Keywords

COVID-19, Internaut, Model, Mediation, Moderation, Violence.

Introduction

Violence, assumed as a systematic conflict by one or both parties involved, is considered a problem when negotiation, agreements and co-responsibilities are considered the heritage of those who think in a single sense, it can be seen in the traditional and virtual classroom.

In the context of the pandemic, social unrest is oriented towards the government in power, as it was during the NH1 influenza pandemic when the government was criticized for not guaranteeing care for those infected. About two thousand deaths were enough to force the government action. In the current pandemic, 300,000 recognized deaths and nearly 700,000 related to COVID-19 have generated criticism of the government, but unlike their predecessors, sympathizers, militants, and adherents defend the policy of the current government, even when contagions, sick, hospitalized and dead persist. Such a panorama of conflict between those who disapprove of the management of the pandemic and those who defend it exemplifies the political violence that spreads on social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube or TikTok and by extension in the traditional and virtual classroom (Anderson et al., 2017).

Since its origins, democracy has functioned as a stage in which the ruler legitimizes his decisions by summoning his followers to vote in favor in exchange for a royalty (Boddy, 2014).

In the particular case of modern Latin American democracies, the government grants economic support that it hopes to exchange for votes. Today, support for students and teachers are possible in public universities (Heidelbergcement, 2019). Such a policy generates at least sympathy for the executive as the supreme representative of the government. Therefore, without needing to repeat it, when the government offers scholarships to professors and students, it expects at least their sympathy. This system violates a central axis of teaching that consists of questioning those who make decisions that involve their peers. While the government spreads its support system, counteracts the ability to evaluate it according to other governments, the criticism fades in the classroom. The government even promotes itself as a guarantor of health and well-being. It is a symbolic conflict that divides voters and forces them to defend one or another political position. Human beings are political animals. It means then that we seek decision-making power and avoid being influenced by an ideology. Therefore, political violence can lead to different types of violence in the classroom. Here are some examples (Chabra & Suri, 2000).

Verbal violence if the president spends his mornings denouncing the corruption of previous governments without recognizing the corruption that emanates from his government and even from his family, then this contradiction can be appreciated by any more or less informed teacher and follower of television, radio or radio programs. Information on Facebook or twitter. By commenting on the contradiction in the classroom, the teacher can expose himself to the justified claim of someone who receives a scholarship and appreciates the government (Combe, 2014).

Psychological violence continuing with the case of the president and his morning shows, the penetrating power of his programs can impact young audiences that have not yet received a scholarship, but the information they receive generates a “lifesaver” type of symbolization. That is to say, the young recipient may consider that the country is corrupt and in the face of such a disaster scenario, job opportunities are nil, resigning himself to receiving a scholarship to survive in the short term (Dixon, 1993). It is true that enrollment and increased enrollment are encouraged. Even the performance and use motivated by a scholarship, but the essence of education is contrary to ignorance and dependence on political power. People educate themselves not to applaud their government but to question it, even when it is effective in economic matters. A government that undermines the self-esteem of its students exerts psychological violence on their educational and work expectations and aspirations (Masige, 2019).

Economic violence if the government promotes the fight against corruption by persecuting those who criticize it, whether or not they are corrupt, then what is the message that it sends to those who receive a scholarship? If you are not with the government, can your scholarship be lost, reduced or modified? If you obtained a scholarship without any merit, can you claim its conservation? If your educational project depends on a scholarship, how can you continue if the government stops supporting you? It is true that the educational opportunities for those who receive a scholarship are expanded, but that does not guarantee a minimum training in critical thinking, entrepreneurship, negotiation, conciliation and co-responsibility (Kaleem et al., 2016).

Physical violence the current Mexican government does not distinguish itself by disappearing, imprisoning or exiling its opponents and critics, but it does distinguish itself by intensifying its ideology during electoral times. The increase in election-related deaths translates in the classroom as mental and physical health attacks just thinking about the election results. Students who do not care about politics are in the majority, but a minority express themselves on their social networks such as Facebook and twitter, sends messages on Whatsapp or upload videos on YouTube and Twitter related to the likely results of the elections. The traffic of information, tweets, messages or videos at night makes the effort and stress that a minority of young people adopt during the electoral contest notorious.

The widespread violence of the State towards teachers and students, discrediting critical education and promoting the acceptance of the concentration of power of the president are collateral effects if it is assumed that the ideology of the fourth transformation has gradually been violating the traditional classroom and virtual through social networks.

The objective of the present work was to establish a model of psychological factors that mediate the violence spread in the print media due to the pandemic and confinement.

Are there significant differences between the theoretical structure of violence reported in the literature from 2019 to 2022 with respect to the structure observed and analyzed in this work?.

The premises that guide this work suggest that the violence spread in the media and electronic networks due to the pandemic and confinement affect perceptions of risk and insecurity. The process begins with the establishment of a media agenda on insecurity. Immediately, the informational biases generate a division of the audiences. Against will be those who agree with the state propaganda that consists of legitimizing insecurity as inescapable due to confinement. In favor of those who are against state propaganda and assume that insecurity has intensified during the pandemic and confinement. Therefore, significant differences between the theoretical structure and the empirical structure are expected.

Method

A cross-sectional, psychometric and correlational study was carried out with a sample of 100 students (M=23.2 SD=3.2 years of age and M=7906.32 SD=564.34 monthly income), considering their economic, social and educational status.

The Aguilar Media Agenda Inventory was used, which measures the influence of print media on readers through persuasive strategies of image plausibility and data verisimilitude. Each item is answered with one of the options ranging from 0="not at all worrisome" to 10="quite worrisome". The literature reports reliability between 0.761 and 793, but in this study a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.773 and McDougal's omega value of 0.780 were obtained. The validity reported for the instrument indicates factorial weights ranging from 0.451 to 0.671, but in this study the indicators correlated with the factor to give birth from 0.301 to 0.589 (Thatcher, 2012).

The Inventory of Economic, Political, Social, Family and Personal Violence of Carreon (2022) was used. It includes 20 items that measure the five dimensions of violence based on five response options ranging from 0="not at all likely" to 5="quite likely". The reliability of the instrument ranges between 0.768 and 0.789, but in the present study it reached a Cronbach alpha value of 0.775 and a McDougal omega value of 0.778. The reported validity of the instrument obtained factorial weights that range between 0.341 and 0.562, although in the present study they ranged between 0.368 and 0.561 (Yang, 2016).

The Hernandez Violence Avoidance Inventory (2022) was used, which includes records of indicators related to distancing from aggression in confinement, closed or open public spaces. Each item starts from 0="it is not similar to my situation" to 10="it is quite similar to my situation". The inventory has been correlated with other instruments that measure authoritarian personality, reaching a predictive value between 0.671 and 0.782 (Surji, 2015).

The respondents were informed of the objectives and those responsible for the project by email. They were guaranteed in writing the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, as well as non-remuneration for their responses. In general, the Helsinki protocol was used for studies with humans and the APA standard for studies with students (Daft et al., 2009).

The information was captured in Excel and processed in JSP version 14 (Heidelbergcement, 2014). Cronbach's alpha and McDougal's omega reliability coefficients were estimated to observe the consistency of the instrument (Yukl, 2013). The parameters of Kayser Meyer Olkin adequacy and sphericity were weighted with the Barttlet test in order to assess the relevance of the validity through factorial analysis of principal components. Path statistics were calculated for the hypothesis test of significant differences between the theoretical dependency relationships with respect to the empirical observations. Values close to unity were assumed as evidence of reliability, validity, and dependency relationships (Luthra & Dahiya, 2015).

Results

Figure 1 shows the values that explain the relationships between the dimensions of violence on its prevention. It is appreciated that the Internet dimension positively and directly determines prevention. That is, the spread of violence in electronic networks would prevent violence. In turn, Internet violence is predicted by media violence. It then means that the spread of violence in the media and networks explains the prevention of violence, although the relationship tends to be spurious (Singh, 2000).

The dimensions of violence predict prevention; although it is the media and Internet dimensions that anticipate prevention. It then means that the dissemination of distancing and confinement measures are determinants of prevention in closed and open, public and private spaces. Therefore, the hypothesis regarding the significant differences between the theoretical structure with respect to the empirical structure is not rejected (Pettinger, 2012).

Discussion

The contribution of this work to the state of the art lies in the empirical evidence of a model of mediating factors of violence disseminated in the media. In relation to the literature from 2019 to 2022 where the incidence of media and Internet violence in the prevention of violence in electronic networks such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram or WhatsApp is reported, the present work found that they are the factors media and Internet users who explain the prevention of violence. That is, the dissemination of content in the traditional media and in electronic networks opens the discussion about the impact of the communication of State risks and its media and Internet bias to influence the behavior of audiences.

Internet violence such as harassment, ridicule, ignoring or bullying on electronic networks has been associated with risk behaviors such as the purchase or sale of products on web pages without control or regulation. In the present work it is suggested that Internet violence predicts the prevention of violence in closed or open spaces. That is, electronic networks themselves allow the self-regulation of indicators of violence. As preventive content is disseminated, exposure to risks is reduced. It is recommended to amplify the model to factors that the literature identifies as predictors of Internet violence.

Conclusion

The objective of the present work was the empirical test of a model in which the economic, political, social, family, media and Internet dimensions of violence regulate the flow of information to anticipate risk behaviors and disseminate the prevention of violence in social spaces, closed and open. The application of the findings in communication policies and risk control reorient the diffusion in electronic networks. Therefore, the dissemination of content on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube or WhatsApp will allow the generation of a risk aversion scenario.

References

Anderson, H.G., Azad, N., Brooks, A., Garza, O., O’Neil, C., Stutz, M.M., & Sobotka, J.L. (2017). Leadership and management are one and the same. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 81(6).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Boddy, D. (2014). Management – An Introduction 6th ed. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 43-46.

Chabra, T.N., & Suri, R.K. (2000). Management process and perspectives.

Google Scholar

Combe, C. (2014). Introduction to management. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39-44.

Daft R.L, Kendrick M., Vershinina, N. (2009). Management, international edition, South Western Cengage Learning.

Indexed at

Dixon, R. (1993). The Management Task. 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworth-heineman Ltd.

Heidelbergcement. (2014). Strategy and Targets.

Heidelbergcement. (2019). Strategy and Targets.

Kaleem,Y., Asad, S., & Khan, H. (2016). Leadership styles & using appropriate styles in different circumstances. Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi-Pakistan.

Google Scholar

Luthra, A., & Dahiya, R. (2015). Effective leadership is all about communicating effectively: Connecting leadership and communication. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 5(3), 43-48.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Masige, S. (2019). Jamshed Naval Cooper Managing Director of Heidelberg Cement India. The CEO Magazine.

Pettinger, R. (2012). Management: A concise introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Singh, N. (2000). Principles of management. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications Pvt ltd, 390-396.

Surji, K. (2015). Understanding leadership and factors that Influence Leaders effectiveness. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(33), 154-167.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Thatcher, P. (2012). Leading By Example.

Google Scholar

Yang, R. (2016). Examining the distinct concepts of" leadership" and" management" and the relationship between them. In 4th International Conference on Management Science, Education Technology, Arts, Social Science and Economics 2016, 1168-1171. Atlantis Press.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar

Received: 06-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. AELJ-22-12138; Editor assigned: 08-Jun-2022, PreQC No AELJ-22-12138(PQ); Reviewed: 22-Jun-2022, QC No. AELJ-22-12138; Revised: 29-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. AELJ-22-12138(R); Published: 05-July-2022