Snitching, Reporting, and “We Could’ve Sorted That”: How Young People See It

Ask a group of students what “snitching” means and you’ll rarely get a neat dictionary definition. You’ll get stories, eye-rolls, and a strong sense of what’s fair, what’s social suicide, and what “should’ve stayed between us”.

What’s important for adults to understand is this: in many schools, young people don’t automatically label all help-seeking as “snitching”. The label tends to appear when students believe the situation was minor, messy, or manageable without adult involvement.

That distinction matters—because it changes how we teach help-seeking, how we respond, and how we build a culture where serious harm is reported early.

Young people’s “snitching” rule: severity and solvability

Across research on disclosure and “tattling/telling”, young people often differentiate between major vs minor wrongdoing and adjust their judgments accordingly. In other words: what you tell on matters, not just that you told. A strong example comes from developmental research on “tattling”: children evaluate disclosure more positively when the wrongdoing is more serious, harmful, or unsafe, and more negatively when it feels trivial or petty.

This maps closely onto what we see in real school settings: “snitching” is often the name students give to adult involvement in situations they believe were a disagreement, an argument, a friendship issue, or a one-off moment that peers could have managed.

What The Stand-Up Project sees in schools

Our practical insight from working directly with students is that many young people do not see telling a trusted adult about bullying as “snitching”—particularly when there is a clear pattern of harm, power imbalance, or repeated behaviour.

Instead, “snitching” tends to be used when:

• the behaviour is interpreted as a conflict between equals (“we both said things”)

• it’s framed as a single disagreement rather than an ongoing pattern

• the student believes the peers involved could have sorted it out (or “should have”)

• adult involvement is seen as escalating, humiliating, or inviting unnecessary consequences

This doesn’t mean students are always right in their judgments. It means they are applying a peer-culture logic: fairness, loyalty, autonomy, and social standing.

Why the label “snitch” is powerful (and why it suppresses reporting)

Research consistently shows that students often hesitate to tell teachers or other adults because they anticipate social costs—being judged by peers, being isolated, or having the situation worsen. That fear can create a “code of silence” even when students recognise something is wrong.

A separate line of evidence on youth reporting norms (even outside bullying—such as academic cheating) shows a similar taboo: young people can see reporting as morally justifiable, but still avoid it because of perceived social and relational consequences.

And in bullying contexts specifically, survey research indicates willingness to report is meaningfully shaped by trust in school staff, perceived consequences, and students’ sense of agency.

The “conflict vs bullying” confusion that drives snitching claims

A practical problem in schools is that students don’t always share adult definitions of bullying. If a student sees an incident as “just drama” or “just an argument”, then reporting can be treated as overreacting—i.e., “snitching”.

This is where evidence on conflict perceptions is useful. Research on students’ perceptions of teacher actions during conflicts and peer victimisation shows that young people pay close attention to how adults interpret incidents—and whether adult involvement feels fair, competent, and proportional. If students expect adults to mishandle it (over-punish, escalate, or not understand the nuance), they are less likely to seek help.

In other words, the “snitch” label is partly a confidence issue: if students believe adult involvement won’t help (or will make things worse), “sort it yourselves” becomes the default norm.

When adults accidentally make it worse: “Stop tattling”

Some students report negative experiences when adults dismiss disclosure as “tattling” or imply they should stop reporting. Research capturing students’ perspectives suggests that these responses can be particularly harmful and can discourage future help-seeking.

This matters because the adult message students hear isn’t “use your judgement”—it’s “don’t bring problems to us”. And that’s exactly the kind of culture that allows serious bullying to stay hidden.

A clearer, student-friendly distinction: reporting vs snitching

If you want to shift norms, students need a definition that matches how they think:

Students often call it “snitching” when…

• no one is in danger and it’s not ongoing

• it’s mainly about getting someone in trouble

• it feels like a peer problem that could be resolved with a conversation, apology, or space

• the adult response is likely to be disproportionate or public

Students are more likely to accept it as “reporting” when…

• someone is being targeted, excluded, humiliated, threatened, or hurt

• there is a pattern (repeated behaviour), a power imbalance, or the person can’t safely stop it

• it’s online and spreading (hard to contain)

• it involves discrimination, sexual harassment, blackmail, or physical aggression

• the student has tried safe peer strategies and it’s continuing

That distinction aligns with how children and adolescents evaluate disclosure across “minor vs major transgressions”.

What schools can do with this insight

1) Teach “severity and safety” as the deciding factors

Give students an explicit decision rule: If it’s unsafe, repeated, discriminatory, or you can’t stop it—tell a trusted adult. This targets the exact boundary where “snitching” narratives typically arise.

2) Make adult responses feel predictable and proportional

Students disclose more when they trust staff and believe the response will help rather than inflame the situation.
A simple practical approach: explain what you’ll do before you do it (what you’ll say, who you’ll speak to, what you won’t do, and how you’ll protect privacy).

3) Preserve student dignity and privacy

Public call-outs, forced apologies in front of peers, or “who told?” investigations are rocket fuel for snitching stigma. If students believe disclosure leads to social exposure, they will stop disclosing.

4) Build a “get help without getting someone smashed” pathway

Many students avoid reporting because they assume it automatically triggers harsh punishment. Creating graduated options—check-ins, mediation where appropriate, monitoring, restorative steps—can make reporting feel less like betrayal and more like problem-solving.

5) Use student voice to define the boundary

Ask students directly: “What’s reporting? What’s snitching? Where’s the line?”
When students co-create the norm, it becomes peer-enforced in a positive way (and it reduces the “adults don’t get it” narrative).

The takeaway

Young people’s view of “snitching” is often less about “telling an adult” and more about whether the situation was serious enough to justify adult involvement—or whether it was something peers believe they could have resolved themselves.

If schools want better reporting, the goal isn’t to lecture students out of the word “snitch”. The goal is to:

• clarify the difference between conflict and bullying,

• make adult help feel safe and proportionate,

• and build a culture where reporting harm is seen as protection, not betrayal.