Editing Bystander effect (section)

===Children as bystanders===
Although most research has been conducted on adults, children can be bystanders too. A study conducted by Robert Thornberg in 2007 came up with seven reasons why children do not help when another classmate is in distress. These include: [[trivialisation]], [[dissociation (psychology)|dissociation]], embarrassment association, 'busy working' priority (the prioritisation of a current task instead of assistance), compliance with a competitive norm (where another social norm applies, a child may instead comply with that norm), audience modelling (modelling of the behaviours of the other audience members), and responsibility transfer (assuming that another person is responsible).<ref name="Thornberg (2007)">{{cite journal|last=Thornberg|first=R|title=A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act.|journal=Social Psychology of Education|year=2007|volume=10|pages=5–28|doi=10.1007/s11218-006-9009-4|s2cid=142159441|url=http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-11920}}</ref>

In a further study, Thornberg concluded that there are seven stages of moral deliberation as a bystander in bystander situations among the Swedish schoolchildren he observed and interviewed: (a) ''noticing that something is wrong'', i.e., children pay selective attention to their environment, and sometimes they do not tune in on a distressed peer if they are in a hurry or their view is obstructed, (b) ''interpreting a need for help''—sometimes children think others are just playing rather than actually in distress or they display pluralistic ignorance, (c) ''feeling empathy'', i.e., having tuned in on a situation and concluded that help is needed, children might feel sorry for an injured peer, or angry about unwarranted aggression (empathic anger), (d) ''processing the school's moral frames''—Thornberg identified five contextual ingredients influencing children's behavior in bystander situations (the definition of a good student, tribe caring, gender stereotypes, and social-hierarchy-dependent morality), (e) ''scanning for social status and relations'', i.e., students were less likely to intervene if they did not define themselves as friends of the victim or belonging to the same significant social category as the victim, or if there were high-status students present or involved as aggressors—conversely, lower-status children were more likely to intervene if only a few other low-status children were around, (f) ''condensing motives for action'', such as considering a number of factors such as possible benefits and costs, and (g) ''acting'', i.e., all of the above coalesced into a decision to intervene or not. It is striking how this was less an individual decision than the product of a set of interpersonal and institutional processes.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Thornberg|first=Robert|title=A student in distress: Moral frames and bystander behavior in school|journal=Elementary School Journal|year=2010|volume=110|issue=4|pages=585–608|doi=10.1086/651197|s2cid=45678618|url=http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:320048/FULLTEXT01}}</ref>