Should I Defend or Should I Go? An Adaptive, Qualitative Examination of the Personal Costs and Benefits Associated With Bullying Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bystanders play a crucial role in encouraging or preventing bullying situations and feature prominently in several international antibullying programs (e.g., KiVa). Despite a surge of recent interest in bystanders, relatively little is known about the functional reasons why individuals choose to engage with or ignore bullying incidents. Given the importance of bystanders’ influence on bullying, we argue that further consideration needs to be given to the individual costs and benefits of bystanders’ intervention. Adolescents in our study ( N = 101, M = 15.37 years) read different bullying scenarios and were then asked to respond with how the bystander would react in each scenario while considering and explaining potential personal costs and benefits. We focused on the cognitive reasoning of important factors adolescents may consider when faced with the decision of whether to intervene or not in a bullying situation. Our study provides novel evidence that adolescents engage in quite explicit cost–benefit decisions regarding their decisions of whether or not they would intervene in bullying. The content and structure of these cost–benefit decisions support an adaptive model of bullying behavior and may be helpful in developing more targeted peer-based antibullying programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".