Bystanders’ affect toward bully and victim as predictors of helping and non‐helping behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined how children's relationship with the bully and victim impacted their reactions as bystanders. An ethnically diverse sample of 2,513 Canadian students in grades 4-7 responded to questions about their experiences of bullying, including the frequency with which they witnessed bullying at school. Approximately 89% of the sample reported witnessing bullying at school during the current school year. Subsequently, participants were asked to recall a specific bullying incident that they witnessed and describe: (1) their relationship with the bully and victim; (2) how they felt while witnessing; and (3) how they responded as a bystander. Compared to situations where they didn't know the victim, bystanders were more likely to intervene directly (e.g., try to stop the bully, comfort the victim) if they liked the victim, and less likely to tell an adult if they disliked the victim. Aggressive intervention was more common if the witness didn't like the bully, but also if they didn't like the victim compared to if they didn't know them. Regarding emotions, anger emerged as an especially powerful predictor of bystander defending, with youth being over five times more likely to try to stop the bullying or comfort the victim if they felt angry. Implications of these findings for the development of ecologically valid, anti-bullying interventions are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".