significant prediction (p=0.75). For defenders, we tested the predictive ability of emotional and social loneliness in the same way. Our model proved significant overall but explained only 1.97% of the total variance (p=0.008; R2N=0.0197). However, neither of our variables partially proved to be a significant predictor, as neither emotional loneliness (p=0.264) nor social loneliness (p=0.181) reached the necessary levels of significance, and thus we consider the overall model to be non-significant. For bystanders, neither the overall model proved significant (p=0.051; R2N=0.0124) and, identically, neither emotional loneliness (p=0.701) nor social loneliness (p=0.136) proved significant and thus have no predictive power for bystanders. 4 Discussion and Conclusions In terms of the prevalence of bullying, it was found that 20.8% of the students had been victims of bullying, 3.8% were aggressors, 50.6% were in the role of defenders and 39% were bystanders. The prevalence of school bullying among adolescents’ ranges between 5.4% and 67.5% (Hymel and Swearer 2015, 294). The number of victims in Slovakia stands at 20.61% (Várnai et al. 2022) among children aged 11–15 years. As many as 25.76% of Slovak schoolchildren have been in the role of the aggressor. Overall, physical forms of aggression among schoolchildren appear in up to 30.51% of bullying cases regardless of the role groups. Other research (Papanikolau, Chatzikosma and Kleio 2011, 433) has indicated that 17.5% of schoolchildren have been victims of bullying, and up to 16.5% have taken part in bullying.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==