The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents 9781118773123, 1118773128, 9781118773130, 1118773136, 9781118773154, 1118773152

Citation preview

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents

The Wiley Handbooks of Developmental Psychology This outstanding series of handbooks provides a cutting‐edge overview of classic research, current research and future trends in developmental psychology. •  Each handbook draws together 25–30 newly commissioned chapters to provide a comprehensive overview of a subdiscipline of developmental psychology. •  The international team of contributors to each handbook has been specially chosen for its expertise and knowledge of each field. •  Each handbook is introduced and contextualized by leading figures in the field, lending coherence and authority to each volume. The Wiley Handbooks of Developmental Psychology will provide an invaluable overview for advanced students of developmental psychology and for researchers as an authoritative definition of their chosen field. Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence Edited by Gerald R. Adams and Michael D. Berzonsky The Science of Reading: A Handbook Edited by Margaret J. Snowling and Charles Hulme Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development Edited by Kathleen McCartney and Deborah A. Phillips Blackwell Handbook of Language Development Edited by Erika Hoff and Marilyn Shatz The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, 2nd edition Edited by Usha Goswami The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and Aging Edited by Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Martin Sliwinski The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development, 2nd Edition Edited by Gavin Bremner and Theodore D. Wachs The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development Edited by Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychology in Practice: Implementation and Impact Edited by Kevin Durkin and H. Rudolph Schaffer The Wiley Handbook of Early Childhood Development Programs, Practices, and Policies Edited by Elizabeth Votruba‐Drzal and Eric Dearing The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents

Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown

This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148‐5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley‐blackwell. The right of Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale and Christia Spears Brown to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data applied for Hardback ISBN: 9781118773161 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: monkeybusinessimages/Gettyimages Set in 11/13.5pt AGaramond by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Notes on Contributors

viii

Prefacexxi Part I Social Group Membership: Intergroup Context and Methodological Issues

1

1 Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach Drew Nesdale

3

2 Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann

23

3 Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip

47

4 Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland

67

Part II Group Processes: Social Exclusion, Resource Allocation, and Communication 5 The Role of Group Processes in Social Exclusion and Resource Allocation Decisions Melanie Killen, Laura Elenbaas, Michael T. Rizzo, and Adam Rutland

99 101

vi Contents 6 Toward a Contextualized Social Developmental Account of Children’s Group‐based Inclusion and Exclusion: The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics Dominic Abrams, Claire Powell, Sally B. Palmer, and Julie Van de Vyver

124

7 Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum

144

Part III  Social Categorization, Prejudice, and Stereotyping

165

8 Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Implicit and Explicit Prejudice Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele

167

9 Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children: Insights from Novel Group Studies Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson

184

10 Implicit Intergroup Bias and the Long Road to Predicting Discrimination Yarrow Dunham

203

11 The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele

221

Part IV  Socialization and Intergroup Discrimination

241

12 Racial Socialization and Racial Discrimination as  Intra‐ and Intergroup Processes Diane Hughes, Jessica Harding, Erika Y. Niwa, Juan Del Toro, and Niobe Way

243

13 Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination Christia Spears Brown

269

14 Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett

292

Part V  Groups and Bullying

315

15 Bullying in School and Online Contexts: Social Dominance, Bystander Compliance, and the Emotional Pain of Victims Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter

317

Contents  vii 16 Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying and  Victimization333 Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron Part VI  Intergroup Contact and Cross‐group Relationships

353

17 Contact Strategies for Improving Intergroup Relations among Youth Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah

355

18 Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes 19 Interracial Contact among University and School Youth in Post‐apartheid South Africa Colin Tredoux, John Dixon, Kevin Durrheim,  and Buhle Zuma

373

393

20 Student–Teacher Relationships and Interethnic Relations Jochem Thijs

416

Part VII  Interventions to Improve Relations between Groups

435

21 Using an Intergroup Contact Approach to Improve Gender Relationships: A Case Study of a Classroom‐based Intervention Carol Lynn Martin, Richard A. Fabes, Laura D. Hanish, Bridget Gaertner, Cindy Faith Miller, Stacie Foster, and Kimberly A. Updegraff

437

22 Intergroup Contact in Action: Using Intergroup Contact Interventions to Change Children’s Out‐Group Orientation Lindsey Cameron and Nicola Abbott

455

23 Seeding Change: Using Children’s Media to Promote Social Inclusion the Sesame Street Way Charlotte F. Cole and Lilith Dollard

472

Part VIII  Commentary

487

24 Intergroup Processes in Children and Adolescents: Where Are They Heading? Kevin Durkin

489

Index507

Notes on Contributors

Nicola Abbott is a developmental social psychologist in the School of Psychology, Politics, and Sociology, at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU). She started at CCCU in January 2014 and from September 2016 takes on the role of undergraduate program director, as senior lecturer. Nicola is an expert in helpful bystander behavior in the context of intergroup bullying. Since completing her Ph.D. at the University of Kent, she has focused on young people’s attitudes and behaviors towards immigrants and peers with a disability and, for the future, she is looking to develop and implement school‐based interventions aimed at promoting positive attitudes and behaviors towards that group. Frances E. Aboud is a professor in the Department of Psychology at McGill University, Canada. She has long studied the issues around ethnic and racial prejudice in children, looking at developmental changes, causal factors, consequences, and interventions to reduce it. Most of her empirical research has been conducted with majority ethnic children in Canada. Recently, with an international team of experts, she worked on a picture storybook intervention in Indonesia. This project converges with her interest in early childhood education and development in developing countries of Asia and Africa. It was also the culmination of a team publication that systematically reviewed early childhood interventions to reduce prejudice. Dominic Abrams is Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Centre for the Study of Group Processes at the University of Kent. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and the Academy of Social Sciences and a former President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. He is an expert on social identity, social development, group processes, and intergroup relations and has published over



Notes on Contributors  ix

250 papers and articles and 7 books. He is chief editor of the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Ananthi Al Ramiah has a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Oxford, and is currently an independent researcher based in Malaysia. She formerly held positions at the University of Oxford and Yale‐NUS College, Singapore. She works in the area of intergroup relations in Malaysia, the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland, and has published work focusing on the outcomes and antecedents of intergroup contact, ethnic diversity and trust, willingness to compromise, the causes and consequences of discrimination, the relationship between economic development and ethnoreligious conflict, and the role of social identity in intergroup psychology. Julia Z. Benjamin is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who will be completing her doctoral internship at Boston Children’s Hospital in 2016–2017. She also holds an M.A. in developmental psychology from Columbia University Teachers College. Through her clinical work in pediatric contexts and her advocacy as chair of the APAGS Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, she strives to support the well‐being of underserved populations of young people. Her research features designing, implementing, and assessing community‐ and classroom‐based mental health interventions. It also explores the impact of collective narrative processes on identity development for youth from historically marginalized groups, including immigrants and individuals with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Rebecca S. Bigler is Professor of Psychology and Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Ze received a B.A. from Oberlin College and Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University before joining the faculty at The University of Texas‐Austin in 1991. Ze studies the causes and consequences of social stereotyping and prejudice among children, with a particular focus on gender and racial attitudes. Ze has also worked to develop and test intervention strategies aimed at reducing children’s social stereotyping and intergroup biases. Christia Spears Brown is a Professor of Developmental and Social Psychology at the University of Kentucky. She is the Director of the UK Center for Equality and Social Justice. She earned her Ph.D. in psychology at The University of Texas at Austin. Her research broadly focuses on children’s intergroup development. Specifically, her work focuses on children’s perceptions of, and experiences with, discrimination, the development of stereotypes and social group identities, and the impact of discrimination and stereotypes on academic outcomes and psychological well‐being. As part of her research on discrimination, she has also examined the perpetration and acceptance of sexual harassment among adolescents. Her research on Latino immigrant children’s perceptions of discrimination across

x  Notes on Contributors school contexts was funded by the Foundation for Child Development Young Scholars Program. Lindsey Cameron did her undergraduate degree at the University of Aberdeen, and her Ph.D. and postdoctoral research at the University of Kent, where she took up a lectureship position in 2007. She is now a senior lecturer in psychology. Dr. Cameron is a developmental social psychologist, whose research focuses on children’s intergroup attitudes and behaviors, and how these are shaped by social context (specifically intergroup contact) and cognitive changes with age. She works extensively with charitable and educational organizations to develop and evaluate school programs to promote positive intergroup relations. Charlotte F. Cole is cofounder and executive director of Blue Butterfly Collaborative, an organization that helps producers in low‐ and middle‐income countries create high‐quality children’s media to advance international development aims in education, health, and peace building. For over 25 years, Dr. Cole has applied her expertise in curriculum design, educational content creation, and research in the support of large‐scale projects in more than 30 countries. Prior to founding Blue Butterfly, Dr. Cole was senior vice president of global education at Sesame Workshop (New York) where she oversaw the education and research activities associated with the company’s international coproductions of Sesame Street. She holds a doctorate in human development and psychology from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Juan Del Toro is a doctoral student in developmental psychology at New York University. His research explores associations, antecedents, and consequences of youth’s ethnic–racial identity and their experienced ethnic–racial discrimination concurrently and over time. John Dixon is Professor of Social Psychology and head of department at the Open University, having working previously at Lancaster University and the University of Worcester in the UK and at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He is a former coeditor, with Jolanda Jetten, of the British Journal of Social Psychology. His publications include Racial Encounter: The Social Psychology of Contact and Desegregation (2005, Routledge), coauthored with Kevin Durrheim, and Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of intergroup conflict, inequality and social change (2012, Cambridge University Press), coedited with Mark Levine. Lilith Dollard is a senior manager of educational programs in the International Social Impact department at Sesame Workshop. Lilith currently manages educational content development and community engagement activities for international coproductions of Sesame Street in South Asia, and has worked with local teams to develop educational content for a variety of multimedia initiatives in Northern Ireland,



Notes on Contributors  xi

Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. She holds an M.A. in international education development from Teachers College, Columbia University, and a B.A. in cultural anthropology from Hunter College, CUNY in the United States. Amanda L. Duffy, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the School of Applied Psychology at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Dr. Duffy’s research interests lie in the area of social and developmental psychology. Specific interests include the mechanisms underlying childhood aggression and bullying and related interventions, children’s inter‐ and intragroup behavior and attitudes, and the associations between peer relations and adjustment. Her work has been published in journals including the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, the Journal of Adolescence and Aggressive Behavior. Dr. Duffy is also registered as a psychologist with the Psychology Board of Australia. Yarrow Dunham is an assistant professor of psychology and cognitive ­science at Yale University and the director of Yale’s Social Cognitive Development Lab (socialcogdev.com). He received his B.A. in philosophy and English literature from UC Santa Barbara and his doctorate in developmental psychology from Harvard University. Prior to coming to Yale he taught at UC Merced and Princeton. Yarrow’s research draws on cognitive, social, developmental, and cultural psychology, with a particular focus on the acquisition of social category concepts and their implications for intergroup interaction, stereotyping, and prejudice. Kevin Durkin is Professor of Psychology at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. His research interests are in social and communicative development in typical and atypical young people. He is editor, with the late Rudolph Schaffer, of The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychology in Practice: Implementation and Impact (2016). Kevin Durrheim is Professor of Psychology at the University of KwaZulu‐Natal. He writes on topics related to racism, segregation, and social change. His publications include Race Trouble (Durrheim, Mtose, & Brown, 2011, UKZN/ Lexington Press), Racial Encounter (Durrheim & Dixon, 2005, Routledge) and Research in Practice (Terreblanche, Durrheim, Painter, 1999, 2006, UCT Press), and Numbers, Hypotheses and Conclusions (2002, Tredoux & Durrheim, UCT Press). Laura Elenbaas is a doctoral student at the University of Maryland, USA. Her recently published papers appear in Developmental Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Her research focuses on moral development and intergroup attitudes, particularly children’s perceptions of intergroup inequality and decisions regarding resource distribution. Richard A. Fabes, Ph.D., is the John O. Whiteman Dean’s Distinguished Professor and the Founding Director of the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family

xii  Notes on Contributors Dynamics at Arizona State University. His research focuses on peer relationships, how these develop, and the consequences associated with them. Key themes in his research agenda include positive and prosocial peer relationships, gender and diversity, and school‐related contexts and outcomes. He is an executive director of the Diversity and Inclusion Sciences Initiative—a large, interdisciplinary, and multi‐ faceted effort to promote positive relationships within an increasingly diverse society. Support for much of his research has come from NICHD, NSF, Brady Education Foundation, and the T. Denny Sanford Foundation. Allard R. Feddes is by training a social psychologist with a specialization in the area of conflict and cooperation between social groups. He received his M.A. at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands, 2004) and his Ph.D. from the University of Jena (Germany, 2007). He has conducted research on development of prejudice and racism in childhood and is particularly interested in the role of (extended) intergroup contact. He currently works as a university lecturer in the Department of Psychology of the University of Amsterdam. Fenella Fleischmann currently works as assistant professor at the European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations at Utrecht University. She holds a Ph.D. in interdisciplinary social sciences from Utrecht University and in social and cultural psychology from the University of Leuven. Her research interests concern the comparative study of the integration of immigrants and their children, with a focus on the role of religion. Her work has appeared in international journals in migration studies, sociology, and psychology. Stacie Foster, Ph.D., is an assistant research professor in the Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research interests are in young children’s social/emotional development and how they relate to readiness for school. She served as the project manager for the development of the Sanford Harmony Program. Bridget Gaertner, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her interests focus on early social‐emotional development, prevention/intervention, and relationship‐based practice. Laura D. Hanish, Ph.D., is a professor of child development in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on how boys and girls can develop harmonious peer relationships that are free from aggression, bullying, bias, and harassment. Key themes in her research agenda include peer relationships, gender and diversity, and school‐related contexts and outcomes. She is an executive director of the LINK Enterprise, which is an interdisciplinary research enterprise devoted to the science of human connections



Notes on Contributors  xiii

and the promotion of positive relationships. Her translational work is focused on translating research into practical means to build strong and positive relationships within schools. Funding to support her research has come from the NICHD, NSF, Department of Health and Human Services, and the T. Denny Sanford Foundation. Jessica Harding is a human services researcher at Mathematica Policy Research. Originally from New Zealand, she received her B.A. in Psychology from the University of Auckland and her Ph.D. in applied psychology (psychology and social intervention) from New York University. At NYU, she was the project director for SMART Beginnings—a randomized control trial that uses the pediatric primary care platform to provide parent skill training to low‐income families in NYC and Pittsburgh. Her interests lie at the intersection of research and social policy, with a particular focus on the intergenerational transmission of educational attainment. Specifically, she explores two distinct, but related, influences on low‐ income children’s academic outcomes – parenting practices and maternal education. Her research in both these areas takes two main forms: secondary data analysis to understand these influences and intervention research that aims to improve children’s academic outcomes by changing the family context. Diane Hughes is Professor of Applied Psychology and Codirector of the Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education at New York University. Dr. Hughes has written extensively about ethnic–racial dynamics in settings (e.g., schools, workplaces, peer groups) in relation to parenting and adolescents’ well‐ being. Topics include experienced discrimination, racial stereotypes, racial socialization, and ethnic identity. Hughes received her B.A. in psychology and African American studies from Williams College and her Ph.D. in community and developmental psychology from the University of Michigan. She is former chair of the MacArthur Midlife Network’s study of Ethnic Diversity and Urban Contexts and is former co‐Chair of the cross‐university Study Group on Race, Culture, and Ethnicity. Her research is funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the William T. Grant Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Philipp Jugert is a research associate at the Department of Psychology, University of Leipzig (Germany). He received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Jena after studying psychology at the Universities of Greifswald and Auckland. His research is about group processes and intergroup relations, social development, civic engagement, and social inequality. Jaana Juvonen, Ph.D., is a professor in the developmental psychology program at UCLA. Her area of expertise is in young adolescent peer relationships (specifically bullying) and adjustment. Guided by a social‐contextual perspective, her work

xiv  Notes on Contributors examines the ways in which social environments (e.g., school ethnic composition and organizational features, unique characteristics of online contexts, as well as peer perceptions) contribute to young adolescents’ relationship problems with their peers. Her current collaborative research, funded by the National Institute of Health, examines psychosocial benefits and challenges associated with youth attending ethnically diverse middle schools. She is a former recipient of a National Academy of Education Spencer Fellowship, Senior Fellowship of the Academy of Finland, the UCLA Psychology Department distinguished adjunct faculty teaching award, and a graduate‐mentoring award. Melanie Killen is Professor of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology at the University of Maryland, USA. She authored Children and Social Exclusion: Morality, Prejudice, and Group Identity (2011) with Adam Rutland, served as the editor of The Handbook of Moral Development (2006, 2014) with Judith Smetana, and edited Intergroup Attitudes and Relations from Childhood through Adulthood (2008) with Sheri Levy. She has received funding from the NSF and the NICHD for her research on social development and social cognition. Her research areas include social exclusion, moral judgment, intergroup attitudes, fair allocation of resources, theory of mind and morality, origins of prejudice, and peer relationships. Patrick J. Leman is Professor of Psychology and Dean of Education at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King’s College, London. His work explores children’s social and cognitive development with a particular emphasis on children’s and adolescents’ group memberships, identities, relationships, communication, and collaborative learning. He is editor of the British Journal of Developmental Psychology. Patrice Leverett is a doctoral student in the school psychology program at the University of Wisconsin‐ Madison in the Educational Psychology department. She also holds a master’s degree in education from Queens College of New York. Her clinical practice is focused on reducing the achievement gap. Her research areas include development and validation of culturally responsive interventions for inclusion, discipline, and retention. She has previously published work in the International Journal of Science Teaching. Carol Lynn Martin, Ph.D. is a Cowden Distinguished Professor of Child Development in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research interests include gender development in children and adolescents, especially the development of gender identity, expression, and gendered attitudes, and the role of gender and sex segregation in academic success, relationships, and psychological adjustment. Her interests also include the



Notes on Contributors  xv

study of children’s peer networks. With Dr. Diane Ruble, she has written on gender typing for the Handbook of Child Psychology and the Annual Review of Psychology. She is one of the directors of the LINK Enterprise, which is an interdisciplinary research enterprise devoted to the science of human connections and the promotion of positive relationships. Her translational research has involved developing school‐based intervention programs to improve relationships among children and adolescents. Funding to support her research has come from NICHD, NSF, Department of Health and Human Services, and the T. Denny Sanford Foundation. Cindy Faith Miller, Ph.D., is an assistant research professor in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. She received her Ph.D. in school psychology from New York University and is a licensed psychologist and nationally certified school psychologist. Her research seeks to understand the development of, and the social and academic consequences associated with, children’s gendered cognitions. Her work has involved developing and implementing school‐based interventions to promote positive peer relationships, inclusive school communities, and academic success. More recently, she has been ­ romoting female and ethnic minority children’s focusing on understanding and p motivation to engage in engineering. Sheena Mirpuri, Ph.D., graduated from the applied developmental psychology doctoral program at Fordham University in May of 2016. She received her undergraduate degree in psychology at Emory University. Her research comparing the predictors of depressive symptoms in American and Filipino college students has been awarded the APA Division 52 (International Psychology) student research award and the Guzewicz award for best cross‐cultural/international research at the New York Behavioral Conference. Her dissertation explores how school transitions influence the development of ethnic–racial identity and academic and aggressive behaviors in adolescents. Her current research on the consequences of blatant and ambiguous discrimination among minority youth has been funded by the Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues, American Psychological Association of Graduate Students, and Fordham University. Andrew (Drew) Nesdale is an emeritus professor of Griffith University having previously held appointments as Head of Psychology at UWA and at Griffith University, as well as Dean and Pro‐Vice Chancellor of Business and Law at Griffith. He is a developmental social psychologist and has written extensively on the causes and consequences of aggression and bullying, intergroup prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping, peer acceptance and rejection, and the development and effects of rejection sensitivity. He has a special interest in the development of children’s social groups and their intra‐ and intergroup behavior. Professor Nesdale is a Fellow of the Australian Psychological Society and the Australian Institute of Management.

xvi  Notes on Contributors Erika Y. Niwa is an assistant professor in both the Psychology Department and the Children and Youth Studies Program at Brooklyn College. She is also affiliated with the human development doctoral program at the CUNY (City University of New York) Graduate Center. Her work examines how culture and context shape the developmental pathways of diverse children and youth, with a specific focus on inequality, discrimination, and political violence. Sally B. Palmer is a lecturer in social and developmental psychology in the Department of Psychology and Human Development at the University College London Institute of Education. Her research focuses on the development of intergroup attitudes and behaviors across childhood, including issues of equality and inclusion in the classroom, and understanding when and why young bystanders help bullied peers at school. Meagan M. Patterson is an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Kansas. She holds a B.A. in psychology and linguistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in developmental psychology from the University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on intergroup attitudes, the development and integration of personal and group identities, and the implications of identity for academic and civic engagement. Kristin Pauker is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and Director of the Intergroup Social Perception lab. She received her Ph.D. from Tufts University in 2009, and completed postdoctoral study at Stanford University. Dr. Pauker’s research examines how a person’s immediate environment and culturally shaped theories about race impact basic social perception, social interactions, and stereotyping in childhood and throughout development. Her research spans both social and developmental psychology and has been featured in journals including Science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Developmental Psychology. Her work has been funded by federal granting agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Claire Powell has a doctorate in social psychology from the University of Kent. The focus of her research is on the development of group processes in childhood and adolescence. In particular, she is interested in children’s productivity in groups and their group decision making processes. Stephen M. Quintana is professor in the Departments of Counseling Psychology and Educational Psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He received a Ford Foundation postdoctoral fellowship as well as Gimbel Child and Family Scholar Award. His research investigates the development of children’s and youth’s understanding of social status, with more recent investigation into the enactment and performance of identity in social and public spaces.



Notes on Contributors  xvii

Michael T. Rizzo is a doctoral student at the University of Maryland, USA. His recently published papers appear in Developmental Psychology and Developmental Science. His research focuses on the social and social‐cognitive factors implicated in children’s social and moral development. In particular, his work examines how theory of mind and intergroup contact influence children’s conceptions of fairness and peer group decisions. Adam Rutland is a professor of social developmental psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London. He authored Children and Social Exclusion: Morality, Prejudice, and Group Identity (2011) with Melanie Killen and edited the Sage Library in Developmental Psychology five‐volume reader on Childhood Social Development (2014) with Peter K. Smith. His research in social development and developmental intergroup processes has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy, and the Leverhulme Trust. His research focuses on the development of prejudice and social exclusion in childhood and adolescence, group processes and group norms, social and moral judgments, peer relationships and cross‐ethnic friendships, children’s group identity and acculturation. Hannah L. Schacter, M.A., is a doctoral student in the Developmental Psychology Program at UCLA. She received her B.A. in psychology from Hamilton College and her M.A. in psychology from UCLA. Her main research interests relate to the antecedents and consequences of peer victimization during early adolescence. Specifically, she seeks to understand underlying mechanisms (e.g., maladaptive attributions) that account for the maladjustment of victims and identify contextual features (e.g., school‐level norms, online environment) that can strengthen vs. weaken links between peer mistreatment and negative psychosocial outcomes. Her current research examines how adolescents’ friendships influence their risk for victimization, social cognitive biases, and mental health outcomes across different school contexts. She is a recipient of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and has received additional research funding through the Sigma Xi Research Society and UC Consortium on the Developmental Science of Adolescence. Jennifer R. Steele is an associate professor of psychology in the Faculty of Health at York University where she is the Director of the Interpersonal Perception and Social Cognition Laboratory. She received her Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University in 2003. Dr. Steele’s research takes a social cognitive approach to understanding racial biases across the lifespan, with a particular focus on children’s automatic associations. She has used a variety of tools, including implicit measures, to assess the attitudes and beliefs of children and adults. Dr. Steele publishes regularly in high‐impact peer‐reviewed journals and her research has been

xviii  Notes on Contributors funded by federal granting agencies including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Harriet R. Tenenbaum is a reader of psychology at the University of Surrey. She is interested in how discrimination affects interpersonal contexts and how children reason about rights, discrimination, and peer exclusion. Jochem Thijs is a researcher at the European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic relations (ERCOMER) and an assistant professor at the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Utrecht University. He studied social and cross‐cultural psychology (1998) at Utrecht University, and did a Ph.D. (2005) and a postdoc (2005–2006) in educational psychology at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include various aspects of ethnic relations in childhood and adolescence and the educational adjustments of ethnic minority children. He has (co) conducted several studies on ethnic peer victimization, intergroup attitudes, group beliefs, and ethnic and religious identity in early adolescents, as well as on academic motivation and academic achievement. During the past five years he has been integrating research on student–teacher relationships with the study of children’s intergroup relations. Colin Tredoux is Professor of Psychology at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He has published journal articles on a number of topics in social psychology, with a focus on intergroup contact and segregation. His books include Improving intergroup relations (2008, Blackwell), with Uli Wagner, Linda Tropp, and Gillian Finchilescu, and Psychology and law (2005, Juta), with Don Foster, Alfred Allen, Doug Wassenaar, and Andrea Cohen. Linda R. Tropp is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Massachusetts– Amherst. Her research concerns how members of different groups approach and experience contact with each other, and how group differences in status affect cross‐group relations. A Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Tropp has received awards for her research from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and the International Society of Political Psychology. She has worked with national organizations in the United States to promote racial justice and integration, and with international organizations to evaluate applied programs designed to reduce racial and ethnic conflict. She is coauthor of When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact (2011), editor of the Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict (2012), and coeditor of Moving Beyond Prejudice Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations (2011). Kimberly A. Updegraff, Ph.D., is a Cowden Distinguished Professor in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State



Notes on Contributors  xix

University. She earned her Ph.D. in human development and family studies from the Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on family processes and youth development and well‐being in Latino families, with particular attention to cultural and gender socialization processes within this context. With primary support from NICHD, her work involves several longitudinal studies of Latino families with adolescent and young adult offspring. Julie Van de Vyver is a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Lincoln. Her research interests include: moral emotions, prosocial behavior, prejudice, equality and human rights, and intergroup and intragroup relations Maykel Verkuyten is a professor in interdisciplinary social science and academic director of the European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER) at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. His research is on questions of ethnic identity, interethnic relations, and cultural diversity. He has published many journal articles and several monographs including the Social psychology of ethnic identity and Identity and cultural diversity. Niobe Way is Professor of Applied Psychology at New York University and the founder of the Project for the Advancement of Our Common Humanity (PACH; pach.org), a think and do tank devoted to research, curriculum development, and community strategies aimed at creating a more just and humane world. Way is also the co‐Director of the Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education at NYU and the past president for the Society for Research on Adolescence. She received her doctorate from Harvard University in human development and psychology and was an NIMH postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. Way’s research focuses on the intersections of culture, context, and human development, with a particular focus on the social and emotional development of adolescents. She is a nationally recognized leader in the field of adolescent development and in the use of mixed methods. Amanda Williams is a lecturer in psychology in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. She received her Ph.D. in social psychology from York University, Toronto, Canada in 2012. In her research, Dr. Williams uses a multi‐method approach to examine how prejudice and stereotypes emerge during childhood, person perception, and interactions with diverse others. This includes designing interventions that manipulate contextual cues and personal motivations in order to improve intergroup relations across the lifespan. Her research has been published in high‐impact peer‐reviewed journals. Tiffany Yip, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology, and director of the applied developmental psychology doctoral program at Fordham University. She received her undergraduate degree in Psychology at Cornell University, earned her M.A. and

xx  Notes on Contributors Ph.D. in Psychology at NYU, and completed a NIMH and NSF‐funded postdoctoral fellowship in the Psychology Department at the University of Michigan. Her research on ethnic identity, discrimination, and sleep among minority adolescents and young adults has been published in American Psychologist, Child Development, Developmental Psychology, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Dr. Yip currently serves as an associate editor for Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology and the Asian American Journal of Psychology. She is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, Division 7 (Developmental Psychology) and Division 45 (Society for the Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity and Race) and her research has been funded by NICHD, NSF, and NIMH. Buhle Zuma’s current research, reading, thinking, and writing is broadly located within Afro‐Caribbean social, political, and psychological thought. More specifically, his developing intellectual project can be labeled psycho‐political thought on Black existence. Until recently he was a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Cape Town. He is presently a cofounder and Chairman of the Institute for the Study of the Human which is a research and teaching institute focusing on Africana and African diaspora thought and cultures.

Preface

Children from infancy develop attachments to significant others within their social environment (e.g., parents and siblings, as well as other relatives and friends). Over time, they also become increasingly aware of various social groups or categories within their social world. They are born into some social groups (e.g., gender, age, ethnic/racial groups); they are assigned to other groups, such as classroom or school groups, by adults and others in authority; and they choose to join other groups, at least partially because they share attitudes, beliefs, interests, and activities with the other group members (e.g., religious groups, sports or fan clubs). Research shows these groups form an integral part of a child’s expanding social world. Children’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are significantly shaped by their group memberships and this influence increases through childhood into adolescence. With age, research suggests that children acquire an increasing understanding of the processes underpinning how groups operate, including, for example, intergroup discrimination, social exclusion and inclusion, social group identification, prejudice and stereotyping, socialization, and cross‐group friendships. These group processes involve both social relations between groups (i.e., relations between members from different social groups) and within social groups (i.e., relations between members of the same group). These two types of group processes are typically labeled as intergroup and intragroup, respectively. They almost always occur together and should not be considered in isolation.

xxii Preface

Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents Until the present volume, there has been no single book that brings together the extensive and diverse research and scholarship on how these group processes develop within childhood and adolescence. This Handbook fills that gap. It is published as part of the Wiley‐Blackwell Handbooks of Developmental Psychology Series, and the research presented in it represents a considerable extension of the family and peer‐ relations research, typically focusing on interpersonal relations within the family and peer groups, that has been traditionally conducted within developmental psychology. This Handbook provides a comprehensive overview of the research that has addressed group processes in childhood and adolescence, the main theoretical approaches that have been proposed, methodological issues that have been identified and addressed, and interventions that have been developed to improve group processes. The focus of this Handbook is certainly reflective of research conducted within social developmental psychology over the last 20 years. In addition, it has drawn from the extensive literature in social psychology on adult group processes and intergroup relations, but recognizes there are important developmental processes that should be studied when examining how children and adolescents relate to social groups. To truly understand any psychological phenomenon, such as group processes, there is a need to examine and appreciate how it originates in childhood and develops in later life. Only then can the important social‐cognitive, emotional, psychological, and contextual factors that underlie the operation of group processes be comprehensively understood. We first discussed the possibility of this Handbook at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) in Montreal (2011) and Seattle (2013), when it became clear to us that, at these conferences and other international meetings throughout the world, innovative new research was increasingly being presented into how children and adolescents are influenced by, and develop an understanding of, group processes. We strongly felt that this burgeoning body of research needed to be represented in a Handbook that would bring together the scope and excitement of recent research in an accessible and precise form, acting both as a source within libraries and research centers and as an everyday handbook for individuals wanting to know more about, and further their interest in, this fast developing field of study.

Chapter authors With one editor based in Europe, one in Australia, and one in the United States, we have sought to identify chapter authors who are active international researchers within the field and have acknowledged theoretical and empirical expertise that qualifies

Preface  xxiii them to write with authority about their area of study. We are delighted that the final group of authors includes distinguished senior researchers along with “rising stars” within the field, who together bring vigor and gravitas to the Handbook. Within the Handbook we also aimed to reflect the increasing international nature of research into developmental group processes and social development generally within the psychological and behavioral sciences. Although many of the contributors are based in the Unites States, we also have contributors from the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Singapore, and South Africa.

Readership of the handbook The Handbook is aimed at those wishing to know more than would be covered in a standard textbook, including advanced undergraduates in psychology and behavioral sciences, postgraduates studying for master’s degrees, or engaging in independent research leading to a postgraduate degree (e.g., PhD), as well as teaching staff and researchers seeking a respected and reliable update of the field. We believe the Handbook should also be extremely useful for policy makers and practitioners (e.g., educators, social workers, counselors, policy advisors to decision makers), who are trained in the behavioral sciences and are interested in the implications of research for professional practice and policy, in addition to the merely curious.

Structure of the handbook It is somewhat of an overwhelming task to provide an engaging and informative introduction to a volume comprising a diversity of chapters from world‐leading researchers within the field of group processes in childhood and adolescence. We considered providing a brief summary of what is written in each chapter, yet all chapter authors presented much better summaries than we could imagine providing. Instead, we will briefly outline the seven parts into which we have organized the 23 chapters within the Handbook. Part I (four chapters) examines children’s social group memberships directly: how children develop identifications with these groups, how these social group memberships relate to the intergroup context, and how they have been measured. This is followed by a second part (three chapters) which shows that, with development, intergroup and intragroup processes become intrinsically interconnected when we study phenomena such as social exclusion, resource allocation, and communication within social groups. Part III (four chapters) focuses on how the process of social

xxiv Preface categorization in childhood is related to the development of explicit and implicit intergroup biases or prejudice and stereotyping. The fourth part (three chapters) focuses on the process of intergroup discrimination in childhood and adolescence, and its relationship to socialization and essentialist thinking. The fifth (two chapters) considers how understanding the interaction between group and interpersonal processes can improve our knowledge of how bullying emerges in childhood and also how it can be reduced. Part VI (three chapters) looks at when and how the process of intergroup and student–teacher contact can reduce intergroup bias and prejudice amongst children and youths. The seventh and final part (three chapters) describes various specific educational interventions which, to varying degrees, draw from contact theory within psychology, and are aimed at promoting more positive relations and social inclusion between groups. A commentary chapter from Kevin Durkin, which highlights important themes running throughout the Handbook and important issues to be taken up by the field in the future, rounds off the work. The central purpose of this Handbook is to provide (for the first time) a comprehensive, authoritative, and international compilation of psychological theory and research related to group processes in children and adolescents. We hope that this has been achieved and that the Handbook proves invaluable to the growing number of researchers interested in how group processes based upon social category membership develop in children and adolescents. Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown (November 2015)

PART I Social Group Membership: Intergroup Context and Methodological Issues

1 Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach Drew Nesdale

Whereas considerable research has focused on children’s dyadic relationships (Bradford Brown & Dietz, 2011), comparatively little attention has been given to the intra‐ and intergroup processes involved in children’s experiences in groups, as well as issues relating to the structure and organization of children’s groups (Cairns, Xie, & Leung, 1998). This lack of attention is surprising given the extent of children’s involvement in groups, which commences prior to formal schooling and increases throughout the middle childhood years, reflecting the considerable importance of group membership to them (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Indeed, the evidence suggests that if there is a possibility of being accepted by, and belonging to, a social group, children will seek to be included (Nesdale, 2007). Moreover, their social interactions occur increasingly within their social groups during the elementary school years (Rubin et al., 2006). Given the limited, albeit rapidly increasing, research attention given to children’s social groups, it is perhaps unsurprising that theory development in this area has also been limited. However, the aim of the present chapter is to provide an outline of one theory, social identity development theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004, 2007), The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

4  Drew Nesdale that has sought to provide an account of children’s involvement in social groups. SIDT is a developmental model that describes a number of phases through which children pass as their experience with social groups increases. The theory encompasses children’s early awareness of social groups, the basis of their desire for group membership, and the impact of group membership on their attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral responses relating to in‐group members, as well as towards others outside their group. Although SIDT was originally formulated to account for the emergence of intergroup prejudice and discrimination (Nesdale, 2004, 2012), it has also been applied to other social behaviors, including children’s aggression and bullying (Duffy & Nesdale, 2012), as well as peer group rejection (Nesdale, 2008).

Clarifications and qualifications There are several points concerning this chapter that are worth noting. First, it relates to children from birth to 12 years of age, recognizing that the foundations of children’s social relationships appear shortly after birth and continue their inexorable development from that point onwards. That said, the emphasis of the chapter is primarily on children in middle childhood (from 6 to 12 years) because the emergence and consolidation of many of their intra‐ and intergroup processes occur during that period. Second, the term, “group,” is used inclusively in this chapter. Whereas the term is typically used to refer to collections of three or more interacting children who share something (or things) in common (e.g., attributes, interests, behaviors, tasks, etc.), children are assigned by nature to some groups or categories that have been accorded a degree of social significance (e.g., gender, ethnicity), or assigned by adult authority to other groups (classroom teams, religion), but they may also elect to join others (groups of playmates, special interest groups). In the present discussion, the critical issue is whether the child identifies with, commits to, or sees him/herself as a member of, a particular group. This is typically indexed by children’s greater liking for their in‐group compared with other groups (see also Bradford Brown & Dietz, 2011; Kinderman & Gest, 2011). Thus, whereas a group of playmates/friends would generally meet this identification criterion, membership of a school class or an ethnic minority might meet the requirement for some children, but not others. Third, as several writers have noted, there are significant difficulties involved in seeking to measure group membership, as well as the intra‐group dynamics of a membership group, and the dynamics of their relationships with other groups (e.g., Cairns et  al., 1998). This is especially true of friendship and interaction groups which can have a short life span and, moreover, it is difficult to disentangle changes due to member turnover from those due to member convergence; that is,

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  5 the drawing together of members’ attitudes, cognitions, and behavior due to familiarity (Kinderman & Gest, 2011). Researchers have responded creatively to these challenges with a range of research methods and procedures, most of which in recent years have entailed some type of experimental design (see Nesdale, Spears Brown, & Rutland, this volume). These include field studies carried out in naturalistic environments (e.g., Bigler, 1995), studies of children in novel, short‐lived groups, in which prior knowledge about the backgrounds, status, and goals of group members is manipulated (e.g., Nesdale, 2007), as well as studies on minimal groups which contain no information concerning competition, status, or interaction with in‐ groups or out‐groups (e.g., Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011), cyber‐based studies involving interactions between child participants and computer‐generated stimulus characters and groups (e.g., Dunham, Chen, & Banaji, 2013), in addition to studies involving peer nomination and judgment of children’s groups and their intra‐ and intergroup dynamics (e.g., Duffy & Nesdale, 2009). This chapter will draw on all of this literature and will also briefly consider its strengths and limitations.

Social Identity Development Theory (SIDT) Basis of SIDT Nesdale (2004, 2007) proposed social identity development theory (SIDT) as an explicitly group‐based account of the development of children’s intra‐ and intergroup attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors. Although the early versions of the theory, in particular, were influenced by the social identity theory (SIT) proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1979), and its subsequent elaboration, self‐categorization theory (SCT; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), SIDT differed from SIT (and SCT) in several significant ways. First, SIT (and SCT) contends that identifying with (or categorizing oneself into) particular social groups (i.e., adopting the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of the social group as one’s own) contributes to an individual’s social self‐esteem (i.e., as distinct from their personal self‐esteem). Given that individuals might normally wish to maintain, if not enhance, their social self‐esteem, it follows that they would be motivated to identify with social groups that are positive and distinctive. According to SIT, the need for a positive and distinctive group identity has the potential to contribute to the development of negative attitudes or prejudice towards members of other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In contrast, SIDT proposes that, as far as children’s social interactions are concerned, including their involvement in social groups, what is of prime or, at

6  Drew Nesdale least, initial importance to them is that they are accepted by others such that they are able to be part of friendships and groups. In short, it is acceptance and belonging that motivates them to pursue social contacts, friendships, and social group memberships from an early age (Milner, 1996; Nesdale, 2004). Indeed, according to some writers, such behavior may reflect an inborn, fundamental need to belong and to be accepted (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). At the same time, SIDT recognizes that, as children move into and through middle childhood, they learn to recognize the differing statuses of groups and will become aware of the benefits that high‐status groups provide to members (e.g., popularity, influence, control of resources), should they happen to be a member of such a group. Moreover, there will also be children who acquire the confidence and self‐esteem to seek membership in the most positively distinctive groups, as argued by SIT, in order to be with those perceived to be similar to themselves and to enhance their self‐esteem. However, according to SIDT, first and foremost for most children is the need to be accepted by a group and to feel that they belong to their group. Second, although SIT provided a social motivational framework that, in principle, can be applied to the case of children, it focused on explaining prejudice and discrimination in adults. In particular, SIT has nothing to say about the central and most significant feature of children—the fact that from birth onwards, they are continuously changing and developing in terms of their perceptual, cognitive, and linguistic skills, as well as their individual personalities, and their social knowledge, perceptiveness, and competencies. Accordingly, SIDT sought to propose a theory that would account for children’s involvement in groups by taking into consideration the array of factors that emerge and change as children grow and mature and have an ever‐widening range of social experiences. Third, whereas SIT sought to explain how one group comes to display prejudice and discrimination towards another group, SCT (Turner et al., 1987) was framed as a new theory that would extend SIT by providing an account of intra‐group processes, including an outline of the basis upon which individuals join groups. In contrast, SIDT sought to explain both intra‐ and intergroup processes and relations within the same theory, the assumption being that intra‐group processes would likely impact upon the nature of relations between groups.

Outline of SIDT SIDT proposes that, during the period from birth to 12 years of age, children may pass through up to four sequential development phases (foundations of social group relations, social group awareness, social group preference, and out‐group

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  7 negativity). The phases differ in terms of the behaviors that characterize them, and the events that precipitate changes from one phase to the next. For up to 2 years following birth, most children are in the foundations of social group relations phase in which the possibility of social groups, as well as the common markers of, and basis for associating with, social groups (e.g., similarities in age, skin color, gender, body shape, religion, behavior, activities, interests) have little meaning to them. At the same time, however, they are ever‐increasingly engaged in social observation and social interactions, as well as activities such as play and problem‐solving, and they display responses to others, that reveal their burgeoning interest in social contact with other children. The social group awareness phase commences when children start differentiating others on the basis of such markers as those above, typically beginning with gender. According to SIDT, such differentiation prompts children to begin to identify or categorize themselves on the basis of their similarity/difference to others (I am a boy, she is a girl). Importantly, young children do not appear to construct social categories on an idiosyncratic basis. Children typically enter a social environment in which the key social categories are already specified and the nature of relations between the members of such categories is established. Accordingly, the social categories which children emphasize are not those that are strange and unfamiliar, they are those that already have social significance in the community (Katz, 1976) and children’s awareness of them will be sharpened by evaluations communicated by adults and others (Milner, 1996). Given the overwhelming emphasis placed on gender in society, the act of self‐ categorization into a gender effectively ushers in the in‐group preference phase and, certainly by school‐age, most children display in‐group preferences based on gender and, in some cases, particularly in multiethnic communities, on ethnicity. In addition, children’s play and interaction experiences with other children expand their growing knowledge about dyadic relationships, friendships, and interacting with groups of children. Consequently, within gender, children form friendships and interact with particular others in social groups based on shared interests and activities. SIDT argues that the central features of the in‐group preference phase are threefold. First, social categorization prompts children to associate with other children on the basis of similarity (i.e., gender, as well as age, activities, interests), to perceive the children they associate with as different from other children, and to behave differently in the company of in‐group friends versus other children. Second, children who are not part of the child’s friendship group are perceived as being increasingly similar to each other, as well as different from the child’s friendship group (the out‐group homogeneity effect; Linville, 1998). Third, and most importantly, the in‐group preference phase involves a focus on, and accompanying preference for,

8  Drew Nesdale the in‐group. Significantly, SIDT argues that in‐group preference does not instigate an automatic focus on out‐groups with accompanying out‐group negativity. Instead, children in the in‐group preference phase are focused on, and prefer, their own group before others. Several implications follow from this conceptualization of the in‐group preference phase. First, children who identify with a particular group are likely to be motivated to maintain, if not enhance, the status of their group. Second, although children in the in‐group preference phase are primarily oriented towards the in‐group, they will nevertheless compare the standing of their group with other groups because it underpins whatever positive distinctiveness is enjoyed by their group. Third, whereas children in this phase will always prefer their group to other groups, this does not mean that they dislike such groups. Typically, other groups will simply be liked less than the in‐group. Fourth, given the considerable importance of the in‐ group to them, it follows that children will be motivated to think, feel, and behave in ways that are consistent with the expectations of the group members; that is, they will be motivated to conform to the group’s norms or expectations. Fifth, group members who are most identified with/committed to the group (i.e., central members) will show more conformity to the group’s norms than will more peripheral members, and the former will demand in‐group conformity from the latter. Sixth, given the group members’ identification with the group, it follows that rejection by the group, or even the threat of rejection, will have the potential to exert a considerable negative impact on children, especially on their emotional reactions (e.g., anxiety, self‐esteem), but also on their subsequent behaviors (e.g., antisocial behaviors). In sum, SIDT argues that the in‐group preference phase is characterized by children’s focus on, and concern for, their continuing membership of their in‐group. Further, SIDT claims that there are conditions under which children (even adults) will effectively remain in the in‐group preference phase for years to come (although not necessarily with the same group!). These include contexts in which children identify strongly with a group (or groups) that does not endorse negativity towards any out‐groups, as well as social contexts in which inter‐group relations (e.g., between gender groups or between different ethnic groups) are harmonious. However, SIDT argues that some children will, at least occasionally, undergo a transition from in‐group preference to the out‐group negativity phase. This involves a new focus on an out‐group, in addition to the child’s on‐going concern for the in‐group. Instead of merely liking an out‐group member less than an in‐group member, as occurs in the in‐group preference phase, the transition to out‐group negativity means that members of particular out‐groups are disliked or hated and may be subjected to verbal derogation, as well as some type of attack or assault. According to SIDT, such a state would normally be unlikely to occur in children

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  9 younger than 6–7 years because their social motives and social knowledge would not have reached the requisite level of development to support a feeling of out‐group dislike or hatred and/or they do not live in a social environment that supports such behavior. However, SIDT proposes that whether out‐group negativity actually emerges and crystallizes in children depends upon several factors. These factors include (1) the extent to which children identify with their social group, and/or (2) whether out‐group negativity is a norm or expectation held by the members of the child’s social group, and/or (3) whether the in‐group members believe that the standing or power of their group in relation to other groups can be enhanced by a display of out‐group negativity, and/or (4) whether particular in‐group members believe that their standing within the in‐group would be enhanced by out‐group negativity, and/or (5) whether there is a belief among the in‐group members that their group is threatened in some way by members of the out‐group. That said, SIDT also anticipates that children’s tendencies to display negative attitudes and behaviors towards out‐groups would not automatically and unthinkingly follow the explicit and implicit dictates of the group, or the individual’s own desire for advancement in the group. Rather, as children increase in age, their responses are also increasingly influenced by their accumulating social acumen; that is, their ever‐expanding knowledge of how the social system works, their strategic awareness of how to use this information to their advantage, and their skill in making it happen (Nesdale, 2013). Thus, with increasing age, children learn that their social world is comprised of an array of significant individuals and groups (e.g., parents, teachers, older siblings, their classmates, other peers), including the in‐group, each with particular demands and expectations relating to the child. Further, they come to understand that they need to make judgments and decisions about the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to be displayed in particular social contexts involving these significant others. On this basis, SIDT argues that, reflecting their social acumen, children develop an increasing tendency to regulate the expression of their attitudes and behavior in accordance with their beliefs about what is acceptable to particular others (e.g., teachers, parents, group members) in a particular situation, at a particular time (Nesdale, 2013).

Research support for SIDT Foundations of social group relations.  Although children do not become involved in social groups until several years after birth, their interest in peer relations emerges early and develops inexorably. Indeed, it has been claimed that the beginnings of

10  Drew Nesdale peer interaction are revealed in the first few days of life when infants cry in response to the cries of other infants (Sagi & Hoffman, 1976). From then on, infants show an increasing interest in peers, including looking at and touching them, as well as sharing the use of toys (Hay, Nash, & Pedersen, 1983). By the time of the first birthday, there are early signs of cooperative games including shared engagement in common activities, and with some evidence of shared understanding revealed in repetition of distinctive actions and alternating turns (Ross, 1982). By 2 years, there is evidence of cooperative problem‐solving (Brownell, Ramani, & Zerwas, 2006) and they begin to develop preferences for particular companions who display similarity to themselves (Howes & Phillipsen, 1992). Importantly, by this age children have actually learnt a lot about gender. For example, as early as 7 months children can distinguish between male and female faces (Fagan & Singer, 1979; Otsuka, 2014) and voices (Miller, 1983). Within another twelve months or so, many children are able to label others according to gender and, based largely on their similarity to other category members, are able to place themselves into, and label themselves as, one of the gender categories (Fagot & Leinbach, 1993). This process is intensified by the pervasiveness of gender distinctions in their environment (Bigler & Liben, 2007; Rheingold & Cook, 1975), and the evaluative reactions of others following their displays of gender‐appropriate and ‐inappropriate behaviors and activities (Caldera, Huston, & O’Brien, 1989). Importantly, the effect of such self‐labeling is that it instigates gender segregation such that, by 30 to 36 months of age, children display a marked preference for same‐sex peers (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). This preference increases throughout early childhood, particularly with their increasing exposure to peers via their attendance at day‐care centres and preschools (Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2003), becoming more marked in elementary school (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). However, one qualification concerns the fact that while preschool children come to engage with same‐gender peers, it does not imply that selection is random within gender. Rather, interaction preferences within gender are based on behavioral homophily—children tend to choose peers whose behavioral tendencies are like their own (e.g., Farver, 1996; Hanish, Martin, Fabes, Leonard, & Herzog, 2005). A second qualification concerns the fact that, with the exception of gender, most of the social categories that are typically considered to be important by adults (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, religion) do not impact upon most preschool children’s peer preferences (Vaughan & Santos, 2011). That said, although race/ethnicity does not segregate preschool children, research indicates that children, and especially those living in multiethnic communities, can differentiate among people from different ethnic or racial groups based on physical cues (e.g., skin color) by 3 to 4 years, and that, by 6 to 7 years, most children from the ethnically dominant group can differentiate their own ethnic group and identify

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  11 with it (see Nesdale, 2001). However, racial cleavage or segregation typically does not appear until children are well into middle childhood, around 9 or 10 years of age (Katz, 1976; Milner, 1996). Until this time, gender typically exerts a significantly greater effect on peer preferences than ethnicity because of the emphasis placed on it by adults (Bigler & Liben, 2007). In sum, from 2 years, preschool children “engage in increasingly frequent social interactions with peers, and their interactions become richer, more nuanced and sophisticated, and increasingly complex with age” (Coplan & Arbeau, 2011, p. 147). Importantly, in terms of the present chapter, children during this period become mainly aware of two social categories, gender, and race/ethnicity, both of which may be used as a basis for self‐categorization. However, only gender typically influences the ongoing segregation of children and it is within this segregation that children’s earliest informal social groups tend to be formed (Vaughan & Santos, 2011). Later, nearly all children during middle childhood report being a member of a group and their involvement in social groups increases through the period until most of their peer interactions take place within a social group (Rubin et al, 2006). Belongingness and group membership.  Whereas the impact of similarity between children on their preference for particular social groups is fairly widely accepted (Hay, Caplan, & Nash, 2011; Vaughan & Santos, 2011), the fact of similarity does not solely determine group preference. As noted above, according to SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), individuals would normally seek membership in a high status or positively distinctive group because such a membership would have the most positive impact on their social self‐esteem. Similarly, SCT (Turner et al, 1987) argues that an individual’s preference for a group is enhanced by factors that amplify perceived similarity to the in‐group and difference to the out‐group. In contrast, SIDT argues that children’s social group preference is influenced more by the extent to which they are accepted by a group, and by their sense of belonging to that group. Although the research with children is limited, consistent with SIT, some research has shown that, like adults, young children spontaneously compare the standing of their group with other groups (Chafel, 1986; Yee & Brown, 1992) and that they prefer to be members of higher rather than lower status groups (Nesdale & Flesser, 2001). However, contrary to SIT, but consistent with SIDT, research also shows that children always reveal greater liking for their in‐group over an out‐group, and even indicate greater liking for a lower status in‐group than for a higher status out‐ group (Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, & Griffiths, 2004). In another study, Nesdale, Griffiths, Durkin, and Maass (2007) tested the views of SCT and SIDT by examining 7‐ and 10‐year‐old children’s similarity and

12  Drew Nesdale positivity responses towards their in‐group and an out‐group in a situation in which three variables designed to enhance in‐group versus out‐group categorizations were manipulated (i.e., in‐group versus out‐group competitiveness, ethnic similarity versus dissimilarity, meeting the in‐group before versus after out‐group). Results indicated that, whereas ethnic similarity influenced perceived in‐group versus out‐group similarity, as SCT would predict, none of the variables influenced in‐group versus out‐group positivity, contrary to SCT. Instead, the in‐group was rated more positively than the out‐group, regardless of the manipulated conditions. The results suggested that “the processes underpinning children’s group membership may be considerably simpler, more affect‐driven and less cognitively complex than is the case with adults…what was important to the children was simply that they were a member of a group, their group” (Nesdale et al, 2007, p.  369). Similar conclusions have been drawn from other studies with children (e.g., Barrett, Wilson, & Lyons, 2003). Finally, Nesdale and Hong (2011) randomly assigned children to a group with high versus low status, and they were either unambiguously accepted, or ambiguously accepted, by a group, or acceptance was not mentioned. Results indicated that when the children were unambiguously accepted, or no mention was made of acceptance, group status had no effect on their liking for the in‐group. In contrast, when the children were only ambiguously accepted, they liked the in‐group significantly more when it had high rather than low status. The preceding research suggests that children’s group preferences may be influenced by their similarity to other group members, as well as their sense of being accepted by, and belonging to, the in‐group. Although the issue requires further research, it is plausible that, for young children, belonging and acceptance comprise the immediate goal, with membership in a high‐ rather than low‐status group being a secondary or subsequent goal, especially following the acquisition of more skills, experience, and confidence in negotiating and retaining group membership. Impact of in‐group identification on intra‐ and intergroup processes.  A considerable number of studies, using an array of methodologies, have assessed the impact of children’s in‐group identification on their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards the in‐group, as well as to non‐group and out‐group members. For example, Bigler and colleagues (e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997) randomly assigned 6‐ to 11‐year‐old children to color groups in field studies in summer schools, with the teachers emphasizing the color labels, but not competition between groups. Consistent with SIDT, the group assignments prompted in‐group favoritism, regardless of age and gender—children did not want to change groups, rated their own group as most likely to win a series of contests, and chose more members of the in‐group to participate in a field trip. When social comparisons

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  13 and competitiveness between groups are emphasized, children’s in‐group bias increases (Yee & Brown, 1992). In a similar vein, Nesdale and colleagues used a novel group simulation paradigm in which children were randomly assigned to a group of (purported) excellent or average drawers who shared the same age, gender, and ethnicity, in order to compete on a drawing task with a group of similar children. Consistent with SIDT, children always saw themselves as similar to the in‐group, liked their in‐group, and liked it more than the comparison out‐group, although the out‐ group was never disliked (Nesdale, Durkin et al., 2004, 2005; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Nesdale, Griffiths, Durkin, & Maass, 2007; Nesdale, Maass, Durkin, & Griffiths, 2005). In addition, there is also evidence that children reveal a strong bias towards their in‐group when they are required to make choices, indicate preferences, or allocate rewards between the in‐group and an out‐group, and that they display in‐group positivity versus out‐group negativity in their trait attributions (see Nesdale, 2001). Further, research has shown that in‐group members rated the aggressive behavior of an in‐group member towards a non‐member more positively than did an independent observer (Nesdale, Killen, & Duffy, 2013). In yet another study (Nesdale, Maass, Griffiths, & Durkin, 2003), Anglo‐ Australian children were assigned to an in‐group that contained same ethnicity (Anglo‐Australian) or different ethnicity members (Pacific Islanders), with the out‐ group being comprised of members who were of the same or different ethnicity as the in‐group. Consistent with SIDT, (1) the children always liked the in‐group more than the out‐group, (2) but the out‐group was not disliked, (3) in‐group liking was unaffected by the ethnicity of the out‐group, (4) but out‐group liking was influenced by the ethnicity of the in‐group. When the in‐group was comprised of same‐ethnicity members, the participants liked the same‐ethnicity out‐group more than the different‐ ethnicity out‐group. Apparently, the different‐ethnicity out‐group sharpened and emphasized its difference to the same‐ethnicity in‐group which resulted in reduced liking (but not dislike) for the former. However, when the in‐group was comprised of different‐ethnicity members, the participants liked the different‐ethnicity out‐ group more than the same‐ethnicity out‐group. Rather than seeing different‐­ ethnicity out‐group members as markedly different, they were actually perceived as less different than a same‐ethnicity out‐group (see also Durkin, Nesdale, Dempsey, & McLean, 2012). As SIDT proposes, these findings emphasize that, in the absence of threat and conflict, children appear to focus on their in‐group and their preference for it—they do not display ethnic prejudice as a matter of course. Subsequent research by Dunham, Baron, and Carey (2011) explored the impact on in‐group attitudes of the mere assignment of participants to a “minimal” group; that is, all information concerning competition, status, or interaction with in‐groups or

14  Drew Nesdale out‐groups was excluded. Participants were randomly assigned to one color group and saw the members of their own group, as well as the other color group, via photos on a computer.Results of two studies indicated that children as young as 5 years showed in‐group bias in explicit and implicit attitudes. Similar findings have also been reported by Nesdale, Griffiths, and colleagues (2007). Consistent with the earlier findings reported by Bigler and colleagues (e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler et  al., 1997), these findings support the view that mere categorization into, or belonging to, a group can be sufficient to induce robust in‐group preferences. Indeed, research shows that the mere assignment to a group even results in the encoding of more positive information about in‐group than out‐group members (Dunham et al., 2011). Given the importance of group acceptance and belonging to children, it is not surprising that research has shown that children will seek to enhance, maintain, or defend the status of the group, as SIDT predicts. For example, research indicates that group members seek to include new group members who are similar to the existing members and want to support the group (Ojala & Nesdale, 2012), and that, with increasing age, children show less and less liking for in‐group members who do not conform to group norms and will seek to have them excluded (Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Nesdale, 1999; Nesdale & Brown, 2004). Indeed, Jewell and Brown (2014) have reported that children who do not conform to their gender group (i.e., are low in gender typicality) were more likely to be teased and rejected by peers than were children who do conform to gender group norms. Children who are most conforming to group norms are rated by peers as most popular. Research also indicates that children fear rejection from their in‐group (Ojala & Nesdale, 2012), and that those who feel some vulnerability about their position in a group typically display increased in‐group bias and out‐group negativity in order to contribute to the in‐group’s status, as well as to strengthen their own acceptability to the group members (Nesdale, Durkin et  al., 2011; Nesdale, Maass et  al., 2007, 2009). In addition, children react to actual rejection from their group with heightened negative affect, lowered self‐esteem, and risky and maladaptive social behaviors, such as taking other children’s things, being aggressive, and disrupting classes (Nesdale, 2008). Whereas the preceding findings emphasize the importance of social group membership to the child during the middle childhood period, there are also findings that reveal the resulting extent of the influence exerted by in‐group membership on individual members’ attitudes and behaviors towards others. Consistent with SIDT, research has shown that children will express explicit dislike or prejudice towards out‐group members when they are highly identified with their in‐group and/or when the status of their in‐group is threatened by an out‐group (Nesdale, Durkin et al., 2005; Nesdale, Maass et al., 2005).

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  15 In addition, according to SIDT, individuals who identify with a particular group are expected and motivated to conform to the group’s expectations or norms concerning the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors considered appropriate for group members, because they wish to continue to be accepted by, and belong to, that group. Consistent with this, research indicates that classroom norms can influence the positivity of group members’ attitudes towards out‐group members (e.g., Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005). Beyond this, however, research has also shown that classroom bully groups (who were nominated by classroom peers) had norms that endorsed bullying (Duffy & Nesdale, 2009) and that negative classroom norms significantly influenced children’s aggression and bullying (e.g., Henry, 2001; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). As well, group norms favoring exclusion in a novel group simulation significantly influenced children’s intergroup prejudice (Monteiro, De Franca, & Rodrigues, 2009; Nesdale, Maass et  al., 2005) and their bullying and aggressive intentions (Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Nesdale, Maass, Kiesner, Durkin, & Griffiths, 2008; Nipedal, Nesdale, & Killen, 2010; Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). In addition, when group norms supported aggression, central or prototypical group members reported greater aggressive intentions than peripheral members (Charters, Duffy, & Nesdale, 2013). Moreover, children will express negative attitudes towards out group members consistent with their in‐group’s norms, even when it conflicts with their own attitudes and values (Nesdale, Griffiths et al., 2005). However, while the preceding findings indicate that the peer group has the potential to exert a considerable influence on group members’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards in‐group members, as well as out‐group members, SIDT also recognizes that the effects of social group identification and, especially, the impact of social group norms on children’s intra‐ and intergroup attitudes and behaviors are neither automatic nor unthinking, particularly as children increase in age. Rather, SIDT proposes that these attitudes and behaviors are increasingly likely to be influenced by children’s developing social acumen, that is, their understanding or knowledge of how the social system works, as well as their strategic awareness of how to use this information to advantage (Nesdale, 2013). Consistent with this, of course, is the preceding research indicating the influence exerted by in‐group norms on the members’ attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors, presumably because of the members’ concerns about being excluded from the group (Abrams & Rutland, 2008). At the same time, however, as children increase in age, they also become increasingly aware that negative intergroup attitudes and behavior are considered to be unacceptable and inappropriate by adults (Rutland et al., 2005), and hence their explicit out‐group attitudes and behavior intentions become less negative (Nesdale, Maass et al, 2005; 2008), especially when under the surveillance of adults (Rutland et al., 2005). However, in an interesting illustration

16  Drew Nesdale of social acumen at work, Nesdale and Lawson (2011) examined whether a school norm of inclusion would moderate, if not extinguish, a group norm of exclusion. Results indicated that the children endorsed both the school and group norms and, as they increased in age, they liked their in‐group less. Apparently, the children recognized that it would be wise to respond positively to both sources of influence so as not to run afoul of either, even though the in‐group was liked less (see also Nesdale & Dalton, 2011; Nipedal et al., 2010). Further, McGuire, Rutland, and Nesdale (2015) reported that an inclusive school norm was less effective when the peer group had an exclusive norm and children were held accountable to their peers or their teachers. Interestingly, this did not differ as a function of the participants’ age. The inclusive school norm was most potent when the peer group had an inclusive norm and children were answerable to their teachers.

Conclusions and Future Research Whereas children’s involvement in social groups has not been of focal interest to researchers in the past, the last decade has seen a sharp increase in research on this issue. Much has been learnt about when children begin to display an interest in social groups, on what basis they join groups, how groups impact on the intra‐ and intergroup behaviors of members, and how children react to social group exclusion. Accumulating evidence has also been obtained concerning aspects of intra‐group dynamics, including the impact of group identification, group positions, and group norms, as well as children’s developing social acumen or knowledge and its influence on their intra‐ and intergroup behavior. Together, these findings indicate that, during the middle childhood period, children become increasingly experienced and sophisticated in interacting with others in their own, and other, social groups—perhaps not surprisingly, given that their social interactions occur increasingly within their social groups during the elementary school years (Rubin et  al., 2006). Indeed, by the end of middle childhood, children appear to display many of the same intra‐ and intergroup attitudes, strategies and behaviors evidenced by adults (see Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). In addition, new theories relating to children’s involvement in groups are emerging (e.g., Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Bigler & Liben, 2006). Social identity development theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004, 2011) is one such theory that has been proposed as an account of group‐related phenomena, emphasizing the critical significance of social identity processes in the development of children’s intra‐ and intergroup attitudes and behavior. To date, research findings obtained in a range of

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  17 paradigms have yielded consistent support for the theory, especially as applied to prejudice and discrimination (Brown, 2010). However, a number of important issues remain to be addressed before a comprehensive understanding of children’s involvement in social groups, including their intra‐ and intergroup attitudes and behavior, can be realized. One issue concerns the identification of the processes that promote similarity in the attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors of group members (Kinderman & Gest, 2011). This issue encompasses the emergence of similarity in stable groups, as well as the impact wrought by the addition of new members, and the departure of existing members, on intra‐group similarity and is related to the emergence of social group norms. A second issue warranting attention concerns the basis upon which status, roles, and positions are determined, and exert their impact, within children’s groups. Some research has revealed the significant influence of group positions (e.g., central versus peripheral) on group members’ aggressive intentions (Charters et al, 2013), but more research needs to focus on the emergence of status and roles, especially in interaction with group norms. Although some research is now addressing the basis upon which children join groups, a third issue concerns the factors that contribute to the breakup of a group and the emergence of new groups. Of particular interest here is the basis upon which racial/ethnic minority groups appear following preschool and early school years in which race/ethnicity is typically not a significant influence on group make‐up. Also needing research attention is the particular culture that emerges in racial/ethnic minority groups, especially in comparison with groups comprised of majority group members. A fourth issue concerns the need to develop reliable techniques for identifying social groups in natural settings and for capturing their effects on group members, as well as non‐members. The utilization of peer nominations to identify groups, followed by self‐ or other‐ratings has been valuable (e.g., Duffy & Nesdale, 2009), but research has been limited to correlational designs to date. Other research using novel groups, minimal groups, and cyber‐based groups (e.g., Dunham et al, 2011; Dunham et al, 2013; Nesdale, 2011) has added greatly to our understanding of children’s groups. However, these paradigms involve simulated rather than natural groups, and the findings are based on a slice in time. That said, the great advantage of such groups lies in their incorporation of experimental techniques, thus allowing for the manipulation of variables and the assignment of causality. Clearly, new techniques and paradigms that allow for experimentation, yet utilize natural groups, over time, would represent a considerable advance for the field (see chapter by Nesdale, Brown, & Rutland, this volume, for an extended discussion of these issues).

18  Drew Nesdale While research efforts concerning children and social groups have substantially increased, and in a comparatively short period of time, many issues remain to be investigated. Given the importance of children’s groups to their broader social development, these efforts will undoubtedly be amply rewarded. References Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The development of subjective group dynamics. In S. Levy, & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M., Wilson, H., & Lyons, E. (2003). The development of national in‐group bias: English children’s attributions of characteristics to English, American, and German people. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 193–220. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66, 1072–1087. Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorisation and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530–543. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child psychology (pp. 39–90). New York, NY: Elsevier. Bradford Brown, B., & Dietz, E. I. (2011). Informal peer groups in middle childhood and adolescence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M., Bukowski, &, B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 361–378). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell. Brownell, C. A., Ramani, G. B., & Zerwas, S. (2006). Becoming a social partner with peers: Cooperation and social understanding in one‐ and two‐year olds. Child Development, 77, 803–821. Cairns, R. B., Xie, H., & Leung, M. C. (1998). The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In W. M. Bukowski & A.  H.  N. Cillesen (Eds.). Sociometry then and now: Recent developments in the study of children’s peer groups (pp. 25–53). San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Caldera, Y. M., Huston, A., & O’Brien, M. (1989). Social interactions and play patterns of toddlers with feminine, masculine and neutral toys. Child Development, 60, 70–76. Chafel, J. A. (1986). A naturalistic investigation of the use of social comparisons by young children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19(3), 51–61. Charters, M., Duffy, A., & Nesdale, D.(2013). A social identity approach to explaining children’s intentions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 163–172.

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  19 Coplan, R. J., & Arbeau, K. A. (2011). Peer interactions and play in early childhood. In K. H. Rubin, W. M., Bukowski, &, B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 143–161). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Duffy, A., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behaviour. Social Development, 18, 121–139. Duffy, A., & Nesdale, D. (2012). Understanding childhood aggression: A social identity approach. In B. C. Guevara & N. A. Becerra (Eds.), Psychology of aggression: New research (pp. 99–117). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development, 82, 793–811. Dunham, Y., Chen, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Two signatures of implicit intergroup attitudes: Developmental invariance and early enculturation. Psychological Science, 24, 860–868. Durkin, K., Nesdale, D., Dempsey, G., & McLean, A. (2012). Young children’s responses to media representations of intergroup threat and ethnicity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 459–476. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). Social identity, context, commitment, content. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Fabes, R. A., Martin, L. D., & Hanish, C. L. (2003). Children at play: The role of peers in understanding the effects of child care. Child Development, 74, 1039–1043. Fagan, J. F., & Singer, L. T. (1979). The role of simple feature differences in infants’ recognition of faces. Infant Behaviour and Development, 2, 39–45. Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1989). The young child’s gender schema: Environmental input, internal organisation. Child Development, 60, 663–672. Farver, J. M. (1996). Aggressive behaviour in preschoolers’ social networks: Do birds of a feather flock together? Early Childhood Quarterly, 11, 333–350 Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Leonard, S., & Herzog, M. (2005). Exposure to externalizing peers in early childhood: Homiphily and peer contagion processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 267–281. Hay, D. F., Caplan, M., & Nash, A. (2011). The beginnings of peer relations. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 121–142). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Hay, D. F., Nash, A., & Pedersen, J. (1983). Interaction between six‐month‐old peers. Child Development, 52, 1071–1076. Henry, D. (2001). Classroom context and the development of aggression: The role of normative processes. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 6, pp. 193–227). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Howes, C., & Phillippsen, L. (1992). Gender and friendship: Relationships within peer groups of young children. Social Development, 1, 230–242. Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. Social Development, 23, 137–156. Katz, P. A. (1976). The acquisition of racial attitudes in children. In P.A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 125–154). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

20  Drew Nesdale Kinderman, T. A., & Gest, S. D. (2011). Assessment of the peer group: Identifying naturally occurring networks and capturing their effects. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 100–120). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Linville, P. W. (1998). The heterogeneity of homogeneity. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.), Attribution processes, person perception, and social interactions: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 423–487). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behaviour (Vol. 20, pp. 239–287). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. McGuire, L., Rutland, A., & Nesdale, D. (2015). When is an inclusive school norm most effective in promoting positive out‐group attitudes among children? Child Development, 86, 1290–1297. Miller, C. L. (1983). Developmental changes in male/female voice classification by infants. Infant Behaviour and Development, 6, 313–330. Milner, D. (1996). Children and Racism: Beyond the value of the dolls. In W. Peter Robinson, Social groups and identities. Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Monteiro, M. B., De Franca, D. X., & Rodrigues, R. (2009). The development of intergroup bias: How social norms can shape children’s racial behaviours. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 29–39. Nesdale, A. R. (1999). Developmental changes in children’s ethnic preferences and social cognitions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 501–519. Nesdale, D. (2001). Development of prejudice in children. In M. Augoustinos & K.  Reynolds (Eds.). Understanding the psychology of prejudice and racism (pp.  57–72). London: Sage. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.). The development of the social self (pp. 219–246). Abingdon: Psychology Press. Nesdale, D. (2007). The development of ethnic prejudice in early childhood: Theories and research. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Social learning in early childhood education (pp. 213–240). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Nesdale, D. (2008). Peer group rejection and children’s intergroup prejudice: Experimental studies. In S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesdale, D. (2012). The development of children’s ethnic prejudice: The critical influence of social identity, social group norms, and social acumen. In D. W. Russell and C. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: Interdisciplinary perspectives on contemporary issues (pp. 51–76). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Nesdale, D. (2013). Social acumen: Its role in constructing group identity and attitudes. In M. R. Mahzarin & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world (pp. 323–326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Children and Social Groups: A Social Identity Approach  21 Nesdale, D., & Brown, K. (2004). Children’s attitudes towards an atypical member of an ethnic in‐group. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 328–335. Nesdale, D., & Dalton, D. (2011). Effect of social group norms and school norms on children’s intergroup prejudice. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 895–909. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., & Griffiths, J. (2004). Group status, out‐group ethnicity, and children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 237–251. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., & Griffiths, J. (2005). Threat, group identifi­cation, and children’s ethnic prejudice. Social Development, 14, 189–205. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Griffiths, J., Daly, J., & McKenzie, D. (2011). Peer group rejection and children’s out‐group prejudice. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 134–144. Nesdale, D., & Flesser, D. (2001). Social identity and the development of children’s group attitudes. Child Development, 72, 506–517. Nesdale, D., Griffiths, J., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2005). Empathy, group norms and children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 623–637. Nesdale, D., Griffiths, J., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2007). Effects of group membership, intergroup competition, and out‐group ethnicity on children’s ratings of in‐group and out‐group similarity and positivity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 359–373. Nesdale, D., & Hong, J. (2011). Effects of status and acceptance on children’s in‐group liking. Unpublished manuscript, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Nesdale, D., Killen, M., & Duffy, A. (2013). Children’s social cognition concerning proactive aggression. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 674–692. Nesdale, D., & Lawson, M. J. (2011). Social groups and children’s intergroup attitudes: Can school norms moderate the effects of social group norms? Child Development, 82, 1594–1606. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2005). Group norms, threat and children’s ethnic prejudice. Child Development, 76, 1–12. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Griffiths, J., & Durkin, K (2003). Effects of in‐group and out‐ group ethnicity on children’s attitudes towards members of the in‐group and out‐group. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 177–192 Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2008). Effects of group norms on children’s bullying intentions. Social Development, 17, 889–907. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Durkin,K., Griffiths, J., & James, B. (2009). Effects of peer group rejection and a new group’s norms on children’s intergroup attitudes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 783–797. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Durkin, K., Griffiths, J., & Ekberg, A. (2007). Effects of peer group rejection, group membership, and group norms, on children’s out‐group prejudice. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 526–535. Nipedal, C., Nesdale, D., & Killen, M. (2010). Social group norms, school norms, and children’s aggressive intentions. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 195–204

22  Drew Nesdale Ojala. K., & Nesdale, D. (2004). Bullying as a group process: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 19–35. Ojala, K., & Nesdale, D. (2012). Group belongingness and intra‐ and intergroup attitudes in children. Unpublished manuscript, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Otsuka, Y. (2014). Face recognition in infants: A review of behavioural and near infrared spectroscopic studies. Japanese Psychological Research, 56, 76–90. Rheingold, H. L., & Cook, K. V. (1975). The content of boys’ and girls’ rooms as an index of parents’ behaviour. Child Development, 46, 445–463 Ross, H. S. (1982). Establishment of social games among toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 18, 509–518. Rubin, K., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In W. Daemon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child psychology: Vol. 3, Social emotional and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York, NY: Wiley. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. Sagi, A., & Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathic distress in the newborn. Developmental Psychology, 12, 175–176. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.  G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self‐categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Vaughan, B. E., & Santos, A. J. (2011). Structural descriptions of social transactions among young children: Affiliation and dominance in preschool groups. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 195–216). New York: The Guildford Press. Yee, M. D., & Brown, R. (1992). Self‐evaluations and intergroup attitudes in children aged three to nine. Child Development, 63, 619–629.

2 Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann

Ethnic and racial1 diversity is a fact of life for many children and adolescents. They go to diverse schools, live in diverse neighbourhoods, and hear and learn about cultural differences through parents, family, friends, and the media. They try to understand how the social world is composed and where they fit in: with whom they belong, what that means, and whether others recognize and value them. They develop an inner sense of their ethnic belonging within the broader sociocultural and historical context they find themselves in: an ethnic self that has implications for their well‐being and (school) adjustment (see Rivas‐Drake et al., 2014; Smith & Silva, 2011). And, depending on the everyday situation, their ethnic belonging becomes salient in their mind and guides their perception and behavior. In this chapter we take a social‐developmental perspective that draws on both developmental and social psychological theories to discuss ethnic identity among immigrant and minority adolescents. Adolescence is seen as the critical period for identity development and the great majority of research on ethnic identity has focused on this age period. We first briefly introduce the theoretical framework by discussing the difference between more stable and more variable aspects of ethnic The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

24  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann identity. Subsequently we consider research on ethnic identity development and on ethnic group identification. This is followed by a discussion on dual identities by considering ethnic identity in relation to religious and (host) national identification. The next section examines the role of in‐group norms and discrimination for adolescents’ minority identity. The more variable aspects of ethnic identity are then discussed in terms of situational salience and identity enactment. The chapter concludes with future directions for theoretical and empirical work.

Theoretical Foundations In the developmental literature, ethnic identity is typically conceptualized in terms of inner structure. The focus is on the gradual development of a more stable sense of ethnic self. A similar focus on the more enduring aspect of ethnic identity exists in the social psychological literature that examines group identification2 in terms of trait‐like dimensions that are fairly stable across situations. These approaches reflect the fact that there are individual differences in the subjective tendency to view oneself and the social world in ethnic terms. In the same situation some individuals have a stronger tendency to perceive ethnic differences and to think in terms of ethnicity than others. And someone who attaches great importance to their ethnic identity is more ready to use ethnicity in different situations. Yet, it is equally true that the same individual can feel quite differently about her ethnic background depending on the people whom she is with and other characteristics of the situation (e.g., the presence of ethnic music, food, art). Ethnic identity is also conceptualized as fluid and context‐dependent. The relevance, significance, and meaning of ethnic identity vary across time and setting. Most people do not approach the world with only one particular identity in their mind but rather have multiple identities that become salient depending on the situation. The focus on the more stable aspects of ethnic identity and the examination of situational flexibility and variability have both contributed significantly to our understanding of adolescents’ sense of ethnic belonging. However, both approaches have existed largely in parallel and there are only few attempts to integrate them (Yip & Douglass, 2013). For instance, in their multidimensional model of racial identity Sellers and colleagues (1998) argue that the situational salience of racial identity is a function of the interaction between the subjective centrality of racial group membership and characteristics of the immediate setting. A similar interactionist approach is endorsed by the social identity perspective that incorporates social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self‐categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). According to this perspective, the extent to

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  25 which ethnicity is psychologically salient in a particular situation depends on the personal readiness to use ethnicity for self‐definition together with situational characteristics. For example, an immigrant boy living in Germany is more likely to define himself as Turkish if he has a strong sense of Turkish belonging and pride and if he sees meaningful situational differences between Turks and Germans. Furthermore, the meaning ascribed to being Turkish and the way in which he enacts his ethnic identity will also differ depending on the situation. What it means to be Turkish can differ when he is with his Turkish or his German peers.

The Development of Ethnic Self 3 Developmental research has focused on the question of how an inner sense of ethnic self unfolds during adolescence. The focus is on the gradual over‐time changes in identity processes, and identity statuses are used to track these changes (Umaña‐Taylor et  al., 2014). Most of the research has been conducted in the United States and an answer has been sought for in two ways. One approach is to closely examine the specific circumstances and experiences of a particular group and use this information as a basis for a developmental model. This “bottom‐up” approach has, among other things, led to the well‐known “nigrescence” (“becoming Black”) model of Cross (1991) who was interested in racial identity during the heady days of the Civil Rights movement. The fact that the model provides a framework for examining the experiential, political, and cultural influences on African American identity is its strength, but also means that the model does not simply apply to other ethnic minority groups in the United States (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1990), nor to other groups of Blacks outside this country (e.g., Wandert et al., 2009). A second, “top‐down” approach uses a theoretically derived developmental model to look at common aspects of ethnic identity development that can be compared across ethnic minority groups. The best‐known model is that of Phinney (1989) which is used in many studies, among different ethnic groups, and in various countries. Following Erikson’s (1968) work on ego‐identity and Marcia’s (1966) work on identity statuses, Phinney distinguishes between exploration and commitment as the two key processes of ethnic identity formation. Exploration or search indicates the extent to which adolescents consider the various meanings that ethnicity has and can have in their lives. It involves efforts to learn about or gain an understanding of the history, culture, and social position of one’s ethnic group and the implications of one’s ethnic group membership. Commitment is the degree to which adolescents have made committed choices

26  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann regarding the meaning of their ethnicity and the way they will live as an ethnic group member. Four ethnic identity statuses are derived from the presence or absence of exploration and commitment. The least mature status is identity diffusion, which is characterized by little interest or understanding of one’s ethnicity (no exploration and no commitments). The status of foreclosure indicates commitment without first exploring the meaning of one’s ethnic group membership for oneself (commitment without exploration). These adolescents adopt the ethnic attitudes, beliefs, and practices of their parents and family more or less without thought. Yet, with age there can be increasing doubts about what had been taken for granted and increasing expectations about having to make up one’s own mind. This can lead to the status of moratorium in which the adolescent is in a state of active exploration about the different meanings of being an ethnic group member, but significant commitments are not yet made (exploration and no commitment). For a healthy ethnic identity development, this period of exploration should result in an achieved identity, characterized by commitment and a clear and secure sense of ethnic belonging (commitment after exploration). Research among youth of different ethnic and racial groups has found evidence for the four statuses, although they cannot always be identified (e.g., Yip, 2014; Yip, Seaton, & Sellers, 2006). Longitudinal research is necessary to know whether, in adolescence, there is a progressive change in the direction of an achieved identity. Several studies in the United States have examined this and shown that there is an increase in identity exploration from early to middle adolescence and that identity search becomes less strong in late adolescence (see Meeus, 2011; Quintana, 2007, for reviews). The identity progression is gradual and subtle and there is no evidence of a dramatic ethnic identity crisis during adolescence. There is another interesting finding in most studies on ethnic identity development: a positive association between exploration and commitment. Adolescents with strong identity commitments are also involved in a great deal of identity exploration. This raises doubts about the idea that ethnic commitments or an achieved identity occurs after a period of exploration. Exploration does not have to be a precursor to commitment, which means that there is no developmental order between the two. This might mean that it is better to see the processes of exploration and commitment as two opposing forces with, on the one hand, attempts to develop and maintain a committed sense of self and, on the other hand, the questioning and rethinking of this sense of self (Meeus, 2011). Adolescents can continue to reflect on their committed choices, look for new information, and talk with others about these choices. Having developed strong ethnic or racial commitments is often not the end of the story but, rather, can stimulate further exploration to maintain these commitments.

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  27

Ethnic Group Identification Social psychological approaches are not concerned with developmental changes but conceptualize ethnic identity in terms of trait‐like dimensions of group identification, such as centrality, evaluation, and affect (Verkuyten, 2016). Ethnic identification can be part of a more enduring sense of self. It can be central in how one thinks and feels about oneself and thereby provide an important and accessible mental framework for self‐perception and behavior. Numerous studies, also among adolescents, have shown that higher versus lower ethnic identifiers react differently to challenges and threats to their ethnic group (e.g., Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998). For example, because it means a relatively strong and enduring emotional investment in one’s ethnic group, high identification tends to make ethnic stigmatization and exclusion more painful. Social psychological researchers have proposed partly overlapping but different frameworks for conceptualizing and measuring the multidimensional nature of group identification (e.g., Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin‐Volpe, 2004; Leach et al., 2008). Although the terms differ somewhat, some of the proposed dimensions are quite similar and have also been suggested in research on ethnic and racial identity (e.g., Sellers et al., 1998): namely, how central the ethnic group membership is to one’s sense of self, how positively one feels towards this group membership, and the sense of ethnic belonging and commitment. These distinctions are based on theory (Leach et  al., 2008) or an analysis of the existing research literature (Ashmore et al., 2004), and deal with attitude‐like dimensional properties that are relatively easy to assess. The distinction between dimensions is important because it might not be very adequate to use, for example, the importance that is attached to ethnic identity to draw conclusions about evaluations and emotions. Adolescents might find their ethnic minority identity very important for their sense of self, even when it is liable to evoke social disdain and feelings of shame. Research shows that the various aspects cannot simply be reduced to each other and that sometimes there are obvious connections, but sometimes not. In threatening situations and for stigmatized minority identities, the connection is probably stronger than in more harmonious situations and for majority identities. In the former case it can be quite difficult for adolescents themselves as well as for researchers to draw a meaningful (empirical) distinction between these dimensions because they are experienced as an integrated whole where high importance equals strong emotions, strong feelings of belonging and shared fate. Research among ethnic minority youth demonstrates that the different aspects of ethnic identity tend to be highly correlated (e.g., Casey‐ Cannon, Coleman, Knudtson, & Velazquez, 2011; Yip, 2014). For stigmatized minority youth, ethnic identification tends to be a rather homogeneous construct that can often be captured by a single measure.

28  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann Yet, a sense of ethnic identity implies not only feelings of belonging and pride, but also historical, cultural, and ideological meanings. The question of what it means to be a member of an ethnic group involves self‐attributed typical characteristics and group norms, values, and ideological beliefs (Ashmore et al., 2004; Sellers et al., 1998). What it means to be an ethnic or racial group member in the context of intractable conflicts such as in the Middle East or Northern Ireland is likely to be different from the context of the United States with its history of slavery, or the European context with its history of colonialism and labor immigration. A history of colonialism and slavery presents a different background for one’s sense of self than having parents who themselves decided to immigrate for economic reasons. Furthermore, the social identity perspective stresses that identity meanings not only depend on the broader societal context but also on situational group comparisons. In a study among Chinese late adolescents in the Netherlands, it was found that they describe themselves more strongly in stereotypical terms when compared to the native Dutch than when compared to other Chinese (Verkuyten & De Wolf, 2002). Thus, they consider themselves more “emotionally controlled,” more “reserved” and more “obedient” in the context of the former comparison as opposed to the latter. Despite the general acceptance that the specific content and meaning of ethnic identity is critically important for understanding how adolescents understand themselves and see the social world, most studies focus on the processes of exploration and commitment or assess the degree to which adolescents identify with their ethnic group.4 These studies tell us something about the strength of ethnic group belonging and commitment and thereby about how likely it is that minority youth will think and act in terms of their ethnic belonging. But they do not tell us much about what it is that they think of and what they will do. Identification provides the emotional investment or energy to act while identity content gives meaning and behavioral direction.

Multiple Identities Youngsters have a range of social identities because they belong to many different categories and groups. These identities can coexist in parallel with no particular relationship to one another because they refer to different domains of life (school, home, leisure) or relate to different levels of abstraction (neighbourhood, region, country). However, specific combinations and relationships between various group identities are possible. In a study among Turkish Bulgarian and Muslim Bulgarian adolescents it was found that family, ethnic, and religious group membership were strongly associated (Dimitrova, 2014). And using a multi-ethnic

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  29 sample of older adolescents, Kiang, Yip, and Fuligni (2008) examined identity clusters of ethnic, religious, family, and American identifications. In three of the clusters, participants had a high level of identification with at least one of these identities, and youth in the fourth cluster had low identifications for all four (see also Halgunseth, Jensen, Sakuma, & McHale, 2015). Immigrant and minority youth often struggle with the question of combining their ethnic minority identity with commitments to the nation‐state. In addition, there is the important role of religious group identification. Questions of immigration and cultural diversity are increasingly questions of religious diversity. In particular, Islam has emerged as the focus of immigration and diversity debates in Europe (Zolberg & Long, 1999), and is also increasingly discussed in the United States where Muslims have been defined as an “indigestible” minority (Huntington, 2004, p. 188).5 We will first discuss religious group identification and subsequently national identification.

Religious group identification In contrast to the extensive work on ethnicity, there is little research on the role of religion in immigrant and minority adolescents’ identity development, despite the fact that religion is a strong source of social identity due to the (sacred) values and meaning‐making it provides (Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010). For example, Phinney’s identity developmental model has not been systematically investigated in relation to religious identity of minority youth but applied as an interpretative framework in an interview study among Muslim youth in Great Britain (Lewis, 2007). Similarly, findings from qualitative interviews among a sample of university students in the US describe the process of developing a committed Muslim identity. For many students, the transition to college after leaving the parental home was the phase when their religious identity became a “chosen” or even “declared” identity, after being simply an unquestioned or foreclosed identity during childhood and early adolescence (Peek, 2005). In one three‐year longitudinal study among adolescents from different religious groups in the United States it was found that religious group identification remained stable across high school, whereas participation in religious practices declined (Lopez, Huynh, & Fuligni, 2011). In line with this finding, Vertovec and Rogers (1998) report, based on ethnographic work among Muslim youth in various European countries, that religious identity is generally strong despite an acknowledged lack of religious knowledge and practice, which is often postponed to later life‐stages when youth plan to live the life of “a good Muslim.” Religious group identification has been found to become stronger in a three‐year longitudinal

30  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann study among Muslim Bulgarian middle adolescents (Dimitrova, 2014). Similarly, in a cross‐sectional study among Muslims in the Netherlands it was found that the level of religious group identification increased until the age of 14, while it decreased from age 15 onwards (Verkuyten, Thijs, & Stevens, 2012). In addition, religious identification is often reported to be stronger than other identifications among Muslim adolescents. In her focus groups among 14‐ to 15‐ year‐old Arab Americans, Ajrouch (2004) found religion to be a more salient identity marker than national origin (e.g., Lebanese, Palestinian). Sirin and Fine (2008), who studied 12‐ to 18‐year‐old Muslim Americans in the Greater New York area, found religious identification to be significantly higher than American identification, despite the fact that most adolescents in the sample were born in the US or had spent the largest part of their life there. Ethnic and religious identity have been found to be closely connected among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds in the United States (Lopez et  al., 2011). The same has been found for Muslim immigrants. Studies among young Muslims in Sweden, Scotland, Denmark, and the United States (Ajrouch, 2004; Saeed, Blain, & Forbes, 1999; Schmidt, 2004) have shown that religious identity predominates, followed by ethnicity—and, as in the country of origin, what it means to be a Turk, Pakistani, or Arab is intimately linked to what it means to be a Muslim. For example, studies among Muslim minority youth in the Netherlands and in various European cities have demonstrated that those who identify more strongly with their religious group also identify more strongly with their ethnic group (Fleischmann, 2011).

National identification Minority and immigrant youth not only belong to their ethno‐religious community but are also involved in developing a sense of belonging to the society they grow up in. In acculturation theory the development of a sense of ethnic minority identity, together with a sense of national belonging, is considered a central aspect of the acculturation process (Berry, 2001; Hutnik, 1991). For example, for many young Turks living in Germany it is often not a question of being Turkish or German but a question of the extent to which they feel Turkish as well as the extent to which they feel German. The acculturation model assumes two separate dimensions of identification and a combination of both dimensions provides a schematic model of four identity positions (Berry, 2001; Hutnik, 1991). Psychological assimilation focuses on identification with the host society. These are ethnic minority members who, following the previous example, define themselves exclusively as German, and their main orientation is towards German society. With segregation, one sees oneself

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  31 primarily in terms of one’s own ethnic community and only feels, say, Turkish. This can be the result of a strong sense of commitment and involvement with one’s community, but it might also be due to feelings of rejection by the majority population. Psychological integration refers to people identifying with both their own ethnic group and the host society. In this case, dual self‐definitions are used, such as Turkish‐German, and in the literature terms such as hyphenated and bicultural identity are also used for this. Finally, as opposed to integration, there is marginalization and individualization in which one does not feel a sense of belonging with either of the two or rejects these group identifications in favour of other social identities or personal characteristics, qualities, and goals (I do not feel Turkish or German, but European or an individual) (Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997). Several studies in different countries have examined self‐definitions and group identifications among youth of different ethnic groups and different ages. These studies show that the four forms of identification do exist, but not all to the same extent (e.g., Verkuyten, 2005). Defining oneself in terms of one’s own ethnic group or in terms of a dual identity is more frequent, whereas adopting an assimilative and/or marginal position is rather exceptional. In acculturation research, identity duality is typically examined in terms of two separate identifications: with the country of origin and the host society. Dual identity would exist when both identifications are relatively strong—for example, simultaneously feeling Turkish and feeling German. But it is not fully clear what these two separate feelings actually mean and whether this approach captures the subjective experience of a dual identity. Identity duality in the sense of a so‐called blended or fused identity is distinct from either of the original categories: not “I feel Turkish and I feel German,” but “I feel Turkish German,” or “Indian British,” or “French Canadian,” and so on. This means that we are not talking about two separate strong identifications but, rather, a different category that is neither one nor the other but a qualitatively different experience. Feeling Canadian French is something other than the combination of feeling French and feeling Canadian. It represents a unique cultural configuration, a set of meanings that cannot simply be deduced from knowledge of both separate identities. Research among youth has shown that the (statistical) combination of separate measures of ethnic and national identification can yield different identity clusters compared to the use of direct questions about dual identity (Ng‐Tseung & Verkuyten, 2013). Furthermore, in research among adults measures of dual identity have been found to predict outcomes independently of the combination of separate measures of ethnic and national identification (e.g., Simon & Ruhs, 2008). There are different ways for conceptualizing dual identity, such as in terms of intersectionality (Cole, 2009) or identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). The latter concept refers to individual differences in how different group memberships are subjectively combined. An inclusive or complex identity structure implies that an

32  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann individual accepts and acknowledges the distinctive memberships of his or her various groups. Alternatively, individuals with a relatively simplified structure perceive a strong overlap and interrelation among their identities. In research among Turkish and Moroccan youth in the Netherlands it was found that lower (ethnic and religious) identity complexity was associated with lower national identification (Martinovic & Verkuyten, 2012, Studies 1 and 2). In other words, national identification was lower when adolescents felt more strongly that it was necessary for a person of their ethnicity to be a Muslim as well. And among an ethnically diverse sample of young adolescents living in the US, lower social identity complexity was associated with higher social distance from ethnic out‐groups (Knifsend & Juvonen, 2014). The likelihood of developing dual identities differs between local and national contexts. For example, whereas in Canada and the United States compound labels such as Chinese‐Canadian and Mexican‐American are accepted and common, these are relatively exceptional in countries like Germany and the Netherlands. Cross‐national research among youth has shown that, in Europe, higher ethnic identification often goes together with weaker national identification, whereas in the United States both identifications tend to be separate or positively associated (Phinney, Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006). Furthermore, whereas in the United States a strong religious minority identity can be a basis for developing a sense of national belonging (Levitt, 2008; Sirin & Fine, 2007), in the European context adolescents who have higher religious minority group identification often tend to have lower national identification (e.g., Fleischmann, 2011; Verkuyten et  al., 2012). In countries like the Netherlands and Germany, few Muslims describe themselves as a Dutch or German Muslim. This is quite different in the United States, where practicing Islam is consistent with, and supportive of, the religious diversity of the country. Thus, in settler countries like the United States and Canada, immigrants and minorities typically are attached both to their own minority group and the nation, but, in non‐settler European countries, some immigrants and minorities are more likely to put their ethnic or religious identity in contrast to their national belonging. Strong in‐group norms and a hostile context of reception are reasons for this.

In‐Group Norms and Discrimination From middle childhood on, children become increasingly sensitive to group differences and group norms. With age, as children gain social‐cognitive competencies and experiences with groups, they develop increased understanding of how groups work, they prefer adherence to group norms (see, e.g., Abrams & Rutland, 2008), and often exclude others for group‐based reasons (Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013).

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  33 Being excluded or rejected on the basis of one’s ethnic group membership is threatening to a child’s sense of self, and minority adolescents often face two kinds of threats. They can feel excluded or rejected by their ethnic in‐group and/ or by the majority group and broader society. For example, in a study among Latino immigrant youth in the United States it was found that perceived rejection by White Americans was associated with stronger disidentification with the United States, whereas perceived rejection by Latinos was related to lower ethnic identification and higher national identification (Wiley, 2013). A study of daily acculturative hassles among Vietnamese Canadian youth showed that both majority group rejection (e.g., perceptions of prejudice and discrimination) and ethnic in‐group hassles (e.g., feeling isolated from one’s ethnic group, being perceived as too White) had a significant negative impact on the acculturation process (Lay & Nguyen, 1998). Exclusion by in‐group members can be conceptualized as an acceptance threat whereby adolescents are uncertain about their position within their ethnic group. Categorization threat represents the situation in which adolescents believe that they are the victim of prejudice and discrimination by the majority group.6 The research literature has focused much more on the latter than the former type of threat.

Acceptance threat Identification processes have important intragroup implications and the in‐group functions as a key reference group in everyday life (Smith & Leach, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005). Within minority communities there are often normative pressures to maintain the ethnic culture and refrain from assimilating, resulting from cultural socialization practices of parents (Hughes et al., 2006) and peer group norms (e.g., Kiang, Harter, & Whitesell, 2007; Syed & Juan, 2012). Individuals have a basic need to feel that they belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and tend to act to secure acceptance as in‐group members. Acceptance threat implies uncertainty about belonging and this leads to responses that increase the likelihood of being accepted. Adopting ethnic markers, being involved in ethnic behavior and endorsing in‐group norms and beliefs are ways to reduce the uncertainty. Experimental research among minority youth has shown, for example, that ethnic in‐group rejection can lead to a stronger endorsement of the minority group’s worldview (Schaafsma & Williams, 2012).

Categorization threat There are many studies that have examined adolescents’ ethnic and religious minority identity in relation to perceived exclusion by the majority group. Minority youth often feel that they are second‐class citizens who face discrimination and

34  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann racism and such a hostile context can influence their identity development and intensify their sense of ethnic and/or religious belonging. According to Cross’s (1991) “nigrescence” model, it is the encounter with racism that makes it difficult to ignore or deny that discrimination influences one’s life. Such an experience may incite the process of racial identity search and exploration. And longitudinal research finds support for the proposition that experiences with discrimination trigger adolescents’ ethnic identity development: discrimination predicts subsequent increases in racial and ethnic identity (see Quintana, 2007; but see also Seaton, Yip, Morgan‐Lopez, & Sellers, 2012). Research has convincingly demonstrated that recognizing discrimination against one’s ethnic group and oneself as a member of that group has negative consequences for adolescents’ well‐being (e.g., Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014). These consequences are particularly negative when the discrimination is pervasive and systematic. Ethnic group identification is one important means of coping with the pain of exclusion and discrimination. The so‐called “rejection‐identification” model (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999) is based on the idea that being a target of discrimination leads individuals to identify more strongly with their ethnic minority group and that stronger identification is beneficial for psychological well‐being. Research among ethnic minority youth shows that higher perceptions of discrimination indeed predict increased ethnic group identification. This has been found, for example, in cross‐ sectional research (e.g., Fleischmann, 2011), and in longitudinal studies among immigrants in Finland (Jasinskaja‐Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim, 2009), Latino students in the United States (Cronin, Levin, Branscombe, Van Laar, & Tropp, 2012), and Maori’s in New Zealand (Stronge, Sengupta, Barlow, Osborne, Koukamau, & Sibley, 2015). Furthermore, a reason for the increased salience and importance of religious identity for Muslim youth is the often widespread hostility against their religious group (e.g., Sirin & Fine, 2008). Survey research among late adolescent and early adult Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in four European countries showed that perceptions of discrimination were related to higher levels of religious group identification (Fleischmann, Phalet, & Klein, 2011). These studies suggest that, like ethnic identity, religious identification increases in the face of discrimination. There is also experimental evidence supporting this direction of causality among students (Aydin, Fischer, & Frey, 2010). Discrimination and exclusion can, moreover, lead to a process of forging a reactive ethnicity (Rumbaut, 2008) that not only involves stronger ethnic minority group identification but also a sense of common fate and an oppositional culture in which mainstream norms and values are rejected (Ogbu, 1993). However, the empirical evidence for reactive ethnicity among minority adolescents is not conclusive and the phenomenon might be limited to the U.S. context. In the non‐U.S. context it has been argued that minority youth shift away to religious and local

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  35 identities as alternatives to their ethnicity. Faced with ethnic discrimination and exclusion, minority youth might emphasize their religious identity as a way of feeling in control and in order to feel a sense of belonging while living in a society in which they are considered outsiders (e.g., Dimitrova, 2014). Similarly, religion has been found to be applied as a coping strategy in the face of identity threat by Canadian late adolescents and early adults affiliated with Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) and Islam (Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2011). Research in Europe has also shown that minority youth tend more than native youth to have a strong sense of local belonging to their city of residence and neighbourhood (Schneider et al., 2012). This local identity can serve as an alternative to ethnic group identification and as an expression of their sense of belonging to the society they grow up in. However, a hostile context can also instigate an assimilative response. Cross‐ sectional and longitudinal research has demonstrated that perceptions of ethnic discrimination sometimes lead to lower ethnic affirmation, less positive ethnic self‐ feelings, and a distancing of one’s ethnic group (e.g., Romero & Roberts, 2003; Seaton, Yip, & Sellers, 2009). For example, a study among Roma adolescents in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Kosovo, and Romania found a relatively weak Roma identity compared to national identity (Dimitrova, 2014). Maintaining a strong Roma identity and a weak national identity probably is not a viable long‐term strategy under conditions of extreme marginalization and disadvantages that are unlikely to change.

Situational Ethnic Salience One of the limitations of the research discussed is that it does not say much about the dynamics of daily life. The focus is on the development of an inner sense of self or on trait‐like differences in group identification. This focus is important for understanding adolescents’ well‐being and adjustment, and also for their readiness to think in ethnic terms in specific situations. Yet, what happens in these situations depends on many things and attaching importance to one’s ethnic background is only one of these. This is illustrated by a Moroccan Dutch girl who said in one of our studies, “It’s really crazy. When I say that my Moroccan background is very important to me, then they immediately think that I feel Moroccan all day long.” (Verkuyten, 2014, p. 78) Whether ethnicity is salient and relevant and what it means to be an ethnic group member depends on the situation. There can be more or less fluid movement or alternation between identities depending on the social situation. For example, you feel Moroccan when you are with Moroccan people, and you feel Dutch when the national identity is at stake. Furthermore, feeling Moroccan does not have the

36  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann same cultural meanings as possessing Dutch nationality. The former can refer to ancestry, traditions, and heritage, and the latter to citizenship and equal rights. In everyday life adolescents have some leeway to choose their own contexts and to select and promote different social identities. Experience‐sampling methods make it possible to examine these issues. For example, in random sampling adolescents are prompted (by cell phones) to respond at random intervals to specific questions, and in event sampling they respond to these questions when encountering a certain experience such as ethnic discrimination. Several researchers have used these kinds of techniques among White, Hispanic, Chinese, and African American youngsters (Cross & Strauss, 1999; Leach & Smith, 2006; Yip & Fuligni, 2002). The first notable finding is that, on a daily basis, White Americans are generally much less aware of their ethnic background than ethnic minorities. As a member of the dominant majority, being a White American is more “normal” and self‐evident, while ethnic minorities are often “the other” who stands out. The second finding is that the awareness of one’s ethnic identity depends on the circumstances (see Yip & Douglass, 2013). Particular contexts make ethnic identity relevant for adolescents’ daily lives. For example, White adolescents have been found to be more aware of their ethnic identity in a numerical minority position whereas, for minority students, ethnic salience is higher among co‐ethnics (Yip, 2005). Furthermore, situational changes in ethnic identity salience are systematically associated with engagement in ethnic behaviors. Chinese American adolescents are more involved in ethnic behavior on days when they are more self‐conscious of their ethnic identity (Yip & Fuligni, 2002). A third notable finding is that not only the situational context is important but also what adolescents bring to the situation in terms of their ethnic identity developmental status or trait‐like ethnic identification. Those who consider their ethnicity as an important or central aspect of their self‐concept are more likely to think about their ethnic identity on a daily basis and in a range of situations (Yip, 2005). Additionally, these adolescents feel more positive about being a member of their ethnic group when their ethnic identity is salient (Yip, 2005; Yip & Fuligni, 2002). Furthermore, higher levels of identity salience across situations have been found for adolescents with an achieved ethnic identity compared to adolescents in the moratorium stage (Yip, 2014). And adolescents with an achieved or foreclosed ethnic identity who also have high trait‐like identity importance tend to feel more positive about their ethnic background when this background is situationally salient. Other research has shown that, for adolescents with a strong sense of ethnic belonging and involvement in their ethnic culture, daily in‐group contact is associated with more positive situational feelings about their ethnic background (Yip & Douglass, 2013). Furthermore, these adolescents tend to have fewer daily contacts with majority group members (Schaafsma, Nezlek, Krejtz, & Safron, 2012).

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  37 These findings illustrate the interplay between individual characteristics and the situational context. Whether in a particular situation adolescents think about themselves in ethnic terms, how they feel about this, and what it means not only depends on their more stable inner sense of ethnic self but also the situational context. Furthermore, there is a feedback loop: the situational salience and meaning provide input for the (further) development of a sense of ethnic self. For example, ethnic behavior can influence how you understand yourself because it elicits reactions from others. These reactions can make you unsure of what you are and where you belong or, on the contrary, can make you feel strong and confident. It becomes difficult to feel a proper member of your ethnic group if language proficiency is an important ethnic marker and you do not speak the language very well (Bélanger & Verkuyten, 2010).

Identity Enactment Ethnic, racial and religious identities are not like private beliefs that, in principle, can be sustained without expression and social recognition. Similar to other social identities they require social validation (Verkuyten, 2005). Adolescents can feel that they belong but can face identity denial whereby their claim on an ethnic or national identity is not accepted or recognized by others (Cheryan & Monin, 2005). One’s ethnic identity can be very present in one’s thoughts, but that identity must be lived up to in concrete circumstances and in relation to other people, both insiders and outsiders. Research has shown how people use particular behaviors to form and negotiate their ethnic identity in everyday interactions, and discourse analysts have shown how social identities are accomplished in the ongoing exchange of talk (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006). All this work indicates that social identities are sustainable to the extent that they are expressed and affirmed in acceptable practices. Various strategies in interaction with others can be employed to create a self‐­ verification context. For example, ethnic minority youth can choose to interact with co‐ethnics who confirm their ethnic identity and avoid outsiders who do not. Selective interaction provides the social context for identity validation. They can also lay claim to an identity by displaying identity cues—for example, dressing or acting in a certain way or using a particular speech style. The choice of clothing, behavior, accent, and posture are social prompts or interaction strategies that make others validate and accept one’s ethnic group membership (Burke & Stets, 2009). A study by Clay (2003) showed how African American youth use hip‐hop culture, particularly rap music, to form and negotiate their Black identity in everyday interactions with other African Americans. In‐group acceptance as authentically Black

38  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann depended on hip‐hop performance, that is, using the right language, clothes, posture, attitude, and bodily gestures. Another example is that of Muslim females who have been found to give different reasons for their choice to wear a headscarf in discussions with Western females than in discussions with Muslim immigrant females (Roald, 2001). Involvement in religious practices communicates one’s religious identity to cobelievers and to outsiders. These practices symbolize group boundaries and identity claims are likely to differ for interactions with these two groups. In‐group acceptance, belonging, and identity authenticity (a “real” Muslim) are critical issues in interactions with cobelievers. It might be difficult to be accepted as a true Muslim if one does not participate in Ramadan, does not wear a headscarf, or does drink alcohol and practice premarital sex. One’s claim to being a Muslim has to be negotiated in order to be recognized as “true” (Hoekstra & Verkuyten, 2015). In the words of one of Williams and Vashi’s (2007, p. 281) female respondents in an interview study of 18‐ to 25‐year‐olds: “If I don’t wear the hijab the Muslim girls will not acknowledge me.” People look to cobelievers to verify their religious identity, and they can display other religious behaviors (praying, mosque attendance) that confirm their identity. Majority group members, however, might react more negatively toward minority adolescents who express their ethnic or religious belonging. As a result, these adolescents may actually face more discrimination and exclusion (see Kaiser & Pratt‐Hyatt, 2009). Native Dutch, French, or Belgian people, for example, might discriminate against Muslims more who express and practice their religion more. Religious identification makes youth more vulnerable to social exclusion based on their religious identity (Sirin & Fine, 2008). The “doing of religion” will more often elicit negative and discriminatory reactions from the majority because this is seen as threatening the majority’s cultural identity and as rejecting cultural beliefs that legitimize the status hierarchy. New practices, norms, beliefs, and symbols can be considered as opposite to what one values leading to the fear that other cultures will override one’s own way of life. Discrimination is one way to deal with this challenge: making it more difficult for high minority identifiers to publicly perform their identity and to enter the social system.

Future Directions The research on ethnic and racial identity among minority adolescents is extensive and in this chapter we discussed minority group identity from a social‐ developmental perspective. In the literature a distinction can be made between approaches that focus on the stability or variability of ethnic identity. Stability

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  39 does not mean a lack of change but rather an inner commitment or continuing sense of ethnic belonging that gradually develops over time. In the case of variability, the focus is on situational salience of ethnic identity and the ways in which this identity is enacted in everyday life. Both approaches focus on other phenomena and other questions and both contribute significantly to our understanding of adolescents’ ethnic identity. Although they have been examined largely in parallel, they are complementary rather than contradictory. A more enduring and developed sense of ethnic self represents a readily available lens that becomes psychologically salient depending on the situation. And the situational salience of ethnicity and ethnic identity enactment influence how youngsters develop an understanding of themselves. In discussing these two approaches we have tried to show that both are useful and that it is important for future theoretical and empirical research to try to integrate them (Sellers et al., 1998; Verkuyten, 2016; Yip & Douglass, 2013). A second recommendation for future work is to systematically consider the multiple groups to which adolescents belong. Despite the reality of having multiple identities, the literature still largely focuses on only one social category (ethnic, or religious, or national) in isolation from other important identities. Yet, there can be important connections that create qualitative differences in experiences and expressions of ethnicity or race. It is often not very realistic to think of adolescents’ ethnicity in abstraction from religion, nationality, social class, or gender. For example, Turkish Muslim and Turkish Christian migrant youth can experience discrimination in qualitatively different ways. Various approaches and models have been proposed for conceptualizing multiple identities, including identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), intersectionality (Cole, 2009), and a cognitive developmental model (Amiot, de la Sablonniere, Terry, & Smith, 2007). These models indicate that there are different ways in which the relationships between multiple identities can be subjectively understood and thereby provide theoretical frameworks for empirical research. Third, research on the identity of minority adolescents tends to focus on the important role of discrimination and exclusion by majority members. The focus is on relations between groups that differ in position, status, or power. However, identification processes have important intragroup implications and the in‐group is psychologically and socially meaningful to many minority members. The in‐group presents a strong normative framework and individuals have a basic need to feel that they belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Rejection and incomplete recognition by in‐group members represents an acceptance threat which is an important factor in minority member’s group identifications (Martinovic & Verkuyten, 2012). Future research should consider this form of threat more systematically and in relation to discrimination and exclusion as forms of categorization threat.

40  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann A fourth issue is that it is commonly argued that the context is important for examining and understanding adolescents’ feelings and expressions of ethnic, religious, and national belonging. However, what is meant by context differs considerably ranging from the historical, economic, and political context (distal) to proximate contexts at school or in the neighbourhood (Umaña‐Taylor et al., 2014). Theoretically, this raises the question of how these different contexts should be conceptualized and are related. Some scholars have proposed a distinction between the broader societal context and the immediate social situation (Ashmore et  al., 2004) and others differentiate between different ecological systems (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Empirically, research has to investigate the role of different contexts in adolescents’ identity claims, feelings, and behaviors. For example, although social media and internet fora are highly important for many youngsters, there is relatively little research on how minority adolescents construct an online identity and discuss the criteria for ethnic or religious belonging (Hoekstra & Verkuyten, 2015). A related issue is that most of the work in developmental and social psychology is not concerned with the dynamics of everyday life in which identities are sites of contestation. Most of the research is rather limited in its practical usefulness because it ignores how students understand their ethnic, religious, and national identities in the actual living with diversity. Qualitative research has indicated that there are diverse ways in which ethnicity is interwoven in students’ social life and how macro‐ political and local conditions as well as school dynamics play a role in this (e.g., Faas, 2008; Rassool, 1999). This type of research can make an important contribution to a more detailed understanding of the everyday and diverse ways in which adolescents define, challenge, negotiate and manage their multiple identities. Notes 1 There is no consensus about how the terms ethnic and racial differ and whether they are distinct. Here we do not have the space to discuss this issue and we follow the ethnic and racial identity (ERI) approach (see Umaña‐Taylor et al., 2014) in the use of these terms. 2 Concepts such as “ethnic identity,” “sense of ethnic identity,” and “ethnic group identification” are not the same and important distinctions can be made (see Verkuyten, 2005, 2014). However, it is not possible to discuss these issues in the context of this chapter. 3 This section and parts of other sections are based on Verkuyten (2014). 4 Following Ashmore et al. (2004) we make a distinction between attitude‐like dimensions of identification (centrality, affect) and content in terms of networks of meanings. Other approaches consider both these dimensions and meanings as part of the content

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  41 of ethnic identity, and contrast them with the processes of exploration and search (Umaña‐Taylor et al., 2014). 5 Because of the strong research interest in Muslim immigrant and minority youth, the following section focuses on religious group identification among this group. 6 The distinction between acceptance and categorization threat seems clear but is more problematic when considering dual identity in which minority youth consider themselves to belong to the broader society and want to be accepted as such.

References Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The development of subjective group dynamics. In S. R. Levy, & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup relations and attitudes in childhood through adulthood (pp. 47–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ajrouch, K. J. (2004). Gender, race, and symbolic boundaries: Contested spaces of identity among Arab‐American adolescents. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 371–391. Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive‐developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 364–388. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin‐Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114. Atkinson, D., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1990). Counseling American minorities. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turning to God in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 742–753. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Bélanger, E., & Verkuyten, M. (2010). Hyphenated identities and acculturation: Second generation Chinese of Canada and the Netherlands. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10, 141–163. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–631. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group‐based discrimination: Individualistic versus group‐level strategies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice. The target’s perspective (pp. 243–266). San Diego: Academic Press.

42  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Casey‐Cannon, S. L., Coleman, H. L. K., Knudtson, L. F., & Velazquez, C. (2011). Three ethnic and racial identity measures: Convergent and divergent validity for diverse adolescents. Identity, 11, 64–91. Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). “Where are you really from?”: Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717–730. Clay, A. (2003). Keepin’ it real: Black youth, hip hop culture, and Black identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1346–1358. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. Cronin, T. J., Levin, S., Branscombe, N. R., Van Laar, C., & Tropp, L. R. (2012). Ethnic identification in response to perceived discrimination protects well‐being and promotes activism: A longitudinal study of Latino college students. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15(3), 493–507. Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African–American identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Cross, W. E., & Strauss, L. (1998). The everyday functions of African American identity. In J. K. Swim (Ed.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 267–279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dimitrova, R. (2014). Does identity make you happy? Collective identifications and acculturation of youth in a post‐communist Europe. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton & Company, Inc. Faas, D. (2008). Constructing identities: The ethno‐national and nationalistic identities of white and Turkish students in two English secondary schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29, 37–48. Fleischmann, F. (2011). Second‐generation Muslims in European societies: Compa­rative perspectives on education and religion (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University & University of Leuven). Retrieved from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/300696/1/ Proefschrift_FenellaFleischmann_Leuvenfinal.pdf Fleischmann, F., Phalet, K., & Klein, O. (2011). Religious identification, perceived discrimination and politicisation: Support for political Islam and political action among the Turkish and Moroccan second generation in five European cities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 628–648. Halgunseth, L.C., Jensen, A.C., Sakuma, K‐L., & McHale, S.M. (2015). The role of mothers’ and fathers’ religiosity in African American adolescents’ religious beliefs and practices. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology (early view). doi: 10.1037/cdp0000071 Hoekstra, M., & Verkuyten, M. (2015). To be a real Muslim: Online discussions on the headscarf among Moroccan‐Dutch females. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 22(9), 1236–1251.

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  43 Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic‐racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. Huntington, S. (2004). Who we are: The challenges to American national identity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jasinskaja‐Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology, 59, 105–128. Kaiser, C. R., & Pratt‐Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 432–445. Kiang, L., Harter, S., & Whitesell, N. R. (2007). Relational expression of ethnic identity in Chinese Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 277–296. Kiang L., Yip. T., & Fuligni, A. (2008). Multiple social identities and adjustment in young adults from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 643–670. Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84, 772–790. Knifsend, C. A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Social identity complexity, cross‐ethnic friendships, and intergroup attitudes in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85, 709–721. Lay, C., & Nguyen, T. (1998). Acculturated‐related and acculturation non‐specific hassles: Vietnamese‐Canadian students and psychological distress. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 30, 172–181. Leach, C. W., & Smith, H. J. (2006). By whose standard? The affective implications of ethnic minorities’ comparison to ethnic minority and majority referents. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 747–760. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., … Spears, R. (2008). Group‐level self‐definition and self‐investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in‐group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165. Levitt, P. (2008). Religion as a path to civic engagement. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, 766–791. Lewis, P. (2007). Young, British and Muslim. London: Continuum. Lopez, A. B., Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2011). A longitudinal study of religious identity and participation during adolescence. Child Development, 82, 1297–1309. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego‐identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558. Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Host national and religious identification among Turkish Muslims in Western Europe: The role of in‐group norms, perceived discrimination and value incompatibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 893–903. Meeus, W. (2011). The study of adolescent identity formation 2000–2010: A review of longitudinal research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 75–94.

44  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann Ng Tseung, C., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). Religious and national group identification in adolescence: A study among three religious groups in Mauritius. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 727–738. Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 483–506. Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociology of Religion, 66, 215–142. Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34–49. Phinney, J. S., Berry, J. W., Vedder, P., & Liebkind, K. (2006). The acculturation experience: Attitudes, identities, and behaviors of immigrant youth. In J.  W.  Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 71–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 259–270. Rassool, N. (1999). Flexible identities: Exploring race and gender issues among a group of immigrant students in an inner‐city comprehensive school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 23–36. Rivas‐Drake, D., Seaton, E. K., Markstrom, C., Quintana, S., Syed, M., Lee,  R. M., … Yip, T. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psychosocial, academic and health outcomes. Child Development, 85, 40–57. Roald A. S. (2001) Women in Islam: The western experience. London: Routledge. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. Romero, A.J., & Roberts, R.E. (2003). The impact of multiple dimensions of ethnic identity on discrimination and adolescents self‐esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2288–2305. Rumbaut, R.G. (2008). Reaping what you sow: Immigration, youth, and reactive ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 108–111. Saeed, A., Blain, N., & Forbes, D. (1999). New ethnic and national questions in Scotland: Post‐British identities among Glasgow Pakistani teenagers. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 821–844. Schaafsma, J., Nezlek, J. B., Krejtz, I., & Safron, M. (2012). Ethnocultural identification and naturally occurring interethnic social interactions: Muslim minorities in Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1010–1028. Schaafsma, J., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Exclusion, intergroup hostility, and religious fundamentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 829–837. Schmidt, G. (2004). Islamic identity formation among young Muslims: The case of Denmark, Sweden and the United States. Journal of Muslim Affairs, 24, 31–45. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well‐being: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 921–948.

Ethnic Identity among Immigrant and Minority Youth  45 Schneider, J., Fokkema, T., Matias, R., Stojčič, S., Ugrina, D., & Vera‐Larrucea, C. (2012). Urban belonging and intercultural relations. In M. Crul, J. Schneider, & F. Lelie (Eds), The European second generation compared: Does the integration context matter? (pp. 285– 340). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Seaton, E. K., Yip, T., Morgan‐Lopez, A., & Sellers, R. M. (2012). Racial discrimination and racial socialization as predictors of African American adolescents’ racial identity development using latent transition analysis. Developmental Psychology, 48, 448–458. Seaton, E. K., Yip, T., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). A longitudinal examination of racial identity and racial discrimination among African American adolescents. Child Development, 80, 406–417. Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., & Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18–39. Simon, B., & Ruhs, D. (2008). Identity and politicisation among Turkish migrants in Germany: The role of dual identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1354–1366. Sirin, S. R., & Fine, M. (2008). Muslim American youth. Understanding hyphenated identities through multiple methods. New York, NY: New York University Press. Smith, H. J., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Group membership and everyday social comparison experiences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 297–308. Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well‐being of people of color: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 58, 42–60. Stronge, S., Sengupta, N.K., Barlow, F.K., Osborne, D., Koukamau, C.A., & Sibley, C.G. (2015). Perceived discrimination predicts increased support for political rights and life satisfaction mediated by ethnic identity: A longitudinal analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology (early view). doi: 10.1037/cdp0000074. Syed, M., & Juan, M. J. D. (2012). Birds of an ethnic feather? Ethnic identity homophily among college‐age friends. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1505–1514. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.  G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self‐categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., Quintana, S. M., Lee, R. M., Cross, W. E., Rivas‐Drake, D., Schwartz, S. J., … Seaton, E. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85, 21–39. Verkuyten, M. (2005). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Hove: Psychology Press. Verkuyten, M. (2014). Identity and cultural diversity: What social psychology can teach us. London: Routledge. Verkuyten, M. (2016). Further conceptualizing ethnic and racial identity research: The social identity approach and its dynamic model. Child Development (early view). doi: 10.1111/cdev.12555

46  Maykel Verkuyten and Fenella Fleischmann Verkuyten, M., & de Wolf, A. (2002). Ethnic minority identity and group context: Self‐ descriptions, acculturation attitudes and group evaluations in an intra‐ and intergroup situation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 781–800. Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Stevens, G. (2012). Multiple identities and religious transmission: A study among Moroccan‐Dutch Muslim adolescents and their parents. Child Development, 83, 1577–1590. Vertovec, S., & Rogers, A. (Eds.). (1998). Muslim European youth. Reproducing ethnicity, religion, culture. Aldershot: Ashgate. Wandert, T., Ochsmann, R., Brug, P., Chybicka, A., Lacassagne, M.‐F., & Verkuyten, M. (2009). Black German identities: Validating the multidimensional inventory of Black identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 456–484. Wiley, S. (2013). Rejection–identification among Latino immigrants in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 375–384 Williams, R. H., & Vashi, G. (2007). Hijab and American Muslim women: Creating the space for autonomous selves. Sociology of Religion, 68, 269–287. Yip, T. (2005). Sources of situational variation in ethnic identity and psychological well‐ being: A palm pilot study of Chinese American students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1603–1616. Yip, T. (2014). Ethnic identity in everyday life: The influence of identity development status. Child Development, 85, 205–219. Yip, T., & Douglass, S. (2013). The application of experience sampling approaches to the study of ethnic identity: New developmental insights and directions. Child Developmental Perspectives, 7, 211–214. Yip, T., & Fuligni, A. J. (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity, ethnic behaviours, and psychological well‐being among American adolescents of Chinese descent. Child Development, 73, 1557–1572. Yip, T., Seaton, E. K., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African American racial identity across the lifespan: Identity status, identity content, and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 77, 1504–1517. Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as Identity: Toward an Understanding of Religion From a Social Identity Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (1), 60–71. Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2011). Coping with identity threat: The role of religious orientation and implications for emotions and action intentions. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3, 132–148. Zolberg, A. R., & Long, L.W. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Politics and Society, 27, 5–38.

3 Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip

In light of the significant demographic changes in the United States, Allport’s original formulation of the contact hypothesis may be more applicable today than when it was originally posited over half a century ago (Allport, 1954). Nonwhite youth already comprise the majority of citizens under age 18, and the United States Census projects that nonwhite groups will come to comprise the majority of the U.S. population in the next few decades (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Similar trends exist in other countries; for example, in the United Kingdom, census data indicate a rise in the number of foreign‐born residents (Office for National Statistics, 2011). One consequence of increasing ethnic/racial diversity is that intergroup contact, contact between citizens and residents of diverse backgrounds, is likely to increase. Intergroup contact encompasses interactions between members of different groups often defined by age, gender, or ethnicity/race. To date, research in the psychological literature has primarily explored the impact of this contact for reducing prejudice toward out‐groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). More recently, scholars have begun to ask how contact between in‐group

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

48  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip and out‐group members impacts the way in which youths define their own identity in the context of ethnicity and race. The current chapter considers the role of intergroup contact on ethnic/racial identity (ERI) content and development among youth. While the literature on ERI has blossomed in the past few decades, it remains a diverse and developing field. As such, “ethnic/racial identity” has been used to account for operational and conceptual diversity across ethnic/racial minority groups, ages, and measurement (Schwartz et  al., 2014; Umaña‐Taylor et  al., 2014). In order to represent this literature broadly, the current chapter will also employ “ethnic/racial identity” to acknowledge that, while ethnicity and race are conceptually distinct (Helms, 2007; Helms & Talleyrand, 1997), identity formation related to these constructs often includes a conflation of issues related to ethnicity and race (Rivas‐Drake, Seaton et  al., 2014; Umaña‐Taylor et  al., 2014). On this basis, “ethnic/racial identity” is defined as “a multidimensional, psychological construct that reflects the beliefs and attitudes that individuals have about their racial‐ethnic group memberships, as well as the processes by which these beliefs and attitudes develop over time” (Umaña‐Taylor et  al., 2014, p. 23). Although research has been conducted on ERI and intergroup contact independently, the implications of intergroup contact for youth’s ERI is a nascent topic. Although this research area is still developing, there is ample evidence to suggest that external social factors, particularly peer contact, shape how youth identify. For example, much research points to peers (in addition to parents and families) as primary socializing agents for the development of an ERI (Kiang, Witkow, Baldelomar, & Fuligni, 2010; Phinney, 1989). Adolescence is a critical period for identity development (Erikson, 1968; Phinney, 1993) and is often coupled with an increase in intergroup contact as youths move from elementary to middle and high school settings; it is an apt time to consider the two topics in tandem. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the original formulation of the contact hypothesis, along with recent revisions and reconceptualizations. Next, the contact hypothesis and its variations are applied to the study of ERI content and development. The chapter then reviews empirical research exploring the associations between intergroup contact and ERI content and development. Finally, the chapter concludes with recommendations concerning future research directions. Because the extant literature on ERI has largely been guided by Eriksonian developmental theories (Erikson, 1968; Phinney, 1993), some of the research has tended to include samples of middle school children, but the majority of research has been conducted on adolescent and young adult samples. The present chapter focuses primarily on work conducted with US samples.

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  49

Contact Hypothesis In Allport’s (1954) original conceptualization, contact between individuals from diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds resulted in reduced prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination, if certain conditions were in place. The first condition suggests that the involved groups should have equal status in the areas of prestige and rank. Next, the groups should share common goals that required the groups to work cooperatively for mutual benefit. Relatedly, the groups must engage in intergroup cooperation and work actively to achieve the common goals. Further, cooperation should be supported and facilitated by authorities, laws, or customs. Finally, personal interactions should be encouraged so members of the groups can work across group boundaries in informal and social interactions. Having the above conditions in place was theorized to improve intergroup relations via cognitive reconceptualization of the out‐group. Since its original formulation, Allport’s theory has undergone close empirical scrutiny leading to reformulations of the original theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Meta‐analytical approaches encompassing findings from nearly 700 samples suggest that, while the large majority of research (94%) supports Allport’s original theory (average effect size = −.21), the mechanism through which contact leads to prejudice reduction is not cognitive but, rather, emotional (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). That is, whereas the cognitive appraisals of out‐groups remain, it is the emotional evaluations of out‐groups that improve with contact. That said, developmental differences in the effect of contact were observed, such that children, adolescents, and young adults exhibited more benefits in prejudice reduction than adults (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Exploring these associations over time, research suggests that extended contact can improve young children’s perceptions of out‐group members longitudinally (Cameron, Rutland, & Brown, 2007; Cameron, Rutland, Turner, Holman‐Nicolas, & Powell, 2011). In fact, recent research shows that actual contact is not necessary to observe benefits. For example, Crisp and Turner (2009) found that imagined intergroup contact (i.e., imagining positive contact with an out‐group member) alone conferred positive benefits. Exploring developmental patterns, a meta‐analysis by Miles and Crisp (2014) found that the reduction of intergroup bias produced by imagined contact was stronger for young children. For example, fifth‐grade Italian students in a three‐ week imagined intergroup contact intervention showed more positive attitudes towards immigrants in comparison to a control group (Vezzali, Capozza, Giovannini, & Stathi, 2012). Moreover, while the conditions Allport identified for optimal contact do indeed seem to be related to the largest decreases in prejudice, all conditions need not be met for reduction to occur. In fact, of the conditions that were initially specified,

50  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip authority sanctions (i.e., support of intergroup interaction from authorities) and mere contact (i.e., actual interaction between in‐group and out‐group members) seemed to be the most important (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). In sum, the contributions of Allport’s contact hypothesis and more recent empirical work (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) to the advancement of understanding intergroup relations cannot be overstated.

Theories of ERI Development Importantly, in relation to the present focus on ERI content and development, extensions of the contact hypothesis allow for positing how intergroup interactions may be related to perceptions about one’s own ethnic/racial group and the development of one’s identity around that group membership. The current literature on ERI has been dominated by two popular approaches. The first stems from developmental theories focusing on how ERI is constructed over time, with adolescence as the focal developmental period (Erikson, 1968). The second has its foundations in social personality psychology and focuses on the content, significance, and meaning that individuals place on ethnicity/race in identity construction, with the majority of research conducted on young adult samples (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). On the one hand, developmental theories outline timelines by which youth develop an awareness of issues related to ethnicity/race, explore ­ethnicity/race in everyday life and, eventually, incorporate ethnicity/race to some extent into the formation of an identity. Specifically, ERI develops as a result of simultaneous processes including exploring and committing to one’s ethnic/racial group(s) (Phinney, 1992). This developmental approach borrows heavily from Eriksonian theory (1968) employing the two dimensions of exploration and commitment to form four identity statuses. While more recent modifications of developmental approaches have included exploration and affirmation (e.g., Umaña‐Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bámaca‐Gómez, 2004), both approaches share the common goal of unpacking how ERI unfolds over time. On the other hand, social personality approaches are less concerned with how ERI changes over time, and more concerned with the content and importance of ethnicity/race in relation to the individual’s overall self‐concept. Much of this latter research has stemmed from Sellers et  al.’s Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity, particularly focusing on the dimensions of centrality (i.e., importance of ethnicity to self‐concept) and public and private regard (i.e., others’ perceptions and personal perceptions of one’s ethnic/racial group respectively; Sellers et al., 1998).

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  51 Until recently, these two approaches have remained largely parallel. However, recent advances combining the two perspectives have advanced the study of ERI considerably (Syed & Azmitia, 2008; Yip, 2014). In recent years, scholars have recognized the need to combine approaches that explore how ERI changes over time, in addition to what changes over time. Such integrated approaches represent an important advance to the ERI literature creating a “third space” where the science can continue to advance. Unfortunately, this advance has not yet been combined with a focus on intergroup contact; therefore the following literature review will include studies employing either the developmental or content approaches. Regardless of the approach, ERI often refers to the extent to which ethnicity/ race is constructed into a sense of self and how this occurs. A recent meta‐analysis by Rivas‐Drake, Syed and colleagues found that having a strong sense of ERI is related to a host of developmental outcomes, including more positive academic achievement and attitudes, better self‐esteem and well‐being, and lower negative psychological and behavioral adjustment (Rivas‐Drake, Syed et  al., 2014). Indeed, ERI is an important developmental consideration for normative adolescent development (Williams, Tolan, Durkee, Francois, & Anderson, 2012). Consistent with this, research interest on the topic has grown considerably in the past three decades.

The Role of Intergroup Contact in ERI Development While the contact hypothesis has primarily focused on an individual’s perception of an out‐group; and ERI has focused more on an individual’s perception of his/her own group and the individual’s relationship to it, the two approaches inform development in important ways. Since individuals do not exist in a vacuum, a full appreciation of the social influences on ERI development must also include considerations of how out‐group members perceive an individual’s in‐group. Two theories have a special relevance here. The looking glass self theory (Cooley, 2001 [1902]) was particularly instrumental in bridging the links between the contact hypothesis and ERI theories. Specifically, the looking glass self theory posits that individuals come to internalize negative perceptions of their in‐group. Moreover, one of the primary sources of information about one’s in‐group comes from social interactions with in‐group and out‐group members. The second theory, rejection–identification model (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999) takes its inspiration from social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). SIT posits that individuals derive part of their self‐esteem, their social self‐esteem, from their membership of particular groups. Specifically, the positivity of their self‐esteem is influenced by the degree of

52  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip positive distinctiveness of the group with whom they identify, in comparison with other groups. In accordance with SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the rejection–identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999) posits that individuals who understand that the majority out‐group holds negative perceptions of the in‐group may come to develop a stronger identification with the in‐group. The increased identification serves to provide the individual with a sense of belonging in the face of social rejection (Branscombe et al., 1999). Branscombe and colleagues articulate this theory as a rejection–identification model, suggesting that, when individuals attribute negative intergroup interactions to prejudice, the target’s in‐group identification will increase. The following section reviews empirical work guided by these theoretical approaches.

Review of Empirical Work Examining the Association between Intergroup Contact and ERI Consistent with a rejection–identification approach, recent empirical work supports the notion that out‐group contact is influential for ERI content and development (Alba & Nee, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Overall, the current literature suggests that intergroup contact has implications for ERI in children and young adults but that these associations vary based on the type of contact experienced (i.e., positive, nonvalenced, or negative) and the ERI facet being measured (i.e., content: centrality, salience, private/public regard; development: exploration, affirmation, commitment, belonging). Positive dimensions of intergroup contact such as out‐group friendships have been found to be associated with aspects of ERI content such as centrality (Kiang, Peterson, & Thompson, 2011). Nonvalenced contact has been associated with ERI content and development including exploration, belonging, salience, and a composite index of ERI (Graham, Munniksma, & Juvonen, 2014; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Umaña‐Taylor, 2004; Yip, 2005; Yip, Douglass, & Shelton, 2013). Finally, negative dimensions of intergroup contact, such as discrimination, show relationships with ERI content such as private and public regard (Rivas‐Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009; Rowley, Burchinal, Roberts, & Zeisel, 2008; Seaton, Yip, & Sellers, 2009; Sellers, Copeland‐Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006) and ERI development such as exploration, affirmation, and commitment (Fuller‐Rowell, Ong, & Phinney, 2013; Torres & Ong, 2010; Umaña‐Taylor & Guimond, 2010). In a study conducted in Asia examining the association between ERI and intergroup contact, Lee and colleagues found that, among Koreans living in China,

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  53 those who reported more social interactions with Chinese reported lower levels of combined ERI exploration and achievement when discrimination was frequent (Lee, Noh, Yoo, & Doh, 2007). In a study of African, Asian and white American adolescents, Hamm (2000) found that out‐group friendships were associated with the ERI of white Americans, but not the other two groups. In particular, having an out‐group friendship was associated with higher scores on importance and positive regard for one’s ethnicity. Similarly, a study of Latino adolescents found that attending a ­predominantly non‐Latino school was associated with stronger ERI, as measured by a combined score of ERI exploration and achievement (Umaña‐ Taylor, 2004). Together, these studies suggest intergroup contact may have important implications for ERI content and development. However, the literature on the influence of intergroup contact on ERI falls into three broad groups. The first group of studies focuses on positive interactions between in‐group individuals, such as friendships (e.g., Graham et al., 2014; Kiang et  al., 2011). The second group of studies does not consider the valence of the contact, but simply explores how the extent of contact is related to ERI outcomes (Graham et al., 2014; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Umaña‐Taylor, 2004; Yip, 2005; Yip et al., 2013). The final group of studies focuses on more negative interactions, such as discrimination and prejudice, and their implications for ERI outcomes (Fuller‐ Rowell et al., 2013; Rivas‐Drake et al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006; Torres & Ong, 2010; Umana‐Taylor & Guimond, 2010).

Positive intergroup contact and ERI The current literature often operationalizes positive social contact as out‐group friendships. Research has suggested that people tend to befriend those who are most similar to them and ethnicity/race is often a salient defining characteristic (e.g., Echols & Graham, 2013). Although research on the implications of out‐ group friendships on ERI is still developing; it is already clear that the question is not whether the ethnic/racial composition of friendships are influential in ERI development but how these friendships are influential. For example, in a sample of over 1,300 Latino and African American 6th graders, Graham et al. (2014) found that friends’ ethnicity/race influenced one’s own ERI. Thus, having more in‐group friendships was associated with higher levels of ethnic/racial private regard. In contrast, neither classroom diversity nor out‐group friendships were related to ERI. However, both forms of intergroup contact were related to less perceived vulnerability. Graham et  al. (2014) suggested that out‐group friendships may act as a buffer protecting students from victimization, and hypothesized that these friendships may operate as social capital in other domains (e.g., academic).

54  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip Out‐group friendship choices may also be attributed to the availability of diverse peers within the school context. However, in areas of lower rates of immigration, fewer in‐group peers may be available and this lack of diversity may have different implications for adolescents’ ERI. Kiang et al. (2011) investigated the influence of out‐group peers on ERI content in high schools in Southeastern United States. In a sample of 180 Asian American 9th and 10th grade students, having more out‐ group friends was related to lower ethnic centrality; however, there were no significant associations with ethnic private regard. That is, adolescents were less likely to indicate that being Asian was integral to their overall identity. While research on how friendships are related to ERI development is still accumulating, existing research suggests that positive intergroup contact may be less influential for the development of attitudes and feelings about one’s own ERI. In comparison to intragroup contact (i.e., in‐group friendships), existing data suggest that intergroup contact (i.e., out‐group friendships) has less of an influence on adolescents’ ERI. Still, the limited research does not allow for any firm conclusions to be drawn. A recent intervention with college‐aged students who participated in intergroup dialogues as part of an eight‐week program showed significant increases in ethnic exploration but not ethnic commitment, suggesting that not only do facets of ERI fluctuate based on relational context but that intervention can generate changes in ERI (Aldana, Rowley, Checkoway, & Richards‐Schuster, 2012). Taken together, this suggests that out‐group friendships in adolescence may not be strongly related to ERI but that the content of out‐group friendships (i.e., conversations between out‐group friends specifically about ethnicity/race) may spark changes in ERI content and development into young adulthood. Consistent with Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) recent reformulation of the contact hypothesis, this supports the notion that emotional components are particularly influential. Certainly, positive contact via out‐group friendships seems to be a fruitful avenue for future empirical exploration.

Extent of intergroup contact and ERI Research has also considered how intergroup contact influences ERI in nonvalenced situations where neither friendship nor discrimination is explicitly discussed or measured. For example, school diversity is examined as a proxy for greater intergroup contact in that there are more opportunities for students of different ethnicities to interact. Umaña‐Taylor (2004) examined ethnic composition at the school level and found significant differences in ERI among over 1,000 15‐year‐old Mexican‐origin adolescents attending one of three schools varying in their ratio of Latino students (96%, 45%, or 15% Latino). Results indicated that the highest

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  55 values on a composite ERI score were found in the students in the school where they comprised the smallest minority (i.e., 15% Latino). However, as previously mentioned, Graham et al. (2014) found that classroom diversity did not predict ERI. Several differences might account for the divergent results. For example, Graham et  al. (2014) examined middle‐school‐aged students, measured ERI content (i.e., ethnic/racial centrality and private/public regard), and considered diversity at the classroom level; whereas Umaña‐Taylor (2004) examined high‐ school‐aged students, measured ERI development (i.e., exploration and affirmation), and considered diversity at the school level. Further, Graham et al. (2014) note that, while classrooms were selected to be ethnically diverse, the school districts from which classrooms were drawn were heavily Latino, with almost half of the middle schools being predominantly (more than 50%) Latino. Thus, it may be that ERI emerges most strongly when youth are in the extreme minority, heightening their awareness of their own race/ethnicity. Turning to more proximal assessments of associations between contact and ERI, the data suggest significant differences in youth’s ERI depending on their relational contexts. For example, using daily diary reports over two weeks, Kiang and Fuligni (2009) found that, when minority adolescents were surrounded by out‐group peers, they experienced the lowest levels of ethnic exploration and ethnic belonging. In comparison, they experienced the highest levels of ERI exploration and belonging when they were with their parents, followed by in‐ group peers. Thus, across ethnicities, the greatest differences in variation of ethnic exploration and belonging emerged between parents and out‐group peers. These findings echo research on out‐group friendships that suggests that lowest levels of ERI or no relationship with ERI is found in contexts of out‐group interaction (Graham et al., 2014; Kiang et al., 2011). However, Kiang and Fuligni’s (2009) observations that the lowest levels of ERI emerged during interaction with out‐ group peers contrast with those of higher levels of ERI among youth in minority school settings (Umaña‐Taylor, 2004). Although no research has explicitly explored reasons for differences found between interactional, classroom‐level, and school‐level diversity, it is clear that measuring interactions with those who are known (i.e., parents and peers) may have different consequences for ERI as opposed to considering differences in the objective ethnic/racial composition in the environment. Exploring even more proximal interactions, experience sampling methods where participants are prompted to respond to brief questionnaires at random intervals can capture the impact of contact in situ. More importantly, experience sampling methods allow for studying the impact of proximal interactions while at the same time considering how more distal contexts may also be influential. Data employing such methods are consistent with research underscoring the importance of in‐group

56  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip others for ERI content, particularly for individuals who are in the numerical minority in the larger setting. For example, Yip (2005) examined fluctuations in ERI among 62 Chinese American young adults six times a day for one week. Specifically, the study considered people (i.e., percentage of in‐group people in immediate environment and presence of a family member) and language (i.e., predominant language in current setting) as setting features that related to ethnic salience in the specific situation. As expected, the higher the proportion of in‐group people in the setting and the presence of spoken Chinese were related to higher ethnic salience. Further, when individuals reported being with family members, those with higher levels of ethnic centrality reported an even stronger association between family and ethnic salience. A recent study bridging work on school context and proximal social interactions also underscores the importance of considering the larger context in which contact occurs. In a week‐long daily diary study, Yip et  al. (2013) explored feelings of private regard among Asian/Asian American adolescents attending a predominantly Asian school, a predominantly White school, and two racially heterogeneous schools. Consistent with existing literature, daily contact with other Asian youth was associated with higher private regard (i.e., more positive feelings about being Asian) but only for adolescents attending the predominantly White and racially heterogeneous schools. In other words, when adolescents were in the numerical minority in their schools, contact with in‐group peers was associated with private regard dimensions of ERI content. Taken together, data from several independent studies reveal convergent evidence that even without considering the valence, contact influences adolescents” experiences of ERI. Focusing on distal school‐level contexts suggests that ERI was highest when students were in the numerical minority in high school (Umana‐Taylor, 2004), although classroom diversity was not related to ERI in 6th‐graders (Graham et al., 2014). Focusing on more proximal contexts suggests that in‐group members were especially important for various dimensions of ERI (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Yip, 2005). These discrepancies are reconciled when one considers proximal interactions embedded in larger school contexts. Specifically, in‐group contact in schools where adolescents” ethnic/racial group is in the numerical minority is especially influential for ERI content (Yip et al., 2013); this finding is consistent with theories of structural versus interactional diversity (Mendoza‐Denton & Page‐Gould, 2008). While structural diversity includes diversity measured on a distal level (e.g., ethnic composition), interactional diversity indicates diversity measured on a proximal or relational level (e.g., friendship). In other words, despite representing a numerical minority on campus, ethnic/racial minorities are often able to create proximal interactions with in‐group peers.

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  57

Negative intergroup contact and ERI The reality is that not all intergroup contact is positive or even valence neutral. In fact, there is a large and growing literature exploring the role of ethnic/racial discrimination on ERI development (Fuller‐Rowell et al., 2013; Rivas‐Drake et al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006; Torres & Ong, 2010; Umana‐Taylor & Guimond, 2010). Specifically, consistent with the rejection–identification perspective (Branscombe et al., 1999), discrimination can be considered “a form of social interaction that may then lead to the exploration of and commitment to one’s identity” (Yip, Seaton, & Sellers, 2010, p. 1432). Research exploring this possibility has largely revealed support for this theory. For example, in one of the only studies on intergroup content and ERI content in childhood, Rowley et  al. (2008) assessed African American students during 3rd grade and again in the 5th grade. The study measured expectations for discrimination using a series of vignettes including an African American child and a European American child (Racial Stories Task; Johnson, 1996). The hypothetical scenarios contained potential opportunities for discrimination, and students were asked to determine the outcome of these situations as well as the reason for the predicted outcome. Consistent with the rejection–identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999), there was a strong association between expectations of discrimination and higher ethnic centrality and lower public regard in students at both ages. Sellers et  al. (2006) also found significant associations among ethnic/racial discrimination, public regard, and psychological functioning as measured by perceived stress, depressive symptomatology, and psychological well‐being. As was found in the Seaton et al. (2009) study, greater discrimination was associated with lower public regard in a sample of 314 African American early adolescents. The impact of discrimination on measures of psychological functioning was buffered by low public regard; adjusting their views of the out‐group’s perception of their group therefore had a protective effect for adolescents. In yet another sample, Rivas‐Drake et  al. (2009) found that discrimination experiences were related to lowered public regard in over 300 6th grade students (32% White/Caucasian/European descent, 28% Chinese American, 19% Black/African American/African descent, 12% Puerto Rican, 9% Dominican). It should be noted that these findings were primarily correlational. Longitudinal methods have been employed to tease apart cause and effect associations between discrimination and ERI content. The following studies focus on the significance and meaning dimensions of ERI. Among 219 African American early adolescents, associations between racial discrimination, racial centrality, private regard, and public regard were explored over three years using structural equation modeling (Seaton et al., 2009). While there were no associations observed between discrimination and racial centrality, discrimination frequency was related to public regard, whereas

58  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip discrimination experiences at Time 2 were related to private regard at Time 3 but only for older adolescents (17–18 years old). These findings suggest that experiences of ethnic/racial discrimination influence how youths code out‐group perceptions of their own ethnic/racial group, and that over time, ethnic/racial discrimination influences youths’ perception of their own ethnic/racial group. Similar research has been conducted employing a developmental approach to ERI. For example, Umaña‐Taylor and Guimond (2010) explored the role of perceived discrimination in over 300 15‐year‐old Latino adolescents as part of a four‐ year longitudinal study. Whereas perceived discrimination predicted ERI exploration and affirmation, this relationship was only significant for male adolescents. Specifically, perceived discrimination was negatively related to affirmation, such that those who experienced greater discrimination were less likely to embrace ethnicity/race as part of their identity. Fuller‐Rowell et al. (2013) investigated the effects of perceived discrimination on ethnic identity in 97 Latino college students over the course of eight semesters. They found that ERI commitment was associated with perceived discrimination but that relationships differed based on ­students’ national identity. For those with low national identity, greater ­perceived discrimination predicted greater ERI commitment, supporting Branscombe et  al.’s (1999) rejection–identification model. However, for those with high national identity, discrimination predicted fewer increases in ERI commitment. Using daily diary methods, Torres and Ong (2010) examined the effect of discrimination on next‐day depression moderated by ERI development dimensions of exploration and commitment. Among 91 Latino adults, they found a significant relationship between a discriminatory event and next‐day depression. While ERI exploration worsened the effect of discrimination on depression, ERI commitment had the opposite, protective effect. Similar studies in youth would contribute greatly to the literature, particularly as youth explore and develop their ethnic identities (Phinney, 1993). Taken together, several studies have reported a negative association between ethnic/racial discrimination and public regard (Rivas‐Drake et al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006). It is remarkable that even in children as young as third‐grade, expectations of discrimination were found to be related to lower public regard (Rowley et al., 2008). Some research suggests that private regard may also be implicated, although age differences were found (Seaton et  al., 2009). Discrimination experiences were also related to greater ERI development such as ethnic exploration and affirmation (Umaña‐Taylor & Guimond, 2010), although again there were gender differences. Finally, perceived discrimination has been related to ERI development dimensions of exploration and commitment (Fuller‐Rowell, 2013; Torres & Ong, 2010).

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  59 The literature linking discrimination to higher ethnic centrality is more equivocal and additional research exploring the directionality of this link is needed (Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006). Future research on the developmental processes by which ERI unfolds in relation to negative intergroup contact is necessary to understand how these dimensions shift in response to youths’ experiences. It is also worth noting that, with the exception of some studies (Fuller‐Rowell, 2013; Torres & Ong, 2010; Umaña‐Taylor & Guimond, 2010), research on discrimination experiences in relation to ERI has focused primarily on ERI content (Rivas‐Drake et al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006) and involved African American youth (Rowley et  al., 2008; Seaton et  al., 2009; Sellers et  al., 2006). It appears that while minority youth do incorporate their negative intergroup experiences into their understanding of how their ethnic/racial group is viewed, for the most part they are able to distance this perception from their own perception of their ethnic/racial group.

Summary of Literature Discussed to Date Based on the extant research findings, intergroup contact appears to be ­differentially related to the various aspects of ERI content and development. The research on positive dimensions of intergroup contact, specifically in the form of out‐group friendship, has been somewhat inconsistent, although some patterns have begun to emerge. Overall, out‐group friendships have been found to share little to no relationship with ERI content and development (Graham et al., 2014; Kiang et  al., 2011), and in the study that found some association, out‐group friendship was related to lower ethnic centrality than in other groups (Kiang et al., 2011). In studies of nonvalenced intergroup contact, contact with out‐group peers has been found to be associated with lower ethnic exploration and belonging than contact with parents or in‐group peers (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). Ethnic salience was also more pronounced when adolescents were with family or in‐group peers rather than out‐group peers, especially for young adults reporting that ethnicity was central to their overall identity (Yip, 2005). When adolescents were in the numerical minority in their schools, contact with in‐group peers was associated with private regard dimensions of ERI content (Yip et al., 2013). On a distal level, Umana‐Taylor (2004) found that students in the minority context had higher levels of ERI whereas Graham et al. (2014) did not observe a direct association between classroom level diversity and ERI. This underscores the importance of examining the more distal contexts in which contact occurs.

60  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip Finally, examples of negative contact, including discrimination experiences, have consistently shown relationships with lower public regard (Rivas‐Drake et  al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006) and suggest that adolescents integrate others” actions into their ­perceptions of society’s regard for their ethnic/racial group. With regard to the relationship between discrimination and private regard, some research suggests that they were associated, but only for older adolescents (Seaton et al., 2009) while other research has failed to observe a relationship (Sellers et  al., 2006). However, discrimination experiences do not appear to influence levels of ethnic/racial centrality (Seaton et  al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006). In sum, while the literature on negative intergroup contact and ERI development consistently finds that discrimination experiences are related to lower public regard (Rivas‐Drake et al., 2009; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2013), the association between other dimensions of intergroup contact and ERI facets are more difficult to establish and further research is needed to understand how these are associated. Even so, these findings have some implications for theoretical frameworks. While the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) has been supported empirically in that intergroup contact appears to reduce prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), the role of positively valenced intergroup contact for ERI cannot yet be established. However, interactions with in‐group members both in positive and neutral dimensions appear to have implications for ERI (Graham et al., 2014; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Yip, 2005; Yip et al., 2013), supporting SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Finally, the looking glass self theory (Cooley, 2001 [1902]) is supported by findings that out‐group perceptions in the form of discrimination are associated with lower public regard (Rivas‐Drake et  al., 2009; Seaton et  al., 2009; Sellers et  al., 2013). Therefore, discrimination leads to an awareness of how others view one’s in‐group. However, discrimination does not necessarily affect one’s personal perceptions of the in‐group (i.e., private regard; Sellers et al., 2006) or the importance of one’s ethnicity/race (i.e., centrality; Seaton et al., 2009; Sellers et al., 2006). Indeed, the expectation of discrimination may even serve to increase ethnic centrality (Rowley et al., 2008), supporting Branscombe and colleagues’ rejection–identification model (1999) in that rejection heightens group identification.

Future Directions We contend that greater emphasis needs to be placed on both the conceptual and methodological approaches linking intergroup contact and ERI content and development. In terms of the former, the origins of theory and inquiry into intergroup contact and ERI, including Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954) and Branscombe’s

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  61 rejection–identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999), have focused mostly on negative intergroup interactions. Only more recently has research considered how positive or neutral intergroup contact (i.e., in‐group friendships, school diversity, and relational contexts) might relate to ERI development (Graham et al., 2014; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009; Kiang et al., 2011; Umaña‐Taylor, 2004; Yip, 2005; Yip et al., 2013). Future research in this area would benefit from more integrated perspectives exploring negative, neutral, and positive intergroup contact in a unified model. While the present literature has explored each of these areas independently, a more parsimonious model considering how different types of intergroup contact may interact or work synergistically would contribute to this line of research. Related to this point, more recent research on school contexts and peer interactions has taken a more systematic approach to addressing the multilevel contexts in which youths live and develop. For example, how does dyadic, classroom‐level, or school‐level intergroup contact influence ERI development over time? Moving forward, an integrated model of the association between contact and ERI should give equal weight to issues of valence and levels of analysis. In terms of methodological considerations, future research would also benefit from teasing apart voluntary contact versus involuntary contact to explore issues of agency in youth development. For example, research on friendship nominations considers voluntary contact and the meaning and significance of this contact for ERI development (e.g., Graham et al., 2014) and youth outcomes may differ considerably from involuntary contact such as that provided by classroom, school, or neighborhood composition. In addition, the field would also benefit from further exploration of measurements of intergroup contact. For example, Budescu and Budescu (2012) have emphasized that the majority–minority approach to investigating the influences of diversity does not adequately capture the ethnic composition of other groups. Instead, they recommend utilizing generalized variance and entropy statistics (i.e., diversity indices) to better understand the nuances of diversity. Researchers have used a variety of methodologies to understand ERI within the context of group processes, including survey measures (e.g., Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity; Sellers et al., 1998). However, given that research has observed inter‐individual variations in ERI (e.g., Yip, 2005), future research should explore the daily impact of intergroup contact on ERI content and development (see Yip & Douglass, 2013 for a review). Finally, most research on ERI has involved adolescents and young adults since identity development has been theorized to take place during this period (Cross & Fhagen‐Smith, 2001; Erikson, 1968; Phinney, 1992; Quintana, 2007). Some research has been conducted on children to explore intergroup attitudes and social exclusion norms (Ruck, Park, Killen, & Crystal, 2011). However, to our knowledge, only one study has explicitly examined intergroup contact in relation to ERI content (Rowley et al., 2008). Additional longitudinal studies may illuminate how

62  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip dynamic processes (e.g., school diversity, friendship preferences, and ethnic/racial socialization practices in families) influence ERI content and development in children and how these processes continue into adolescence and adulthood. Further, with the exception of a few studies (Fuller‐Rowell et al., 2013; Rowley et al., 2008; Seaton et al., 2009; Torres & Ong, 2010), most studies have relied on cross‐sectional analyses to determine associations between intergroup contact and ERI. Longitudinal studies would further aid in addressing the directionality of this link.

Conclusions As the United States moves to an increasingly diverse and multicultural society, understanding how intergroup contact influences youth’s construction of a sense of identification with relevant racial and ethnic groups becomes increasingly important. The current chapter focused on how intergroup contact relates to ERI content and development. While some implications of intragroup contact (i.e., in‐group) were discussed, future research would also benefit from a more systematic study of how intragroup contact also has implications for ERI. Given that the increasing diversity of the United States and other countries also includes increasing within‐ group differences, focusing on intragroup contact and interactions will provide a more nuanced investigation of how variability in immigration status, nativity status, language preferences and abilities, gender, socioeconomic status, and the interaction of these demographic characteristics may differentially influence ERI content and construction from interactions with in‐group members. This emerging line of work has the potential to yield fruitful results with regard to increasing our understanding of the impact of in‐group and out‐group contact for ERI content and development in children, adolescents, and young adults. While research in this area is in its infancy, this approach offers a glimpse of the importance of ERI for youth and how social interactions with other individuals can foster its development. The review highlights the importance of social contact for how youth think about themselves in terms of ethnicity and race. ERI content and development does not occur in a vacuum, rather it is the everyday exposure and conversation between diverse individuals that helps to foster how youths come to construct a sense of self in the context of ethnicity and race. References Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Rethinking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Aldana, A., Rowley, S. J., Checkoway, B., & Richards‐Schuster, K. (2012). Raising ethnic‐ racial consciousness: The relationship between intergroup dialogues and adolescents’

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  63 ethnic‐racial identity and racism awareness. Equity & Excellence In Education, 45(1), 120–137. doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.641863 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Basic books. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identifica­tion and well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135–149. Budescu, D. V., & Budescu, M. (2012). How to measure diversity when you must. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 215–227. doi: 10.1037/a0027129 Cameron, L., Rutland, A., & Brown, R. (2007). Promoting children’s positive intergroup attitudes towards stigmatized groups: Extended contact and multiple classification skills training. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 454–466. doi:10.1177/0165025407081474 Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Turner, R., Holman‐Nicolas, R., & Powell, C. (2011). “Changing attitudes with a little imagination”: Imagined contact effects on young children’s intergroup bias. Anales De Psicología, 27(3), 708–717. Cooley, C. H. (2001 [1902]). The looking‐glass self. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality: Essays and reading on social interaction (pp. 126–128). London: Sage. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231–240. doi:10.1037/a0014718 Cross, W. E., Jr., & Fhagen‐Smith, P. (2001). Patterns of African American identity development: A life span perspective. In B. Jackson & C. Wijeyesinghe (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 243–270). New York, NY: New York University Press Echols, L., & Graham, S. (2013). Birds of a different feather: How do cross‐ethnic friends flock together? Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 59(4), 461–488. doi:10.1353/mpq.2013.0020 Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Fuller‐Rowell, T. E., Ong, A. D., & Phinney, J. S. (2013). National identity and perceived discrimination predict changes in ethnic identity commitment: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Latino college students. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(3), 406–426. doi:10.1111/j.1464‐0597.2012.00486.x Graham, S., Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Psychosocial benefits of cross‐ethnic friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 469–483. doi: 10.1111/ cdev.12159 Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian American, and European American adolescents’ s­election of similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 209–219. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.36.2.209 Helms, J. E. (2007). Some better practices for measuring racial and ethnic identity constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 235–246. doi:10.1037/0022‐ 0167.54.3.235 Helms, J. E., & Talleyrand, R. M. (1997). Race is not ethnicity. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1246–1247. doi:10.1037/0003‐066X.52.11.1246

64  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identity in context: Variations in ethnic exploration and belonging within parent, same‐ethnic peer, and different‐ethnic peer relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(5), 732–743. doi: 10.1007/s10964‐008‐9278‐7 Kiang, L., Peterson, J., & Thompson, T. L. (2011). Ethnic peer preferences among Asian American adolescents in emerging immigrant communities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐7795.2011.00750.x Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., Baldelomar, O. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Change in ethnic identity across the high school years among adolescents with Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(6), 683–693. doi:10.1007/ s10964‐009‐9429‐5 Lee, R. M., Noh, C.‐Y., Yoo, H. C., & Doh, H.‐S. (2007). The psychology of diaspora experiences: Intergroup contact, perceived discrimination, and the ethnic identity of Koreans in China. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 115–124. doi: 10.1037/1099‐9809.13.2.115 Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta‐analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3–26. doi:10.1177/1368430213510573 Office for National Statistics. (2011). 2011 census shows non‐UK born population of England and Wales continues to rise. Retrieved from ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ census/2011‐census/key‐statistics‐for‐local‐authorities‐in‐england‐and‐wales/sty‐non‐ uk‐born‐population.html Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta‐analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34–49. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three‐stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61–79). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 259–270. doi: 10.1037/0022‐0167.54.3.259 Rivas‐Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2009). A preliminary analysis of associations among ethnic‐racial socialization, ethnic discrimination, and ethnic i­ dentity among sixth graders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 27. doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐7795. 2009.00607.x Rivas‐Drake, D., Seaton, E. K., Markstrom, C., Quintana, S., Syed, M., Lee, R. M., … Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psychosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development, 85(1), 40–57. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12200 Rivas‐Drake, D., Syed, M., Umana‐Taylor, A., Markstrom, C., French, S., Schwartz, S. J., … Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Feeling good, happy, and proud: A meta‐analysis of positive ethnic‐racial affect and adjustment. Child Development, 85(1), 77–102. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12175

Intergroup Contact and Ethnic/Racial Identity Development  65 Rowley, S. J., Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., & Zeisel, S. A. (2008). Racial ­identity, social context, and race‐related social cognition in African Americans during middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1537–1546. doi: 10.1037/a0013349 Ruck, M. D., Park, H., Killen, M., & Crystal, D. S. (2011). Intergroup contact and evaluations of race‐based exclusion in urban minority children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 633–643. doi: 10.1007/s10964‐010‐9600‐z Schwartz, S. J., Syed, M., Yip, T., Knight, G. P., Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., Rivas‐Drake, D., … Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Methodological issues in ethnic and racial identity research with ethnic minority populations: Theoretical precision, measurement issues, and research designs. Child Development, 85(1), 58–76. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12201 Seaton, E. K., Yip, T., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). A longitudinal examination of racial identity and racial discrimination among African American adolescents. Child Development, 80(2), 406–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2009.01268.x Sellers, R. M., Copeland‐Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. (2006). Racial ­identity matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psy­chological functioning in African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(2), 187–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐7795.2006.00128.x Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., & Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2008). A narrative approach to ethnic identity in emerging adulthood: Bringing life to the identity status model. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1012–1027. doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.44.4.1012 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks‐Cole. Torres, L., & Ong, A. D. (2010). A daily diary investigation of Latino ethnic ­identity, discrimination, and depression. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 561–568. doi:10.1037/a0020652 Umaña‐Taylor, A. J. (2004). Ethnic identity and self‐esteem: Examining the role of social context. Journal of Adolescence, 27(2), 139–146. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.006 Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., & Guimond, A. B. (2010). A longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity. Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 636–650. doi: 10.1037/a0019376 Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., Quintana, S. M., Lee, R. M., Cross, W. E., Rivas‐Drake, D., Schwartz, S. J., … Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1), 21–39. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12196 Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca‐Gómez, M. (2004). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4(1), 9–38. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0401_2 U.S. Census Bureau (2012, December 12). U.S. census bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12‐243.html

66  Sheena Mirpuri and Tiffany Yip Vezzali, L., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Stathi, S. (2012). Improving implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with elementary school children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(2), 203–212. doi:10.1177/1368430211424920 Williams, J. L., Tolan, P. H., Durkee, M. I., Francois, A. G., & Anderson, R. E. (2012). Integrating racial and ethnic identity research into developmental understanding of adolescents. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 304–311. Yip, T. (2005). Sources of Situational variation in ethnic identity and psychological well‐ being: A palm pilot study of Chinese American students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12), 1603–1616. doi:10.1177/0146167205277094 Yip, T. (2014). Ethnic identity in everyday life: The influence of identity development status. Child Development, 85(1), 205–219. doi:10.1111/cdev.12107 Yip, T., & Douglass, S. (2013). The application of experience sampling approaches to the study of ethnic identity: New developmental insights and directions. Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 211–214. doi:10.1111/cdep.12040 Yip, T., Douglass, S., & Shelton, J. (2013). Daily intragroup contact in diverse settings: Implications for Asian adolescents” ethnic identity. Child Development, 84(4), 1425–1441. doi:10.1111/cdev.12038 Yip, T., Seaton, E. K., & Sellers, R. M. (2010). Interracial and intraracial contact, school‐ level diversity, and change in racial identity status among African American adolescents. Child Development, 81(5), 1431–1444. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01483.x

4 Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland

Children and Social Groups: Methods and Measurement Researchers have long accepted that peer interaction plays an important role in children’s social, emotional, personality, and cognitive development (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Mead, 1934; Piaget, 1932; Sullivan, 1953). However, as Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker (2006) pointed out, researchers have actually paid little attention to the assessment of peer group phenomena, including the intra‐ and intergroup processes integral to children’s experiences of groups, as well as issues relating to the structure and organization of groups. According to Cairns, Xie, and Leung (1998), such neglect stemmed from the complexity of the conceptual and methodological issues involved in studying these sorts of issues. The present chapter focuses on the second of these issues: the methods and measures that researchers have employed in attempting to shed light on children’s involvement in, and experience of, social groups, particularly in more recent years when peer group processes have finally become an issue of considerable interest.

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

68  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Several points of clarification and qualification need to be made about this chapter, as well as some initial observations. First, the term, “group,” is used inclusively in this discussion. Whereas the term is typically used to refer to collections of three or more interacting children who share something in common (e.g., attributes, interests, behaviors, tasks, etc.), children are actually assigned by nature to some groups or categories, some of which have been accorded a degree of social significance (e.g., gender, ethnicity). They are also assigned by adult authority to some groups (e.g., classrooms, religion), or may elect to join other groups (e.g., groups of playmates, special interest groups). However, regardless of how a child might have “joined” or become a member of a group, the critical criteria of group membership are that the child considers him/ herself to be a member of a particular group and that s/he identifies with, or commits to, a particular group, such that the group’s attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors are adopted as the child’s own (see also Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,1987).This is typically indexed by children’s greater liking for their in‐ group compared with other groups (see also Bradford Brown & Dietz, 2011; Kinderman & Gest, 2011). Thus, whereas a group of playmates/friends would generally meet these criteria, membership of a school class or an ethnic minority might meet these requirements for some children, but not others. Moreover, a child who is perceived to share the same skin color as other children in a particular ethnic group might, or might not, see him/herself as a member of, and identify with, that particular group. Second, there has been considerable diversity in the particular focus or emphasis taken by different researchers in addressing the issue of children’s groups. For example, some researchers have explicitly set out to examine some of the central aspects of children’s groups (e.g., gaining membership, formation of group norms and their effects, group position, intra‐group behavior). In contrast, other researchers have focused on particular behaviors of children, and the development of such behaviors (e.g., play behavior) as children increase in age. In such cases, their focus on groups has arisen because the particular behavior of interest at some time during development becomes centered on groups. Such is the case with play behavior (Parten, 1932), for example. As children increase in age, play eventually becomes a group‐centered activity, after passing through several earlier phases which do not involve groups of children. In addition, still other researchers have emphasized intergroup relationships, looking at the effect of phenomena such as intergroup competition and threat, and in‐group norms of rejection and exclusion, on children’s intra‐group and intergroup attitudes, cognitions, and behavior. Further, whereas some research has assessed the views of members of actual or simulated groups, other research has focused on the responses of children acting as observers of particular groups. Needless to say, these different approaches and

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  69 perspectives have contributed greatly to the richness of the findings that have been revealed and our emerging understanding of the nature and importance of children’s involvement in social groups. Third, the constructs that researchers frequently seek to measure concerning children’s groups and group membership, as well as the intra‐group dynamics of a membership group, and the dynamics of their relationships with other groups, are also quite diverse. They include: group identification, group position (e.g., central/ prototypical, peripheral), group attitudes and preferences, social cognitions (e.g., stereotypes, decisions, judgments), and intra‐ and intergroup behaviors (e.g., inclusion, exclusion, helping, hindering, hurting). As several writers have noted, there are significant difficulties involved in devising ecologically valid measures of such constructs (e.g., Cairns et al., 1998; Nesdale, 2001). Not only are many such constructs neither directly observable nor immediately accessible, but very young children, in particular, also lack the cognitive and linguistic abilities necessary to respond to measures (e.g., questionnaires and scales) which might be used effectively with adults (Milner, 1996). Clearly, measures are needed in which the constructs are represented in a concrete, recognizable way to children, the task is comprehensible, and the response(s) required reflect children’s level of intensity on the particular construct. This has not always been the case. Fourth, researchers also have to deal with the reality that children’s interest in, and involvement with, other children, in dyads and groups, becomes ever more focal and develops in quality and sophistication as their social acumen or group nous (i.e., social knowledge, perception, and competence regarding groups and how they work) expands with increasing age (Abrams, Powell, Palmer, & Van de Vyer, Chapter 6, this volume; Nesdale, 2013). Indeed, as they pass through middle childhood, their time is spent increasingly within their social groups (Rubin et al., 2006). Moreover, researchers also need to account for the reality that friendship and interaction groups can have a short life span and, in addition, that it is difficult to disentangle changes in group dynamics due to member turnover from those changes that are due to member convergence (Kinderman & Gest, 2011). As we will see, researchers have responded creatively to these challenges with a range of research paradigms and measures designed to assess individual children’s responses towards their own and other (out‐)groups. For example, researchers have sought to measure children’s responses to particular stimuli (e.g., colored dolls) thought to evoke the same responses as the ethnic groups they were assumed to represent (e.g., Clark & Clark, 1947), to observe children’s behavior in contrived groups in more or less naturalistic environments, such as playgrounds, and summer camps (e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997), to assess their behavior in simulated, short‐lived groups, in which prior knowledge about the backgrounds, status, and goals of group members is manipulated (e.g., Nesdale, 2007), as well as

70  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland in studies on minimal groups which contain no information concerning competition, status, or interaction with in‐groups or out‐groups (e.g., Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011). In addition, researchers have used cyber‐based studies involving interactions between child participants and computer‐generated and ‐presented stimulus characters and groups (e.g., Dunham, Chen, & Banaji, 2013), as well as studies focusing on real groups identified via peer nominations (e.g., Cairns et al., 1998; Duffy & Nesdale, 2009). This chapter will briefly overview the breadth of the research methods employed in research on children’s groups. The focus of the chapter will be on describing and illustrating the most influential or highly utilized of the methods or paradigms that researchers have employed, identifying the particular understandings for which each is responsible, together with an evaluation of the strengths and limitations of each approach. The chapter commences with an outline of several of the earliest approaches, including observational research on children’s play in groups, together with work on children’s racial group preferences. This is followed by a description of several of the important field experiments that yielded some of the initial findings on the intra‐ and intergroup processes implicated in children’s memberships of social groups, together with more recent attempts to shed light on these questions using group simulation techniques, as well as studies in which groups were identified by peer nominations. It should be noted that while the discussion moves from the earliest to the latest approaches, virtually all of them, in one form or another, are still in use today.

Early Research on Children’s Groups Observational studies carried out in field settings Researchers have employed observation as a method for studying children in groups since the 1920s. Some of this work focused on individual children or siblings and was carried out by scientifically‐minded parents or other interested adults (see Parten, 1932). However, much of it focused on young children in natural (rather than artificial or experimental) settings, including playgrounds, nursery schools, and preschools, as well as older children in and out of school, and was concerned with the spontaneous groupings of children. Interest here centered on, for example, the age and sex of the group participants, the nature and longevity of the groupings, their preferred behaviors, the children’s social attitudes, their relationships with other children within the group, as well as outside the group, and also with adults

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  71 (Durkin, 1995). Importantly, in terms of the present discussion, the observations carried out even in these early studies used increasingly systematic methods of data collection in order to obtain reliable data. For example, researchers used time‐ (e.g., Parten, 1932), behavior‐ (e.g., Bridges, 1927), and situation‐sampling (e.g., Thomas, 1929), and calculated inter‐observer consistencies, as well as consistencies in teacher and observer ratings (Parten, 1932). Emblematic of this research effort was Parten’s (1932, 1933) work which focused on the nature of children’s play. Her classic study (Parten, 1932) involved 42 nursery school children ranging in age from 2 to 5 years, the sample having an approximately equal number of boys and girls. The participants had IQs ranging from 81 to 145 with a mean score above average, their fathers had occupations that spanned the socio‐economic status (SES) range, and they came from families with 1 to 5 children. The observations occurred at the same hour (9.30 to 10.30 during the free‐play period) every day. During this time, the sandboxes and practically all toys were available to the children and they were free to choose what they played with, and with whom. Up to 4 or 5 observers sat near the door, not talking to each other or the children. Following pilot research, a scale of social participation that captured the children’s range of activities was developed by the researchers, each activity or category being rigidly defined. These categories included unoccupied behavior, solitary behavior, onlooker behavior, parallel play (the child plays alongside but not with other children), associative play (the child plays and shares with others), and cooperative play (the child plays as part of a group and roles or tasks are shared in complementary ways). To measure the frequency of involvement in each group behavior category, each child was observed for 1 minute daily, according to a random order, and an equal number of times during the first 5 minutes of the hour, the second 5 minutes, and so on. Each time, the observers recorded—for each child—the activity category, number of children in the group, leadership behavior, whether the child was talkative or quiet, and the duration of the activity. As noted above, the reliability and consistency of the observations was assessed by comparing the ratings of several assistants, and the ratings of the teachers with the researchers, as well as by comparing findings from odd and even days. The resulting findings gave rise to a framework that influenced much of the subsequent work in the field of children’s play. Specifically, children were considered to manifest six categories of behavior in their play environments, the categories were thought to vary along a dimension of social participation, and were considered to unfold as stages as children became more socially mature. Further, the frequency of relatively uninvolved behaviors toward peers was considered to decline, whereas the incidence of social activity (particularly associative and cooperative play) was considered to increase.

72  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Beyond this, however, Parten’s research was judged to display many of the admirable features of observational or field research, including the focus on overt behavior in natural settings, the utilization of trained assistants as observers, the selection of participants according to a specified sampling frame, the specification and definition by agreement of particular behaviors of interest, and the estimation of the incidence of various categories of behavior based on sampling techniques (e.g., time, behavior, situation). That said, however, the research has subsequently been viewed as limited in several significant ways. For example, although observational studies have yielded important information, it is near impossible to identify the factors that are causally responsible for particular effects, because many factors are in play in such a natural situation, and hence there is a restriction on the light that can be shed on inter‐ individual, intra‐group, and intergroup processes and dynamics. Moreover, observations are typically based on inferences drawn by the observers concerning the nature or basis of the observed response. In addition, the observations are typically unleavened by the contributions, elaborations, or explanations that can be offered by the participants themselves, their peers, their parents, as well as their teachers. In addition, the observations that can be made are subject to the direction or dynamic of the social interaction; that is, the researcher has little opportunity (even, desire) to manipulate the conditions, relationships or circumstances that obtain in the social situation so as to examine the factors that might be causally significant in such a situation. That said, observers might yet influence what is observed as a result of their very presence in the situation (Neuman, 2000). As it happened, although Parten’s taxonomy dominated the field for almost 50 years, more recent research has clarified and elaborated children’s play behavior (Durkin, 1995, Rubin et al., 2006). Several findings are of particular relevance to the present discussion. For example, subsequent research revealed that children at all ages engage in the different categories of play behavior, including group activities (Howes & Matheson, 1992). In addition, whereas children at all ages display parallel play, and it appears to remain constant from 3 to 5 years (Barnes, 1971; Rubin, Watson, & Jambor, 1978), parallel play may be used strategically to gain entry into a group activity (Bakeman & Brownlee, 1980). Research has also found that the most complex form of group interaction, socio‐ dramatic play, increases significantly during the preschool years. The importance of this activity is that it provides opportunities for developing communication and social perspective‐taking skills, as well as opportunities to negotiate roles, rules, and play themes (Rubin et al., 2006), all of which are essential tools for effective group participation. Finally, even at this early age, research indicated that children’s playgroups have a degree of social structure. Although the research has been limited in extent, dominance hierarchies (i.e., stable rankings of relative power or assertiveness

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  73 within groups) have frequently been reported in preschool peer groups (Vaughn & Waters, 1981). In sum, it is clear that, prior to school age, children have an interest in, and increasing exposure to, social groups. As a result of this exposure, they acquire an ever‐increasing array of skills and knowledge about how to interact with others in a group context. However, examining this diverse range of skills, knowledge, and competencies, and their application in particular situations, requires methods and measures that extend beyond those available in purely observational studies.

Ethnic/racial group studies At about the same time as Parten and colleagues were immersed in the issue of determining the basis and nature of children’s play in groups, another group of researchers began examining young children’s relationships with particular ethnic or racial groups in their communities. Specifically, the questions of interest concerned when children become aware of ethnic or racial groups in their environment, if and when they see themselves as members of one such group, whether they identify with it, and how positively they feel towards it. Researchers also sought to examine children’s ethnic or racial preferences (i.e., the extent to which they liked one group, especially their own, in comparison to other out‐groups), as well as if and when they might display prejudice (i.e., dislike or hatred) toward members of ethnic/racial out‐groups. These researchers were confronted with the challenging task of devising an ecologically valid measure of young children’s ethnic attitudes (i.e., the level of positivity of their affect towards particular ethnic or racial groups), through to prejudice (i.e., the extent to which they feel dislike or hatred towards members of particular ethnic or racial groups). As noted earlier, not only are such attitudes internal affective responses which are neither directly observable nor immediately accessible, but very young children lack the cognitive and linguistic skills necessary to respond to the measures (e.g., questionnaires and scales) which are commonly used with adults (Milner, 1996). Researchers have responded to the challenge by utilizing a variety of techniques, including ethnic preferences, trait assignments, structured interviews, behavior observations, questionnaires, sociograms, and projective tests. Of these, the first two, ethnic preferences and trait assignments, have dominated the field. This review will focus on these techniques; more detail concerning the other techniques are to be found in Nesdale (2001). Ethnic/racial preference tests emerged from the separate but overlapping work of Horowitz (1936; Horowitz & Horowitz, 1938) and Clark and Clark (1947, but the work was essentially carried out in the mid‐ to late 1930s). Most researchers

74  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland using this technique sought to estimate which of two ethnic/racial groups (typically, the participants’ in‐group and an out‐group) was preferred by the participants who were each members of a particular ethnic/racial group. The Horowitzes’ procedure involved the participants being presented with a page displaying an equal number of photos of, for example, several white and black children (each previously having been judged for “racial typicality” and “pleasantness”). The participants were asked in one version, the Ranks Test, to select the person they “liked best, next best, next best” and so on. In the second version, the Show Me Test, the children engaged in a social distance‐type task, being asked to indicate “all those that you want to sit next to in a street car,” “… want to be in your class,” “… want to play ball with,” “… want to come to a party,” and so on. Pro‐white bias/anti‐ black rejection in both tests was then based upon the proportion of in‐group versus out‐group children selected. Both versions of the test proved to be popular with researchers with more than 30 studies being reported in which children’s ethnic preferences were estimated based on their responses to photos or drawings of children representing different ethnic groups. In addition, a further 20 or so studies have used some type of social distance scale as a technique for estimating children’s intercultural attitudes (see Nesdale, 2001). In a similar, but more dramatic vein, the Clarks devised a task in which children were presented with a pair of dolls that were identical except for skin color, being clad only in brief diapers in order to expose maximum skin surface (Clark & Clark, 1947). Children were then asked a series of 8 questions: “Give me the doll that you want to play with,” “… that is a nice doll,” “… that looks bad,” “…that is a nice color,” “… that looks like a white child,” “… that looks like a colored child,” “… that looks like a Negro child,” “… that looks like you.” Responses to questions 1–4 were considered to be evaluative responses that reflected the child’s ethnic preference. However, the subsequent questions were designed to go beyond mere preference. Thus, questions 5–7 were included as measures of ethnic awareness or knowledge, and question 8 was considered to be a measure of ethnic self‐identification. Interestingly, the Clarks devised this test to measure American minority (i.e., black African American) children’s in‐group attitudes and identification, especially in the light of the generally racist social environment that prevailed in the United States at that time. Given the apparent success of the dolls test, however, it was soon adopted by researchers who were primarily interested in measuring majority (i.e., white Caucasian) children’s ethnic preferences and/or their prejudice towards a particular ethnic/racial out‐group. This technique has also been used extensively, with more than 20 studies being reported, albeit with variations in the number, and type of dolls, and the questions addressed to the children (see Nesdale, 2001). Despite the topological variations, the strengths of these ethnic preference techniques are that they are easy to administer and consume little time, race/ethnicity

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  75 is presented graphically and/or concretely, and the questions accompanying the stimuli are comparatively simple and straightforward, thus making the task both comprehensible and engaging to children, even as young as 3 years. On this basis, it is perhaps not surprising that an extremely consistent set of findings emerged, especially in relation to dominant group children. Specifically, the findings from these studies have generally been taken to reveal that children can differentiate among people based on racial cues (i.e., skin color) from a very early age, and certainly by 3–4 years their racial awareness enables them to distinguish between members of different racial/ethnic groups in their community. Further, the evidence suggests that from 4 years onwards, children from the ethnically dominant group can accurately identify their ethnic group membership and reveal increasingly strong in‐group bias in their responses on these tasks, certainly up to 6–7 years of age. Beyond this age, some studies reveal a decrease in in‐group preference, others reveal a plateau in such responses, while still others show an increase in in‐group preference (see reviews by Aboud, 1988; Nesdale, 2001). In contrast, certainly up until the 1970s when the Black Power movement emerged in the United States, minority group (i.e., African American) children frequently endorsed photos, drawings, or dolls representing majority group children as being the “nicest” and the one that “looked like me,” until about 9 years of age (e.g., Asher & Allen, 1969; Hunsberger, 1978; Teplin, 1976). Similar findings with majority and minority children have been revealed in, for example, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Great Britain, and Spain (see Brown, 2010, for a review). However, while the foregoing findings were, and continue to be, remarkably consistent (at least up until 7 years of age), there are nevertheless several issues that serve to cast some doubt on what is actually revealed in ethnic/racial preference studies. For example, as we have seen, the techniques typically call for children to make the conceptual leap of perceiving the doll, photo, or drawing placed in front of them as actually being representative of their own, or another, ethnic group, such that they feel positive/negative affect and identify/don’t identify with that group. Alternatively, of course, it is possible that young children placed in this situation are simply responding to the doll, photo or drawing that they prefer, perhaps based on familiarity. Moreover, by stripping away all individuating information until only the skin color cue remains as a basis for choice, the technique artificially and unrealistically enhances this attribute over attributes indicative of other socially relevant categories, such as gender and age. Indeed, other research indicates that ethnicity/race is simply not a salient category to the majority of dominant group children until 9 or 10 years—younger children invariably respond to gender before race (e.g., Boulton, 1995), unless the intergroup situation is one of tension or conflict (Brown, 2010; Teichman, 2006).

76  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Even leaving the previous points aside, these techniques appear to simply provide a rough index of in‐group liking or bias since the ethnic preference technique calls for a choice response, frequently a forced response between only two alternatives, which does not necessarily imply dislike for, or rejection of, the unchosen stimulus figure. Moreover, preference responses are undiscriminating because they do not provide a sensitive assessment of children’s intensity of affect for either the in‐group or the out‐group (e.g., Aboud, 1988). Finally, a number of studies have reported a lack of correspondence between ethnic preferences and ethnicity/race of friends and playmates (e.g., Boulton & Smith, 1993; Fishbein & Imai, 1993) and that if racial cleavage does occur, it tends not to be before children are 10 or 11 years of age (e.g., Milner, 1996). In sum, while the various ethnic/racial preference tests have yielded consistent findings concerning the ages at which children acquire ethnic awareness, ethnic self‐identification, and ethnic preference, serious questions remain concerning what these findings actually mean and what implications they might have for children’s interpersonal, intra‐group, and intergroup behavior. As we have seen, such questions are mainly linked to the ambiguities implicit in the research materials and research paradigm. The group trait attribution test has considerable similarities to the ethnic preference technique, presumably because its genesis can also be traced to the early work of Horowitz and Horowitz (1938). In this technique, children are asked to assign positive (e.g., “good,” “clean,” “nice”) and negative traits and attributes (e.g., “bad,” “dirty,” “sad”) to one of two stimulus figures (e.g., photo, drawing), one intended to represent the ethnic in‐group and the other, the ethnic out‐group. For example, the child might be asked, “which child is the dirty boy?,” or “which child is the smart boy?”). The children’s group attitudes are then based upon the ratio of positive to negative traits chosen for the in‐group versus out‐group stimulus figures. One variant of this technique has been formalized as the Preschool Racial Attitude Measure (PRAM; Williams & Roberson, 1967), with a subsequent lengthened version (incorporating equivalent short forms) presented as PRAM II (Williams et al, 1975). More than 30 group trait attribution studies have also revealed a remarkably consistent set of results using this paradigm, with dominant group children ­displaying an increase in in‐group positivity/out‐group negativity from 3 years, followed by a decrease, increase, or a plateau in responses, after 6 or 7 years (see Nesdale, 2001). While the trait attribution technique enjoys the strengths of the ethnic preference technique, it also shares many of its weaknesses. For example, the child is again forced to make a preference choice between the two stimulus figures in attributing each trait. Although it might be argued that the confound of preference and

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  77 rejection entailed in a forced choice is moderated to an extent by the requirement of assigning a series of positive and negative traits to one or the other stimulus figure, a forced choice is still required in relation to each trait, and most scoring methods still aggregate across the children’s trait attribution responses to the two figures (e.g., Williams et al, 1975). Some recent attempts have been made to tackle the problems entailed in the forced choice and method of aggregated scoring. For example, researchers have extended the range of choice in assigning traits to include three or four possibilities; that is, the in‐group and out‐group figures, both figures, and/or neither figure (e.g., Black‐Gutman & Hickson, 1996; Boulton, 1995; Doyle, Beaudet & Aboud, 1988). In addition, some researchers are now disaggregating the children’s trait assignment responses so as to provide measures of children’s in‐group bias/out‐ group rejection and in‐group rejection/out‐group bias (or, “counterbias”; Black‐ Gutman & Hickson, 1996; Doyle & Aboud, 1995). In the final analysis, however, there remains the critical question of whether the common finding of in‐group positivity/out‐group negativity, which is increasingly revealed by children on the trait assignment task from 3 years, followed by a decrease after 7 years, is indicative of their in‐group or out‐group liking. For example, one possibility is that the trait attribution measure actually loads on to children’s negative stereotypes of ethnic out‐groups. However, a number of writers have argued that up to 6 or 7 years, children are still involved in learning the prevailing racial “facts” concerning the group to which they belong and the groups to which they don’t belong (e.g., Milner, 1983; Vaughan, 1987). Importantly, while most dominant group children can typically verbalize these facts or stereotypes by 6 or 7 years, they are usually not held as the child’s own, and especially when the local situation is devoid of intergroup tension or conflict (Nesdale, A. R., 2001). Accordingly, if the trait attribution technique does not load on to in‐group ethnic stereotypes, at least for the younger children, then it appears to be simply another measure of ethnic preference; at each choice point, the child merely accepts the good traits for the preferred in‐group and rejects the bad traits (i.e., assigns them to the available comparison out‐ group). In terms of children older than 6 or 7 years, the position is even less clear‐cut. With increasing age, the child’s response to the trait attribution technique might reflect his/her in‐group preference, or his/her knowledge and/or acceptance of the prevailing ethnic out‐group stereotype, or his/her desire to give socially desirable responses. In sum, as with the ethnic preference technique, the trait attribution task may well provide a reliable estimate of children’s in‐group preferences, at least up until 6 or 7 years of age. Beyond this age, however, the interpretation of the findings from both the ethnic preference and trait assignment techniques is less certain.

78  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland

More Recent Research Methods Used On Children’s Groups Field experiments A particular advantage of observational/field research is that its external validity is enhanced because the research occurs in situ, or in the real world, rather than in a laboratory or another artificial environment or setting. At the same time, however, many such studies lack internal validity because researchers frequently do not, or are unable to, manipulate particular variables, whilst controlling the effects of irrelevant variables, in order to examine the causal impact of the manipulated variables on specific outcome or criterion variables. In attempting to overcome this limitation, some researchers have sought to derive the benefits of both internal and external validity for their research by carrying out experimental studies in natural or real environments. A classic example of field experimental research focusing on children’s groups was carried out by Sherif and colleagues (Sherif, 1966; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood & Sherif, 1961; Sherif, White & Harvey, 1955; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). The research consisted of three field experiments, each involving 11 to 12 year old boys, each of whom was screened to ensure that none came from “unstable and/or deprived backgrounds” The experiments were carried out at a summer camp, each lasting for approximately three weeks and none of the boys knew each other prior to the camp. In the first stage of each experiment, the children engaged in camp‐wide activities through which friendships were formed. In the second stage, and to experimentally manipulate the group memberships, the children were randomly formed into two groups that cut across the recently established friendships. Each group separately then engaged in tasks and activities that required cooperative interaction between the in‐group members. In the third stage, the two groups engaged in a series of intergroup competitions with, in each case, one group being judged the winner. In the fourth stage (Experiment 3 only), the two groups were required to work on tasks with superordinate goals that required cooperative activity to achieve a solution. Of particular relevance to the present discussion were the findings indicating that friendships formed in the first stage were apparently straightforwardly replaced by in‐group friendships in the second stage. There were also some indications of the formation of separate in‐group identities (e.g., group names, nicknames, flags) and roles in the newly constituted groups. In addition, the intergroup competition in stage three quickly resulted in overt hostility that was accompanied by negative out‐group attitudes and stereotypes, together with heightened in‐group solidarity and pride. Indeed, relations deteriorated so dramatically that two of the experiments were hastily concluded at this stage. In the remaining experiment, the superordinate

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  79 goals requiring cooperative activity eventually led to the breaking down of hostility and the emergence of positive bonds across group boundaries. Based on these findings, Sherif (1966) concluded that the nature of goal relations among individuals and groups determines the nature of intergroup and inter‐ individual relations. He argued that individuals who share goals requiring interdependence tend to cooperate and form a group whereas groups that have mutually exclusive goals engage in intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism. Sherif ’s findings have also been confirmed in a range of other studies with adults and children (see Brown, 2010). Sherif ’s studies are important for several reasons. For example, they were an early demonstration of the value of field experiments in assessing a research question in the real world. Further, while the study made use of the observations of observers, it was also enhanced by the perceptions and judgments of the participants. In terms of the focus of the research, it also revealed important information concerning the formation of children’s groups and the impact of actual competition and conflict on intra‐ and intergroup relations. Against this, however, there are several issues that warrant further examination. For example, in terms of the nature of field research, it is undeniably difficult to locate a piece of field research, especially a field experiment, in a real‐world environment because of the difficulty of maintaining control over potentially influential variables. Indeed, since Sherif ’s research was carried out in a summer camp, it could be argued that it wasn’t really “a slice of real life,” although it did allow for the control of many relevant variables. Further, given the need for participant perceptions and judgments, in addition to observers’ contributions, the former can actually be quite intrusive and contrary to the essential reality for which the research has been undertaken. Finally, in terms of the focus of Sherif ’s research, the extent to which intra‐ and intergroup relations are dependent on, or determined by, the nature of the goal relations within and between groups is not clear. Do children, for example, form groups in the absence of shared goals that require cooperation for their achievement? Is intergroup comparison, competition, or conflict essential for in‐group identification and bonding? And, bearing in mind that Sherif ’s research involved children in late middle childhood or pre‐adolescence, at what age do such conditions impact on younger children if, indeed, they are impactful? Some of these issues have been addressed in a series of field experiments carried out by Bigler and her colleagues (e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler, Jones & Lobliner, 1997; Brown & Bigler, 2002). Similar to Sherif ’s research, Bigler and colleagues carried out their studies in summer schools, typically lasting up to six weeks in duration. Children aged 6 to 11 years were assigned to a classroom of older or younger children and, within the classrooms, were randomly assigned to groups denoted by different

80  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland colors (i.e., “red” group, “green” group). During the ensuing weeks, the teachers verbally emphasized the children’s color group affiliations at every opportunity, with the children engaging in a variety of group‐linked activities. In some of these studies, the children actually wore colored t‐shirts for the duration of the program (Bigler et al., 1997). Additional studies using the same paradigm manipulated the specific group characteristics, such as arranging for some color groups to be in the minority versus majority and manipulating the social status associated with some groups, to assess their impact on children’s in‐group favoritism (e.g., Bigler, Brown, & Markell, 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002). The results indicated that the random assignment to color groups prompted in‐group favoritism in the children in both color groups, regardless of age and gender, as long as the teacher treated the groups as meaningful or the groups differed in status in some way (even implicitly). For example, compared with control group children, those assigned to color groups did not want to change groups, rated their own group as most likely to win a series of three contests, and chose more members of the in‐group versus the out‐group to participate in a field trip. Importantly, in contrast to Sherif ’s studies, the children’s in‐group‐favoring responses were revealed despite the fact that the researchers explicitly sought to de‐emphasize competitiveness between the groups. In sum, extending the findings from research on children’s play groups, the results of these field experiments by Sherif and Bigler and their colleagues revealed that children as young as 6 years of age willingly became group members and displayed behaviors that favored the in‐group over any out‐group. Moreover, these tendencies were exacerbated by the presence of mutually exclusive goals on particular activities, the latter prompting intergroup hostility and conflict. Interestingly, compared with the situation where children choose their play groups, the latter behaviors resulted even when the children were assigned to groups on an arbitrary basis. That is, the fact that the children did not actually choose which groups they joined did not appear to weigh heavily on their intra‐ and intergroup responses. This finding is noteworthy given the prevailing assumption that children (and adults) typically join groups on the basis of perceived similarity and/ or mutual acceptance (Turner et al., 1987). The results of the studies by Sherif and Bigler and ­colleagues might be taken to suggest that similarity might not be that important to children. Alternatively, the children might implicitly have assumed that their assignment to groups was based on the teachers’ judgments of similarity between the members of each group, or the children might have perceived sufficient similarity between themselves and the other group members to justify their perception of being in a group comprised of similar others. The latter suggestion would certainly fit with the findings of ethnic/racial preference studies which have shown that dominant group children have no difficulty in perceiving similarity based on

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  81 race/ethnicity from 3 to 4 years onwards, although minority group children are less disposed towards seeing or, perhaps, accepting such similarity. It is also worth noting that these studies had the particular advantage of being field experiments. That is, children were randomly assigned to groups in a naturalistic setting, each group being comprised of a number of children, and the effects of group assignment were observed over a period of weeks. These factors conferred considerable ecological validity on the studies and the resultant findings. At the same time, because so many variables were operating during the duration of the studies, it is difficult to be precise in identifying the critical factors responsible for particular effects. Thus, as noted above in the studies by Sherif and colleagues, it is actually unclear whether it was the nature of the goal relations that determined the effects or whether they depended simply on the fact of intergroup competition. Similarly, although the studies by Bigler and colleagues sought to control intergroup competition, the fact that there were two color groups in each classroom might nevertheless have instigated intergroup comparison, if not (implicit) intergroup competition, that might have contributed to the findings. Consistent with the latter possibility, research indicates that young children do spontaneously compare the standing of their group with other groups (Chafel, 1986; Yee & Brown, 1992). Together, the preceding observations emphasize the need for the utilization of research paradigms that allow for the careful and systematic manipulation of potentially relevant variables in order to tease out the factors that are most conducive to group formation and exert the most impact on intra‐ and intergroup relations. There is a need to determine, for example, whether the mere assignment of a child is sufficient to instigate a sense of group membership or identification, or whether group membership is ultimately dependent on intergroup comparison or competition. Moreover, there is a need for a more refined examination of the impact of group membership on children’s intra‐group, and intergroup, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Further, little is known about the effect on children of their involvement in groups of varying sizes and memberships, as well as the status of group membership, on such responses. As well, until recently, little has been known about the extent to which young children are influenced by the requirements of in‐group norms.

Interviews and narrative studies Beginning in the 1950s, a number of researchers have utilized in‐depth interviews with young children as a vehicle for assessing their understanding of the structure and nature of group relationships in their community, as well as their own intergroup attitudes (e.g., Chyatte, Schaefer, & Spiaggia, 1951; Hartley, Rosenbaum & Schwartz, 1948a, b; Radke & Trager, 1950; Radke, Trager &

82  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Davis, 1949). However, a variety of disadvantages of interviews have been recognized, especially with young children (Neuman, 2001). For example, interviews are time‐consuming and, as a result, only comparatively small samples tend to be tested, with consequent limits on generalizability. Interviews also draw more heavily on children’s developing cognitive and linguistic abilities and the face‐to‐ face interview situation enhances the possibility of social desirability responses by children and bias by the interviewer. Finally, the range of response options available to the respondents enhances coding difficulties, reduces the sharpness of intensity estimates, and typically consigns the data analysis to non‐parametric statistics. Against this, however, the great strength of the interview technique resides in the richness of the data protocol that may emerge, especially when the interview incorporates materials such as photos and drawings (e.g., Hartley et al, 1948a,b; Radke et al, 1949) and formboards, puzzles, and models (e.g., Radke & Trager, 1950) to represent social groups and their roles and neighbourhoods. Of particular note, here, are the classic studies by Radke & Trager (1950) who presented models of typical streetscapes that were inhabited by populations varying from 5–100% African Americans, to white and African American kindergarten, first, and second grade children to test their comprehension and interpretation of the social status and roles of African Americans and whites. As with the Clark and Clark studies, the participants were also given colored dolls and were asked to tell stories about them. It was found that both majority and minority group children had a relatively well‐developed view of the social structure in their community and the nature of majority‐minority group relationships. For example, the children ascribed the African American dolls inferior social roles, as well as a poor rather than a good house. In another study, Radke, Trager, & Davis (1949) asked kindergarten, first, and second grade children to respond to a series of playground, schoolroom, and street scenes in order to study their early social awareness and intergroup attitude development. It was reported that such awareness and attitudes developed early in childhood, that they typically reflected adult attitudes, and that group membership was one aspect of the self‐concept of children. More recently, researchers have used variations of these techniques to assess particular group‐related issues in greater depth. For example, Killen and colleagues (see Killen & Rutland, 2011, for a review; Killen et al., Chapter 5, this volume) have carried out a lengthy series of studies to examine children’s and adolescents’ reasoning concerning the inclusion or exclusion of individuals by gender and/or ethic/racial groups. In this paradigm, brief vignettes involving a group of children are presented to participants, illustrated by drawings, pictures or cartoons (so that gender and/or race are not actually mentioned in the script). Thus,

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  83 in one study (Killen, Lee‐Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002), participants from four ethnic groups (African American, European American, Asian American, Latino) were asked to assess exclusion based on gender or ethnicity in three contexts (1) friendship (one person does not want to be friends with someone based on gender or ethnicity), (2) group (group members do not want to include someone based on gender or ethnicity) and (3) school (school does not enroll someone based on gender or ethnicity). In each case, participants gave their judgment (“OK or not OK?”), justification (“why is it OK or not OK?”), whether exclusion would be OK if their parents or peers condoned it, and whether exclusion would be allowed in another context. Whereas the findings indicated that the majority of participants judged exclusion based on race or gender as wrong, a range of justifications was provided depending on the context, target, and the age and ethnicity of the participants. That said, it is noteworthy that these methods focus much more on the responses of children as observers of group behavior, rather than as members of groups. That is, the children might form impressions, make judgments and decisions, develop affect for the members, and form behavioral intentions, but they do so as observers, not as actual group members. This is significant because recent research has shown that group members tend to make judgments and decisions that are more generous toward, and favor, their fellow group members, than do independent observers (Nesdale, Killen, & Duffy, 2013). In view of this, Abrams and colleagues (see Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Abrams, Powell, Palmer, & Van de Vyer, this volume) have carried out a series of studies to examine group members’ responses to individual members’ behaviors that are inconsistent versus consistent with the social norms of the group (i.e., the expectations of the group members concerning the attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors that are considered to be appropriate for group members to display). For example, in one study conducted during the time of the 2002 football World Cup (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003), the researchers asked English children, ranging from 5 to 12 years, to evaluate normative and deviant supporters of the England soccer team (in‐group) or the German soccer team (out‐group). The results indicated that the children’s in‐group bias, and their tendency to exclude the deviant in‐group member, both increased with age. At the same time, whereas other research has also sought to manipulate in‐ group membership in a similar way, it has used more detailed narratives involving two or more characters who differ in gender and/or ethnicity like the participants, but each of the characters displays gender or ethnicity stereotype‐consistent and ‐ inconsistent traits and behaviors throughout the narrative. This has allowed the researchers to examine participants’ social cognitions, affective reactions, and behavioral intentions, towards the story characters as a function of group

84  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland membership (e.g., Cohen, 1981; Koblinsky & Cruse, 1981; Kropp & Kalverson, 1983; Nesdale, A. R., 2000; Nesdale, & Brown, 2004; Nesdale & McLaughlin, 1987). For example, Nesdale, A. R. (2000) examined the extent to which the ethnic stereotype consistency of an in‐group versus out‐group member influenced 8, 10, and 12 year old Anglo‐Australian children’s memories of the story, and their judgments of, and liking for, the two story characters: an in‐group Anglo‐Australian boy and an out‐group Vietnamese boy, each of whom displayed equal numbers of the relevant ethnic stereotype‐consistent and stereotype‐inconsistent traits. Each story character also displayed a positive and negative behavior. The results indicated that the children’s attention was not shared equally between the in‐group and out‐group characters. Thus, as they increased in age, the children remembered more of the in‐group versus out‐group story character’s stereotype‐inconsistent traits. In addition, they increasingly disliked the in‐group story character, but not the out‐group story character. Further, the in‐group and out‐group story characters’ negative behaviors were attributed to internal and external causes, respectively, whereas their positive behaviors were attributed to external and internal causes, respectively. In short, consistent with the work of Abrams and colleagues above, as they increased in age, the children’s responses were apparently increasingly motivated by their concerns regarding the in‐group character’s worthiness to be a member of their in‐group. Finally, and not surprisingly, given children’s enthusiasm for TV and other internet‐based media, researchers are increasingly presenting video‐ and computer‐based material to participants and then examining their cognitive and affective responses on implicit or explicit measures. The range of this research is already extensive, including the depiction of animated shapes “ostracizing” another shape (Over & Carpenter, 2009), the depiction of threat or no‐threat from majority or ethnic minority children towards an in‐group (e.g., Durkin, Nesdale, Dempsey, & McLean, 2012), and even computer‐generated white or black male faces that display unambiguous positive or negative affect in order to assess the extent and effect of early enculturation and developmental invariance of children’s in‐group preferences (e.g., Dunham et al., 2013). The clear‐cut advantage of the foregoing methods is that they bestow on researchers considerable flexibility, as well as control, in the presentation of individuals, groups, different interactions, specific behaviors, affective reactions, and verbal interchanges to the participants for their reactions. On this basis, researchers have been able to shed much light on the causal effects of variations in these variables. That said, it still seems fair to argue that these methods tend to focus more on the responses of children as observers of group behavior, rather than as members of groups who actually experience the intra‐ and intergroup dynamics of real group members. This is a gap that researchers have recently sought to fill.

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  85

Experimental studies on children’s intra‐ and intergroup processes A number of researchers have now focused on devising research paradigms that allow for the experimental examination of children’s experience as group members. Given children’s capacity for, and interest in, socio‐dramatic play (Rubin et  al., 2006), common to these paradigms has been the use of group simulation or role‐ play methods in experimental studies. For example, Nesdale and colleagues (Nesdale, Maass, Durkin, & Griffiths, 2005) developed a group simulation paradigm in which individual children are invited to participate in a pretend group activity and each is introduced to the other members of the group to which s/he has been assigned, via a set of photographs (same age and gender as the participant, and pre‐tested such that each displayed moderate attractiveness). A photo of the participant is then taken which is inserted into the set of photos of his/her team and the child engages in activities designed to enhance his/her in‐group identification (e.g., chooses a color and a name for the group). Depending on the focus of the study (e.g., intergroup relations, out‐group prejudice, intra‐group exclusion), the participant is then introduced to the members of an out‐group, or an out‐group individual, again via photos (same age and gender as the participant, moderate attractiveness). The child then responds to a series of questions that might include their own feelings and self‐esteem, their attitudes toward, and/or beliefs about, their in‐group, as well as their attitudes and/or beliefs, and/or behavioral intentions, towards the out‐group. Wherever possible, responses are given on unipolar or bipolar scales, in order to measure the intensity of particular responses. There are several advantages to this paradigm as a vehicle for studying the dynamics of intra‐ and intergroup relationships in children. First, although the children’s involvement in their group is certainly fleeting, the paradigm nevertheless is designed to capture the essential characteristics of an intra‐ or intergroup situation—children are assigned or choose membership in a group comprising several members, in a situation that might involve at least one other group, or one or more members of another group. In addition, similarity between the participant and other in‐group members, as well as out‐group members, can be varied systematically by modifying the basis upon which the child was assigned to the group, via the researcher’s instructions, as well as the children’s photos. Second, the paradigm allows for the manipulation of a range of independent variables, and the control of irrelevant variables, thus enabling causal inferences to be drawn. In addition, the paradigm is ethically responsible because children are asked to role‐play their participation, rather than be subjected to the effects of real manipulations. Using these sorts of group simulations, researchers in recent years have focused on issues such as the basis upon which children seek to join groups (Nesdale,

86  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Griffiths, Durkin, & Maass, 2007; Nesdale & Hong, 2011) and the effect on group members’ in‐group and out‐group responses of peer group norms (Nesdale, & Dalton, 2011; Nesdale, Griffiths, et  al., 2005; Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005), peer group position (Charters, Duffy, & Nesdale, 2013), in‐ group and out‐group ethnic diversity (Nesdale, Maass, Griffiths, & Durkin, 2003), intergroup competition (Nesdale, Griffiths, Durkin, & Maass, 2007), and out‐ group threat (Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, & Griffiths, 2005; Nesdale, Maass et al., 2005). Further, the responses of group members that have been examined include children’s prejudice and discrimination (e.g., McGuire, Rutland, & Nesdale, 2015; Nesdale, Durkin, et  al., 2005; Nesdale & Lawson, 2011; Nesdale, Maass, et al, 2005; Rutland et al., 2005), and aggression and bullying (Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Nesdale, Killen, & Duffy, 2013; Nipedal, Nesdale, & Killen, 2010). In addition, researchers have used group simulation studies to assess the impact of peer rejection and exclusion on child participants (Downey, Lebolt, Rincon, & Freitas, 1998; Killen, Rutland, Abrams, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2010; Nesdale, 2008; Nesdale, Durkin, et al., 2011; Nesdale, Maass, et al., 2009; Nesdale, Maass, et al., 2007; Sandstrom, Cillessen, & Eisenhower, 2004; Zakriski & Coie, 1996). However, while much has been learnt from such methods, a straightforward limitation is that, like some field studies, they do not comprise a “slice of life”; rather, the participants simply engage in role play. In this sense, it could be argued that the simulation studies lack any real external validity. However, these studies using the group simulation paradigm (e.g., Nesdale, Durkin, et al., 2004; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001) have produced remarkably similar findings to the field studies of Sherif and colleagues (Sherif & Sherif, 1953; Sherif et al., 1955; Sherif et al., 1961) and Bigler and colleagues (Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al., 1997). In addition, observational studies on bullying and aggression that have revealed the significant impact of classroom norms on children’s bullying (e.g., Boiven, Dodge, & Coie, 1995; Henry, 2001; Henry et al., 2000; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, & Coie, 1999; Wright, Giammarino, & Parad, 1986), have been matched by findings from experimental studies using a group simulation paradigm (e.g., Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Nesdale, Maass, et al., 2008; Nipedal et al., 2010; Ojala and Nesdale, 2004). Similarly, studies in which researchers have experimentally manipulated rejection by peer groups in group simulation studies have revealed findings that mirror the associations that have typically been reported between peer rejection and children’s affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses in cross‐sectional correlational studies (see Nesdale, 2008, for a review). In sum, experimental studies founded on group simulations appear to comprise a valuable tool for researchers interested in exploring the nature and impact of children’s social groups. Central to their utility is the fact that their flexibility enables a range of variables to be manipulated, and others controlled. In addition, group

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  87 simulations allow for inferences about causality whereas even the quasi‐experimental nature of observational and follow‐forward studies do not permit strict causal conclusions (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). However, while the preceding advantages confer considerable value on group simulations, they remain just that, simulations, devoid of the richness and reality of existing groups.

Studies on real groups In view of the foregoing issue, a number of researchers have sought to focus on the memberships, intra‐group relationships, and inter‐ and intra‐group dynamics of established groups. Much of this research has focussed on aggression and bullying within peer groups (e.g., Cairns et al., 1988; Duffy & Nesdale, 2010). In one of the early studies of this type, Cairns and colleagues used a social cluster assessment technique to identify the social networks or groups within two cohorts of boys and girls in 4th and 7th grades, based on the nominations of the children within each cohort. In addition, teachers rated each student on their aggressiveness, popularity, affiliation, and academic competence, and peers nominated individuals who had instigated conflict with them. The amount of aggression displayed by each member of each group was then assessed. The results indicated that aggressive and nonaggressive participants each shared social clusters with similar others, and that aggressive children were as likely as nonaggressive children to be named as a best friend by others, and to have their friendship choices reciprocated by others. Duffy and Nesdale (2010) sought to extend this work by assessing the extent to which the members of particular groups were perceived by others to share similar behaviors and to endorse social norms or expectations of their own group. Participants were first asked to rate the extent to which individual class members were directly involved in bullying, in harming friendships, were physically present during bullying, and provided direct support for bullying. Using the Cairns et al. social network measure, the participants were also asked to identify children’s friendship groups and, finally, the groups were shown to the participants and were asked to rate the norms of each group (i.e., “how happy the group would be if one of its members engaged in an aggressive act?”). As with the Cairns et al. study, when the identified groups were aligned with the extent of bullying behavior by each group member, the results indicated that there was within‐group similarity for each of the types of bullying assessed; that is, children who belonged to the same friendship group did indeed display comparable levels of bullying involvement. Moreover, the findings indicated that groups that approved of bullying, based on peer‐rated group norms, engaged in greater bullying behavior than those belonging to groups that sanctioned such actions.

88  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Research on similarities in behavior among children and adolescents who belong to the same friendship peer groups have been extended to include a wide range of both antisocial and prosocial behaviors. For example, among groups of adolescents, peers’ smoking, drug use, risky sexual behaviors, bullying behaviors, and attitudes toward intimate partner violence predict an adolescent’s own engagement in these behaviors (Alexander, Piazza, Mekos, & Valente, 2001; Bauman & Ennett, 1996; Low, Polanin, & Espelage, 2013; Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997). Similarly, peers’ level of academic engagement predicts an adolescent’s own academic engagement (Ryan, 2001). Brown and colleagues (Jewell, Brown, & Perry, 2014) have used recently developed techniques of social network analysis to document homophily or similarity within and between peer networks (based on friendship nominations) for behaviors and attitudes toward gender‐based harassment. They found that adolescents who belong to the same peer group or network report similar levels of engaging in gender‐based harassment and endorse comparable gender stereotypes as their peer groups. Further, individual youth who have more peer group connections, and individuals who look to others more for behavioral guidance, show stronger levels of similarities to their peers (Jewell et al., 2014). These findings clearly contribute insights that are not available to experimental studies based on group simulations. Such high degrees of peer group homophily of antisocial and prosocial behaviors are likely the result of both self‐selection into groups of similar peers and socialization by the peer ­network (de la Haye, Green, Kennedy, Pollard, & Tucker, 2013; Osgood, Ragan, Wallace, Gest, Feinberg, & Moody, 2013; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). There is certainly evidence that children initially tend to select friends who are similar to themselves in terms of their aggressive behavior (Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Werner & Crick, 2004. In addition, research suggests that children’s behavior can become more extreme (e.g., aggressive) over time consistent with the behavior of others in their social group (Boivin & Vitaro, 1995). A longitudinal study by Werner and Crick (2004) has also revealed that the initial level of aggressive behavior displayed by friends in Grades 2 to 4 predicted the child’s own level of aggression 1 year later, supporting the existence of a socialization effect.

Conclusions and Future Research Possibilities As pointed out earlier, whereas research interest in children’s involvement in social groups was one of the early topics to capture the attention of developmental researchers, the focus was by no means exhaustive or constant. Perhaps reflecting

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  89 the approach in other areas of the discipline, there appear to have been waves of enthusiasm since the 1920s as researchers seized upon particular topics and tackled them with zeal, such as children’s play behavior and their attitudes towards ethnic groups, meanwhile shedding yet more light on the construct of a “social group” and how the membership of such an entity might impact on children. As this volume attests, there is now a considerable and burgeoning interest in this topic. Not surprisingly, the emergence of more and newer questions has, in turn, given rise to the utilization of an innovative array of paradigms, measures, and perspectives designed to help answer them. While not all of these approaches have been roundly successful, it is probably fair to say that most have yielded at least some information that has advanced the discipline. On the one hand, this might well reflect the fact that, certainly by middle childhood, children are enormously interested in group membership to the extent that, according to Rubin et al (2006), they probably spend most of their social time during middle childhood within a social group. To many researchers, this is a straightforward reflection of a fundamental need to belong and to be accepted by others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In short, if there is the chance to be included in a group, most children will seek to be included. Given such a motivation, it is perhaps unsurprising that studies focused on children’s social groups reveal at least some significant effects. At the same time, like all research paradigms and measures, those used in relation to group research need to be evaluated concerning what they actually do reveal about real groups, specifically focusing on separating the wheat from the chaff. Here, the focus turns to the twin issues of, to what extent does a particular paradigm have internal validity (i.e., to what extent are the children’s responses determined by the specified variables of interest in the study) and to what extent can it be said to have external validity (i.e., the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other populations, situations, and stimuli)? As it happens, some of the paradigms that we have reviewed tend to be high on internal validity, whereas others tend to be high on external validity. For example, group studies involving experimental manipulations, such as group simulations and interviews involving stories or scripts in which variables are manipulated, tend to be high on internal validity, but are typically low on external validity. In contrast, field studies involving observations of the formation, maintenance, and termination of social groups, as well as peer nomination studies, are typically high on external validity because they are carried out in natural environments such as classrooms, playgrounds, or neighborhood parks, but may lack internal validity because of the difficulty of extracting and observing the effects of particular variables, without fundamentally affecting the nature of the study.

90  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland By a process of elimination, this brings us to the remaining paradigm that we have reviewed: field experiments. To many researchers, field experiments are the sine qua non, the ultimate standard of social group research since they are typically seen to be characterized by both internal and external validity. That said, however, field studies are difficult to arrange and carry out because they require the researcher to have complete control over the situation and participants such that the latter can be randomly assigned to experimental conditions, the variables can be manipulated without the participants’ particular awareness, and their responses can be measured without the participants’ construction. Clearly, these conditions are exceedingly difficult to meet and they probably responsible for the fact that comparatively few field experiments are reported. The most plausible solution to this quandary appears to be that researchers need to carry out combinations of studies. For example, since experimental and group simulation studies have the benefit of internal validity, it would make sense if theory and hypothesis testing was carried out on (a series of ) experimental/simulation studies that were then followed up with a field experiment (or field study, as a weaker option). Alternatively, since peer nomination studies have the particular strength that they identify real or existing social groups, it would be advantageous to follow up such groups over a longer term with a naturalistic/correlational study in which an array of measures were used to assess issues to do with, for example, developments and changes in intra‐group dynamics, membership, and the emergence, application, and change of group norms, as well as intergroup relationships. What is undeniably clear, however, is that more can be obtained from the research methods and measures available to researchers, especially as the issues of interest are approached with evermore creativity and innovation. Given the importance of the focus of this research, nothing less would be expected. References Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford: Blackwell. Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The development of subjective group dynamics. In S. Levy, & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, 22–30. doi: 10.1016/S1054‐ 139X(01)00210‐5 Asher, S. R., & Allen, V. L. (1969). Racial preference and social comparison processes. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 157–167. Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. (1980). The strategic use of parallel play: A sequential analysis. Child Development, 51, 873–878.

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  91 Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Barnes, K. E. (1971). Preschool play norms: A replication. Developmental Psychology, 5, 99–103. Bauman, K. E., & Ennett, S. T. (1996). On the importance of peer influence for adolescent drug use: Commonly neglected considerations. Addiction, 91, 185–198. doi: 10.1111/ j.1360‐0443.1996.tb03175.x Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R (1995). The need to belong: Desire for Interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 3, 497–529. Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66, 1072–1087. Bigler, R. S., Brown, C. S., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of groups status on the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 72, 1151–1162. Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorisation and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530–543. Black‐Gutman, D., & Hickson, F. (1996) The relationship between racial attitudes and social‐cognitive development in children: An Australian study. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 448–456. Boiven, M., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1995). Individual–group behavioral similarity and peer status in experimental play groups of boys: The social misfit revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 269–279. Boivin, M., and Vitaro, F. (1995). The impact of peer relationships on aggression in childhood: Inhibition through coercion or promotion through peer support. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long‐term perspectives (pp. 183–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Ethnic, gender partner, and activity preferences in mixed race schools in the U.K.: Playground observations. In C. Hart (Ed.) Children on Playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications (pp. 210–237). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Bradford Brown, B., & Dietz, E. (2011). Informal peer groups in middle childhood and adolescence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M., Bukowski, &, B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 361–378). NY: The Guildford Press. Bridges, K. M. B. (1927). Occupational interests of three‐year‐old children. Pedagogical Seminary, 34, 415–423. Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). Effects of minority status in the classroom on children’s intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(2), 77–110. Cairns, R. B., Xie, H., & Leung, M. C. (1998). The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In W. M. Bukowski & A. H. N. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Recent developments in the study of children’s peer groups (pp. 25–53). San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

92  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Chafel, J.A. (1986). A naturalistic investigation of the use of social comparisons by young children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19(3), 51–61. Charters, M., Duffy, A., & Nesdale, D.(2013). A social identity approach to explaining children’s intentions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 163–172. Chyatte, C., Schaefer, D. F., & Spiaggia, M. (1951). Prejudice verbalisation among children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 421–431. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). Sociometric status and peer group behavior: Previous findings and current directions. In J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L.Hartley (Eds.). Readings in social psychology (1958, 3rd ed., pp. 602–611). London: Methuen Cohen, C. (1981). Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 441–452. de la Haye, L., Green, H. D., Jr., Kennedy, D. P., Pollard, M. S., & Tucker, J. S. (2013). Selection and influence mechanisms associated with marijuana initiation and use in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 474–486. doi: 10.1111/jora.12018 Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincon, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69, 1074–1091. Doyle, A. B., & Aboud, F. E. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children’s racial prejudice as a social‐cognitive development. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 41(2), 209–228. Doyle, A. B., Beaudet, J., & Aboud, F. E. (1988). Developmental patterns in the flexibility of children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 19, 3–18. Duffy, A., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development, 18, 121–139. Duffy, A., & Nesdale, D. (2010). Group norms, intra‐group position and children’s bullying intentions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 1740–1756. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development, 82, 793–811. Dunham, Y., Chen, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Two signatures of implicit intergroup attitudes: Developmental invariance and early enculturation. Psychological Science, 24, 860–868. Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Durkin, K., Nesdale, D., Dempsey, G., & McLean, A. (2012). Young children’s responses to media representations of intergroup threat and ethnicity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 459–476. Fishbein, H. D., & Imai, S. (1993). Preschoolers select playmates on the basis of gender and race. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 303–316. Hartley, E. L., Rosenbaum, M., & Schwartz, S. (1948a). Children’s perceptions of ethnic group membership. Journal of Psychology, 26, 387–398. Hartley, E. L., Rosenbaum, M., & Schwartz,S. (1948b). Children’s use of ethnic frames of reference: An exploratory study of children’s conceptualisations of multiple ethnic group membership. Journal of Psychology, 26, 367–386.

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  93 Henry, D. (2001). Classroom context and the development of aggression: The role of normative processes. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 6, pp.193–227). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 59–81. Horowitz, E. L. (1936). The development of attitude toward the Negro. Archives of Psychology, 194, 2–48. Horowitz, E. L., & Horowitz, R. E. (1938). Development of social attitudes in c­ hildren. Sociometry, 1, 301–338. Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: Social and social‐pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961–974. Hunsberger, B. (1978). Racial awareness and preference of white and Indian Canadian children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 10(2), 176–179. Jewell, J. A., Brown, C. S., & Perry, B. (2014). All my friends are doing it: Homophily in sexual harassment perpetration in adolescent social networks. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 25, 592–604 Killen, M., Lee‐Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 271, Vol. 67, No. 4), Oxford: Blackwell. Killen, M., & Rutland, A. (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice, and group identity. Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell. Killen, M., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., Mulvey, K.L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Development of intra‐ and intergroup judgments in the context of moral and social‐conventional norms. Child Development, 84, 1063–1080. Kinderman, T. A., & Gest, S. D. (2011). Assessment of the peer group: Identifying naturally occurring networks and capturing their effects. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 100–120). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Koblinsky, S. A., & Cruse, D. F. (1981). The role of frameworks in children’s retention of sex‐related story content. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 321–331. Kropp, J. J., & Halverson,C. F. (1983). Preschool children’s preferences and recall for stereotyped and non‐stereotyped stories. Sex Roles, 9, 261–272. Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). The role of social networks in physical and relational aggression among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1078–1089. doi: 10.1007/s10964‐013‐9933‐5 McGuire, L., Rutland, A., & Nesdale, D. (2015). Peer group norms and accountability moderate the effect of school norms on children’s intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 86(4), 1290–1297. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Milner, D. (1983). Children and race: Ten years on. London: Ward Lock Educational. Milner, D. (1996). Children and racism: Beyond the value of the dolls. In W. Peter Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities. Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 249–268). London: Butterworth Heinemann.

94  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Nesdale, A. R. (2000). Developmental changes in children’s ethnic preferences and social cognitions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 501–519. Nesdale, A. R. (2001). Language and the development of children’s ethnic prejudice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, (1 & 2), 90–110. Nesdale, D. (2001). Development of prejudice in children. In M. Augoustinos & K. Reynolds (Eds.), Understanding the psychology of prejudice and racism (pp. 57–72). London: Sage. Nesdale, D. (2007). The development of ethnic prejudice in early childhood: Theories and research. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Social learning in early childhood education (pp. 213–240). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Nesdale, D. (2008). Peer group rejection and children’s intergroup prejudice: Experimental studies. In S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesdale, D. (2013). Social acumen: Its role in constructing group identity and ­attitudes. In M. R. Mahzarin & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world (pp. 323–326). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesdale, D., & Brown, K. (2004). Children’s attitudes towards an atypical member of an ethnic in‐group. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 328–335 Nesdale, D., & Dalton, D. (2011). Effect of social group norms and school norms on children’s intergroup prejudice. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, ­ 895–909 Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., & Griffiths, J. (2004). Group status, out‐group ethnicity, and children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 237–251. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., & Griffiths, J. (2005). Threat, group identification, and children’s ethnic prejudice. Social Development, 14, 189–205. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Griffiths, J., Daly, J., & McKenzie, D. (2011). Peer group rejection and children’s out‐group prejudice. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 134–144. Nesdale, D., & Flesser, D. (2001). Social identity and the development of children’s group attitudes. Child Development, 72, 506–517. Nesdale, D., Griffiths, J., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2005). Empathy, group norms and children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 623–637. Nesdale, D., Griffiths, J., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2007). Effects of group membership, intergroup competition, and out‐group ethnicity on children’s ratings of in‐group and out‐group similarity and positivity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 359–373. Nesdale, D., & Hong, J. (2011). Effects of status and acceptance on children’s in‐group liking. Unpublished paper, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Nesdale, D., Killen, M., & Duffy, A. (2013). Children’s social cognition concerning proactive aggression. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 674–692. Nesdale, D., & Lawson, M.J. (2011). Social groups and children’s intergroup a­ ttitudes: Can school norms moderate the effects of social group norms? Child Development, 82, 1594–1606.

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  95 Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2005). Group norms, threat and children’s ethnic prejudice. Child Development, 76, 1–12. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Griffiths, J., & Durkin, K (2003). Effects of in‐group and out‐ group ethnicity on children’s attitudes towards members of the in‐group and out‐group. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 177–192. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2008) Effects of group norms on children’s bullying intentions. Social Development, 17, 889–907. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Durkin, K., Griffiths, J., & James, B. (2009). Effects of peer group rejection and a new group’s norms on children’s intergroup attitudes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 783–797. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., Durkin, K., Griffiths, J., & Ekberg, A. (2007). Effects of peer group rejection, group membership, and group norms, on children’s out‐group prejudice. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 526–535. Nesdale, D., & McLaughlin, K. (1987). Effects of sex stereotypes on young children’s memories, predictions, and liking. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 231–241. Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Nipedal, C. Nesdale, D., & Killen, M. (2010), Social group norms, school norms, and children’s aggressive intentions. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 195–204 Ojala. K., & Nesdale. D. (2004). Bullying as a group process: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 19–35. Osgood, D. W., Ragan, D. T., Wallace, L., Gest, S. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Moody, J. (2013). Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: Influence and selection processes in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 500–512. doi: 10.1111/jora.12059 Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2009). Priming third party ostracism increases affiliative imitation in children. Developmental Science, 12, F1–F8. Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243–269. Parten, M. B. (1933). Leadership among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 430–440. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys’ friendships. Developmental Psychology, 36, 233–240. Radke, M. J., & Trager, H. G. (1950). Children’s perceptions of the social roles of Negroes and whites. Journal of Psychology, 29, 3–33. Radke, M. J., Trager, H. G., & Davis, H. (1949). Social perceptions and attitudes of children. Genetical Psychology Monograms, 40, 327–447. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In W. Daemon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social emotional and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley. Rubin, K. H., Watson, K., & Jambor, T. (1978). Free play behaviors in preschool and kindergarten children. Child Development, 49, 534–536.

96  Drew Nesdale, Christia Spears Brown, and Adam Rutland Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐ presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135–1150. doi: 10.1111/ 1467–8624.00338 Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1997). Peer networks and b­ ullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305–312. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. Sandstrom, M. J., Cillesen, A. H. N., & Eisenhower, A. (2004). Children’s appraisal of peer rejection experiences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment. Social Development, 12, 530–550. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies on intergroup relations. New York, NY: Octagon. Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 370–379. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation and conflict: The robber’s cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1531–1543. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.43.6.1531 Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169–182. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton. Teichman, Y. (2006). Intergroup inclusion and exclusion in a context of an intractable conflict. Paper presented at European Association of Experimental Social Psychology meeting : Social developmental perspectives on intergroup inclusion and exclusion, University of Kent, July. Teplin, L. A. (1976). A comparison of racial/ethnic preferences among Anglo, Black and Latino children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(4), 702–709. Thomas, D. S. (1929). Some new techniques for studying social behavior. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self‐categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Vaughan, G. M. (1987). A social psychological model of ethnic identity development. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialisation. London: Sage. Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1981). Attention structure, sociometric status, and dominance: Interrelations, behavioral correlates and relationships to social competence. Developmental Psychology, 17, 275–288.

Researching Children’s Social Groups: Methods and Measures  97 Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (2004). Maladaptive peer relationships and the development of relational and physical aggression during middle childhood. Social Development, 13, 495–514. Williams, J. E., Best, D. L., & Boswell, D. A. (1975). The measurement of children’s racial attitudes in the early school years. Child Development, 46, 494–500. Williams, J. E., & Roberson, J. K. (1967). A method for assessing racial attitudes in preschool children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 671–689. Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups: Individual–group similarity and the social “misfit.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 523–536. Yee, M. D., & Brown, R. (1992). Self‐evaluations and intergroup attitudes in ­children aged three to nine. Child Development, 63, 619–629. Zakriski, A. K., & Coie, J. D. (1996). A comparison of aggressive‐rejected and nonaggressive‐rejected children’s interpretations of self‐directed and other‐directed rejection. Child Development, 67, 1048–1070.

PART II Group Processes: Social Exclusion, Resource Allocation, and Communication

5 The Role of Group Processes in Social Exclusion and Resource Allocation Decisions Melanie Killen, Laura Elenbaas, Michael T. Rizzo, and Adam Rutland

Introduction Group processes play an important role in children’s developing understanding of the social world. Children identify with social groups quite early in development (Nesdale, 2008). Throughout childhood and adolescence, the influence of group identity manifests in children’s decisions about whom to include or exclude from their groups, and how to distribute resources between groups (Killen, Hitti, Cooley, & Elenbaas, 2015; Rutland & Killen, 2015). With age, children build knowledge about group norms and processes, and demonstrate increasing capacity to weigh considerations like shared values, attitudes, and activities with observable markers of overarching group membership like gender and race. The processes of developing knowledge about groups, and how groups function, are integral to social development. As children’s awareness of, and affiliation with, groups expands in older childhood and adolescence, so does their application of this social knowledge to everyday interactions with peers. Social inclusion and exclusion decisions as well as resource

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

102  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland distribution decisions are especially important contexts for understanding children’s application of their knowledge about group processes because they pertain to the fair treatment of others. As members of social groups, children often seek a balance between preserving group norms, equal and just treatment of others, adherence to societal norms, and expectations from both peers and parents. How children address these issues in their own social interactions and in evaluating the interactions of others has been a key focus of child development research in recent years. This chapter provides an overview of theory and recent research on the role that group processes play in social exclusion and resource allocation decisions in childhood and adolescence. In order to frame empirical investigations of these processes in development, researchers have drawn from fundamental theories in adult social psychology and moral developmental psychology, including Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and Social Domain Theory (Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2014; Turiel, 2002). In recent years, the Social Reasoning Developmental Model (Killen, Elenbaas, & Rutland, 2015; Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010) has emerged as a framework for generating hypotheses about children’s and adolescents’ decisions and reasoning about social contexts that involve consideration of group processes and fair treatment of peers. Following a brief review of the theoretical models guiding the Social Reasoning Development (SRD) approach, empirical research on social exclusion and resource allocation will be reviewed in detail in this chapter, concluding with an overview of the implications for peer group processes, and for future directions for the general research program.

Developmental social identity theories Research in social psychology (involving adults) has investigated the role of group identity on attitudes held towards different groups. According to social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), individuals are motivated to make favorable evaluations based on in‐group membership, and are thus more susceptible to expressing out‐group biases. Drawing on this research with adults, a number of SIT‐influenced researchers have formulated developmental social identity theories (Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Nesdale, 2008; Verkuyten, 2007). Key findings have revealed that children bolster their sense of social identity by excluding out‐group others from their social in‐group (Nesdale, 2004; Verkuyten & Steenhuis, 2005), present a positive image of themselves to their peer in‐group (Rutland, 2004; Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005), and exclude in‐group members who deviate from group norms (Abrams & Rutland, 2008). Children’s preference for their own in‐group is differentiated from their potential dislike of out‐groups (Nesdale, Griffiths, Durkin, & Maass, 2007; Nesdale,

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  103 Maass, Durkin, & Griffiths, 2005). Children do not automatically dislike peers from out‐groups. Whether they show out‐group dislike or not depends on the strength of their identification with their group, how much they feel their group is being threatened, and if they understand and believe that showing such prejudice is consistent with the expectations of their group (i.e., the in‐group norm; Nesdale et al., 2005; Rutland et al., 2005). Further, research based on developmental subjective group dynamics theory (Abrams & Rutland, 2008) has shown that by 7–8 years, and with increasing group identification, children develop a dynamic relationship between their judgments about peers within groups and about groups as a whole (i.e., intergroup attitudes). Changes in children’s social cognition and group identification mean that they can often refrain from including a peer because of their out‐group status, as well as exclude a peer from within their group who deviates from the group’s social‐conventional norms by showing increased liking or support for an out‐ group member. For example, in a recent study (Rutland, Hitti, Mulvey, Abrams, & Killen, 2015) in which 9–16 year olds judged in‐group members who behaved in line with or counter to a generic norm shared by two school groups (i.e., wearing club t‐shirts at school assemblies), children and adolescents actually preferred out‐group over in‐group deviants only when deviance by the in‐group peer was in line with the generic norm and a threat to their group’s identity. Children justified their disapproval for these individuals by focusing on the need for group cohesion and loyalty, while they signified approval by spotlighting the need for personal autonomy. The social reasoning developmental approach has also demonstrated that individuals do not view all group norms in the same way. As described below, children and adolescents evaluate group loyalty, or loyalty to group norms, differently depending on whether the group norms pertain to moral (e.g., fairness) or conventional (e.g., traditions) outcomes. This has implications for when children are willing to challenge in‐group norms, or take action to rectify group decisions that are unfair or involve harm to others. Thus, the social reasoning developmental model provides a way to understand processes associated with group dynamics in new ways, with a focus on developmental and age‐related changes. Taken together, then, children’s attitudes towards in‐group and out‐group members are not simply a result of automatic favoritism of their own group. Rather, children actively reason about group processes and consider whether the behavior of their peers matches different types of group norms, as well as norms shared by the wider society. With age, children are increasingly capable of evaluating peers and their behavior on these multiple dimensions. In the next section we briefly review social domain theory and how its tenets have contributed to understanding peer group processes with a new lens.

104  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland

Social domain theory In child development research, a considerable body of evidence has been generated regarding social and moral judgments and reasoning (Helwig & Turiel, 2002; Killen & Cooley, 2014; Nucci, 2001; Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 1983; Wainryb & Recchia, 2014). Over 35 years of empirical research stemming from social domain theory (SDT; Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 1983, 2002) has documented that children and adolescents evaluate social events and interactions using different domains of knowledge: (1) the moral domain (including justice, others’ welfare, and rights); (2) the societal domain (including conventions, customs, and traditions); and (3) the psychological domain (including personal choice and autonomy). According to this theory, the moral domain refers to prescriptive rules regarding how individuals ought to treat one another, the societal domain refers to behavioral regulations designed to promote the smooth functioning of social groups, and the psychological domain refers to individual prerogatives and choices that are not regulated by society (see Turiel, 1983, 2002). The empirical project has consisted of testing whether individuals use these categories when evaluating and interpreting everyday social interactions and events (Killen & Smetana, 2015). Contrary to many earlier propositions from developmental psychology that focused on stages of development, research from a SDT perspective has revealed that different domains of knowledge coexist from early childhood onwards. Morality is not “reached” in adolescence or adulthood; instead children value moral concepts like fairness and equality from as early as the preschool years. Likewise, morality is not solely taught by parents and other adults, rather children construct notions of morality, societal concepts, and psychological autonomy through interactions and exchanges with peers and adults. Thus, individuals from childhood to adulthood do not view all rules and obligations as the same, and they understand the underlying criteria that differentiate between a conventional rule to make groups function well (e.g., for preschoolers, sitting in a circle at story time helps to provide focus for the activity; for adolescents, electing a student body president helps make decision making work well) from a moral rule, like refraining from harming others or fairly dividing necessary resources. Moreover, most situations are multifaceted, with both moral and social‐conventional aspects, and current research indicates that children are aware of this social complexity. In fact, there are contexts in which schools and authority figures may have rules that they deem to be conventional, but that children (and other adults) view as moral transgressions. For example, the regulation that clothes are gender‐ specific, such as pants are for boys and skirts are for girls, may be viewed by children as conventional in terms of what children wear to school but moral in terms of the

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  105 unfairness regarding gender bias about clothing conventions. In these cases, an empirical question is whether children and adults give a clear priority to one issue over the other (e.g., do individuals give priority to the moral unfairness or to the conventional dress code?). What has been missing from the social domain theory research is a comprehensive focus on peer group process issues such as intergroup attitudes and group dynamics. The societal domain of knowledge has been investigated as an area that covers conventions, traditions, and customs created by individual members of cultures to ensure the smooth functioning of social groups. Yet, what the developmental social identity model has revealed is how group dynamics and intergroup attitudes play an essential role in the formation of group identity and affiliation in the early years of development. These processes result in in‐group preference and out‐group dislike, in some contexts, which contributes to potentially detrimental outcomes, such as prejudice and bias. Thus, another dimension that requires a more in‐depth analysis for social domain theory is a comprehensive examination of the moral unfairness of prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes. Understanding how moral, conventional, and psychological reasoning is related to peer group dynamics is essential, and has reflected one of the essential goals of the social reasoning developmental line of research.

The social reasoning developmental model Thus, the SRD model draws upon theory and research in both developmental psychology and social psychology (Killen et al., 2015; Killen & Rutland, 2011; Rutland et al., 2010). The model integrates and extends social domain theory (Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 1983, 2002) and social identity development theory (Nesdale, 2008) by considering together how children’s reasoning and group identity are important to the group processes underlying social exclusion and resource allocation. The SRD model considers group identity to be a fundamental factor in how children judge and reason about social exclusion (i.e., is it legitimate and fair to exclude that child?) and allocate resources (i.e., is it fair and just to allocate resources in this way?). A child’s identification with their own group often influences their judgments and reasoning in these contexts. Furthermore, individuals belong to multiple groups, which exist at different levels of affiliation, attachment, and meaningfulness, from the local level (e.g., peer groups) to the global level (e.g., nationality, religion). Group affiliations change across the life span as individuals experience different degrees of relative salience for their various group memberships, and receive different forms of social communication about group affiliation, and as the socio‐political context changes (Yip, 2014). Research based on the SRD

106  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland model seeks to understand when and in what ways different types of group membership are relevant to children’s social judgments. Beyond group identity concerns, research based in the SRD model also examines how children’s judgments and reasoning are framed within the moral and psychological domains derived from SDT. For instance, with regard to social exclusion, there are important developmental shifts in c­ hildren’s and adolescent’s judgments and reasoning (Killen, Rutland, Abrams, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013). Young children focus primarily on fairness norms in the moral domain, and traditions in the conventional domain; this focus within each domain changes through late childhood as adolescents’ increasing knowledge about group dynamics and group functioning (Rutland et al., 2010) leads them to focus on the specific norms that their social groups generate (Horn, 2006). Importantly, the SRD model makes a fundamental difference between excluding someone based on in‐group preference and on the basis of individual traits (e.g., rejecting someone due to individual abilities; Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013). The former behavior is connected to group identity, which is part of social development (belonging to groups); the latter behavior is connected to personality traits, in some cases, or personality deficits (such as excluding someone who is extremely shy or overly aggressive). Children who are treated differentially due to their group membership (race, gender, religion) face different consequences from children who are treated differentially due to their social deficits which, in extreme cases, may be reflective of developmental psychopathology (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Taken together, the SRD model has three main tenets. First, children’s judgments and reasoning about social exclusion and resource allocation are influenced by what group they belong to and their identification with that group. Second, children and adolescents actively form judgments and reason simultaneously using their knowledge in the moral, societal and psychological domains. Third, there are developmental changes in individuals’ judgments and reasoning, with younger children being more focused on the generic norms of equality and traditions, and adolescents concerned more with group‐specific norms, and giving priority to the preservation of group‐specific norms in both the moral and societal domains. In the section below we review the empirical evidence which has supported this theory and contributed to the developmental trajectories that we have summarized.

Social Exclusion: Empirical Research Findings Social exclusion from groups is a source of psychological stress for children. Frequent rejection by others leads to anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal (Rubin et al., 2006). Yet, social exclusion based on arbitrary factors such as gender,

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  107 race, ethnicity, or religion carries an additional burden for the excluded child: experiences of discrimination. It is essential to understand why such exclusion occurs, and the group dynamics involved in these contexts (Killen & Rutland, 2011). Developmental literature on peer rejection in childhood (e.g., bullying and victimization) has often suggested that victims of exclusion invite rejection by their peers because of specific individual traits, such as shyness or aggressiveness (Rubin et al., 2006). While assessing individual characteristics is important, this approach cannot account for social exclusion based on group membership, in which peers use stereotypes about an individuals’ group affiliations to exclude them (Killen, Mulvey et al., 2013). Affiliation with groups is essential for becoming part of a community, however, and a significant change that takes place in childhood pertains to the balancing of different levels of groups that children identify with, including small peer friendship groups, organized peer groups based on activities, and larger societal groups (such as gender, race, culture, and ethnicity). These different levels of groups have the potential to provide learning opportunities for children and serve as a context for constructing notions of fairness and equality, as well as a source of emotional and social support. Group identity, however, can also result in exclusionary norms that contribute to negative attitudes about others who are not members of one’s “in‐group,” oftentimes creating prejudicial or biased attitudes (Abrams, 2011). Investigations of the developmental processes related to these issues are essential for addressing the emergence of prejudice as well as the facilitation of an understanding about fairness and equality.

Children’s evaluations of interpersonal and intergroup exclusion Social exclusion based on gender, race, ethnicity, and culture has been widely documented in cultures and nations around the world (Killen & Rutland, 2011), and such exclusion is disproportionally experienced by children and adolescents from cultural minority groups (Monks, Ortega‐Ruiz, & Rodriguez‐Hidalgo, 2008; Strohmeier, Kärnä, & Salmivalli, 2011). Some reports indicate that up to 57% of cultural minority children report being bullied at least once over the course of a school year on the basis of cultural norms, religion, clothing, language, and food (Eslea & Mukhtar, 2000). With age, children and adolescents differentiate between interpersonal exclusion (e.g., based on personality characteristics) and intergroup exclusion (e.g., based on group membership categories, such as gender, race, sexual identity), when judging the legitimacy of exclusion. For example, when children in different countries (Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and the United States) were asked to evaluate peer exclusion, they viewed exclusion based on interpersonal traits such as shyness to be

108  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland less wrong than exclusion based on intergroup variables such as gender, nationality, and culture (for a review, see Hitti, Mulvey, & Killen, 2011). Children reasoned that intergroup exclusion was unfair, whereas interpersonal exclusion based on a mismatch of the individuals’ personality or traits to that of the group was considered a conventional (“the group will not work well”) or psychological issue (“it’s his choice who he picks”), and was often supported. In line with the SRD model, these findings illustrate how, broadly, children reason about different types of exclusion using different criteria. Not all children and adolescents view intergroup exclusion in the same light, however. Specifically, ethnic minority adolescents often view exclusion on the basis of group membership to be more wrong than ethnic majority adolescents, and ethnic minority adolescents also tend to attribute more positive emotions to the excluder (Malti, Killen, & Gasser, 2012). For example, Malti and colleagues (2012) found that Serbian adolescents attributed positive emotions to Swiss national peers who excluded a Serbian peer from attending a sports event, and viewed the act of exclusion as more unfair than did Swiss national adolescents. On a more intimate level, Crystal, Killen, and Ruck (2008) found that the level of intimacy (e.g., dating) involved was related to how majority adolescents, but not minority adolescents, evaluated exclusion. Racial and ethnic majority participants were more likely to justify exclusion in intimate contexts (that is, to deem it acceptable) than were ethnic minority participants who viewed intimate forms of interracial exclusion (e.g., interracial dating) as wrong, reflecting prejudice. Ethnic majority youth were more likely to view it as a personal choice than as an unfair decision. Finally, the extent to which individuals identify with their social group also influences their evaluations of exclusion. For instance, in a study testing the factors that contribute to social exclusion based on religious identity, Jewish American and non‐Jewish American 14‐ and 17‐ year‐olds who reported higher levels of identification with their culture or ethnicity were less inclusive than those who identified less with their culture or ethnicity (Brenick & Killen, 2014).

Stereotypic expectations and group norms Just as children’s own group membership and the extent to which they identify with that group impact their evaluations of social exclusion (as described above), children’s stereotypes about the members of other groups influence their endorsement of exclusion. In the area of gender identity, Mulvey and Killen (2015) found that the act of resisting gender‐stereotypic peer group norms (e.g., a boy challenging his football group to try ballet, or a girl challenging her ballet group to try football), was

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  109 supported by children between 9 and 14 years, even though they expected their groups to resist it, and expected that exclusion from the group was a likely outcome. In the area of sexual identity, Horn and colleagues (Horn, 2007; Horn & Szalacha, 2009) examined how adolescents reason about peer‐based harassment stemming from sexual orientation and sexual identity. The research findings provide evidence that both individual (e.g., age, religion, social identity) and environmental (e.g., school factors, peer group status, having a lesbian or gay friend) factors are related to adolescents’ reasoning about bias‐based peer harassment. For example, older adolescents have been shown to be more likely to judge excluding a lesbian or gay peer to be wrong, and to base their judgments on moral reasoning than are younger adolescents, who are more likely to make appeals to social conventions (Horn, 2012). In addition, adolescents attending a school that had implemented safe schools practices (e.g., policies, professional development) evaluated exclusion as more wrong and used more moral reasoning in justifying their judgments than adolescents attending a school that had not implemented these practices (Horn & Szalacha, 2009). These findings highlight the importance of school and community‐ level norms for combating stereotypic expectations. Of course, opportunities for social contact with members of minority groups are essential if inclusive norms are to have an effect on children’s behavior and evaluations. Hitti and Killen (2015) investigated non‐Arab American adolescents’ views about inclusion and exclusion of non‐Arab American and Arab American peers who shared interests within and between groups, using a sample of 12‐ and 16‐ year‐olds who had little contact with Arab American peers. Adolescents often chose to include peers with shared interests into their own (non‐Arab American) cultural group, regardless of individual ethnicity. But these same adolescents expected that a group of Arab American friends would choose new group members based on ethnicity (i.e., the Arab American “out‐group” would be exclusive). Further, adolescents who held stereotypes about Arab Americans were less likely to include an Arab American peer into their group than those who did not hold stereotypes. But when adolescents were members of a group with a stated goal of inclusivity, this positive message reduced the effect of stereotypes on adolescents’ judgments about whom to include in their group, demonstrating the impact of group norms, as well as school or community norms, on inclusion and exclusion judgments.

Social exclusion and group dynamics Understanding group dynamics involves accumulating knowledge about between‐ group relations (as discussed in the previous sections) as well as within‐group relations (Abrams, Hogg, & Marques, 2005; Rutland et al., 2010). In the context of

110  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland social exclusion, this knowledge helps determine whether exclusion is acceptable in two contexts: (1) intragroup exclusion, which involves excluding members of one’s group because they do not adhere to group norms, and (2) intergroup exclusion, which involves excluding a member of an out‐group. Children’s conceptions of group loyalty change with age, from concrete representations of group identity (such as being the same gender or race) to abstract representations of group norms (such as the values held by one’s group). This reflects a change in how group identity is defined, with an increasing recognition of the role that group norms and values play on what makes group identity important for an individual. In fact, even young children (6–11 years) do not like in‐ group members who express disloyalty to group norms and values (see Abrams & Rutland, 2008). Yet, research on favorability of deviant in‐group members (Killen, Rutland et  al., 2013) shows that dislike for in‐group deviants (individuals who deviate from an established group norm) depends on the type of norm that is being challenged. Children view rejection of an in‐group member who challenged a group norm about social conventions (what to wear at a school assembly) as less okay than rejection of an in‐group member who challenged a norm about morality (how to divide monetary resources between groups). With age, children’s and adolescents’ conceptions of what constitutes an acceptable violation of an established norm become more contingent on the type of norm (moral versus conventional). Group identity, however, makes a difference in the context of decisions about inclusion. In one study, participants were given a forced choice between inclusion of an in‐group deviant member (an in‐group member who rejected an equality norm of the group) or an out‐group deviant member (an out‐group member who supported the in‐group’s equality norm). In these contexts, participants were told that the in‐group deviant member rejected its in‐group norm to divide resources equally by asserting that the in‐group should get more resources than the other group. In contrast, participants were informed that the out‐group deviant member supported the equality norm of the in‐group. Children and adolescents were less likely to choose an out‐group deviant (who supported equality) in a context in which group identity was school affiliation than when it was gender. This meant that group loyalty was more important in the context of school affiliation than in the context of gender because children were less likely to include the same‐school in‐group member who rejected equality than the same‐gender in‐group member who rejected equality (Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014a). These results highlight the importance of research on the cognitive abilities associated with this type of complex decision making in childhood.

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  111

Group and individual perspectives on social exclusion Abrams and colleagues (2009) have discussed a cognitive ability known as theory of social mind, which refers to the recognition that how a group will behave may be different from one’s own expectations of what the group should do (see Abrams et al., 2009). Young children at 4 and 5 years have difficulty differentiating between judgments about groups and their own preferences about members who deviate from group norms, and this is especially the case for norms related to equal distribution of resources (Cooley & Killen, 2015). For example, young children often state that “I would like the person who wants to divide up resource equally” and “My group will like the person who wants to divide equally, too.” Older children, however, recognize that, while they might like an in‐group deviant who advocates for equality at the expense of extra resources for the in‐group, the group may not feel the same way. Moreover, the cost of deviating from the group may be exclusion. Specifically, by age 6 children begin to demonstrate the ability to differentiate between how a group might evaluate a deviant member and how they themselves evaluate the same member. Later in development, as adolescents become more autonomous (Daddis, 2011), they acquire greater skills in coordinating their own opinions and beliefs with what they expect of groups. These findings are reflected in both decisions about including deviants (Killen, Rutland et al., 2013) and how favorable participants are towards deviant members (Mulvey et al., 2014a). Similar patterns of adolescents’ differentiation between group and individual perspectives have been found in studies assessing inclusion of cultural in‐group and out‐group members (Hitti & Killen, 2015). These findings show that adolescents expect groups to be less inclusive toward both in‐group and out‐group members than they themselves would be, especially when making judgments about including an in‐group target who does not share the same interests as the group. For example, non‐Arab American adolescents report that they would be inclusive by inviting an out‐group peer (Arab American) to join their group who shares the same interests (e.g., hobbies) but they expect that their group will be exclusive (unwilling to include). We highlight these findings because they provide evidence for how children begin to develop identities that, although they can be influenced by their in‐group norms and beliefs, are also distinct from them.

Resource Allocation: Empirical Research Findings Resource allocation decisions are a core context in which children apply their knowledge of group processes to make decisions about how to fairly distribute goods, and how to evaluate others’ behavior. Traditionally, research focused on the

112  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland emergence of equality and equity concepts in the context of dyadic, triadic, and group interactions with little attention to the role of groups. Yet, the context for much of resource allocation involves distributions to groups, and thus group knowledge is relevant for these types of decisions. Resource allocation decisions are inherent in social interactions from childhood through adulthood, and understanding normative, age‐related changes in resource allocation decisions has long been a focus of research in moral development. When children and adults make decisions about the allocation of limited resources to others, they reference moral concepts of fairness, equality, and justice (Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 2006). It is often determined that, in order to maintain impartiality, group membership or group identity should not be relevant when allocating limited resources, because an unequal distribution on the basis of group membership would be deemed unfair. However, there are many contexts in which an understanding of group identity, group norms, and intergroup relations is not only relevant, but in fact necessary for ensuring a fair distribution. These contexts include considerations regarding access to resources, types of resources, and claims to resources. For example, if one group has a high status providing full access to resources, and another group has a low status with no access to resources, then these group memberships need to be taken into account to ensure fair distribution of resources. In the next section, we provide a brief overview of findings on children’s resource allocation decisions, and then discuss the role of group processes.

Moral necessity and resource access With age, children give increasing consideration to both merit (hard work and effort) and need (how many resources someone needs) when allocating resources (Damon, 1977; Elenbaas, Rizzo, Cooley, & Killen, 2015; Rizzo, Elenbaas, Cooley, & Killen, in press; Sigelman & Waitzman, 1991). Although there remain different perspectives in the research literature regarding how best to measure fairness reasoning, many studies indicate that young children view it as fair to give more resources to a hard working than to a lazy recipient, and expect that equal work will be rewarded with equal reward (Baumard, Mascaro, & Chevallier, 2012; Liénard, Chevallier, Mascaro, Kiura, & Baumard, 2013; Ng, Heyman, & Barner, 2011; Shaw & Olson, 2012). Likewise, some research suggests that children as young as five years of age are able to take need into consideration, allocating more resources to a recipient in need than to a recipient who already has plenty of resources available (Kienbaum & Wilkening, 2009; Rizzo & Killen, 2015). While these investigations provide important insight into children’s conceptions of fairness, research has not fully examined whether children take into account the

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  113 moral necessity of the different types of resources that groups have access to. For example, most work has focused on allocations of resources that could be seen as luxury (enjoyable to have, but not needed to avoid harm; e.g., cookies, coins) as opposed to necessary (needed to avoid harm; e.g., food, water, medicine). The type of resource being allocated can influence the fairness of a given means of allocation through the introduction of additional moral concerns, such as the concern for others’ welfare resulting from a lack of necessary resources. In two studies designed to capture children’s understanding of both the type of resource (luxury, necessary) and recipients’ relative claims over a resource, Rizzo and colleagues (Rizzo et al., in press; Rizzo & Killen, in press) measured 3–8‐year‐ olds’ allocations of resources described as necessary and luxury to recipients who had different levels of merit or need for the resource. First, children’s allocation of luxury and necessary resources to recipients who either worked hard or were lazy (Rizzo et al., in press) was investigated. With age, children allocated more luxury resources to the hard working recipient, demonstrating an understanding of merit‐ based fairness. When allocating necessary resources, however, 3–8‐year‐olds chose to allocate the resources equally, and justified their allocations by referencing concern for others’ welfare. This suggests that, when allocating necessary resources, children are concerned with ensuring the welfare of the recipients, even when their relative merit (or work) is unequal, given that an unequal allocation of necessary resources would have harmful consequences for the disadvantaged recipient. As one takes disadvantaged status into account when considering resource allocation, the role of group membership necessarily becomes part of the decision.

Role of group membership and history in resource allocation Extending these findings to the claims of need and poverty, 3–8‐year‐olds’ allocations of resources to recipients who were either rich and from a rich town, or poor and from a poor town were analyzed (Rizzo & Killen, in press). In this study, a developmental shift was identified, such that 3–4‐year‐olds allocated resources equally, whereas 5–6‐year‐olds and 7–8‐year‐olds allocated more resources to the poor character than the rich character. That is, younger children allocated resources equally and older children allocated more resources to the poor character in order to “even out” the distribution in a fair way. The developmental difference pertained to children’s conceptions of when a distributive means was necessary to achieve a fair end. Thus, children consider need or poverty to be an important and legitimate reason to allocate resources to an individual. Taken together, research on children’s moral judgments, reasoning, and behavior in resource allocation tasks has revealed that, from a young age, children acknowledge the fairness of equal allocations for

114  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland all, rewards for effort or productivity, relative distributions based on need, and consider the type of resource when allocating resources; children’s conceptions of fairness develop early, and reflect the complex use of multiple different forms of moral and conventional reasoning. The research discussed thus far specifically pertains to children’s resource allocations to third party individuals, meaning that the child him/herself is not a resource recipient and does not have any meaningful affiliation with the recipients. This work is valuable for understanding children’s conceptions of fairness regarding resource allocations in a group‐neutral context. Children’s lives are highly social, however, and resource allocations are frequently made in contexts when recipients represent multiple group memberships. Indeed, as early as the preschool years, children incorporate group membership into their allocation decisions by benefiting their own group at the expense of an out‐group (Moore, 2009; Olson & Spelke, 2008). Unfortunately, preferential allocation to one’s own social group has the potential to translate into a form of bias, and withholding resources from another group based solely on group membership is a form of discrimination. In addition to benefitting members of their immediate social groups, preschoolers allocate more resources to members of their gender and racial in‐group (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011; Renno & Shutts, 2015; Zinser, Bailey, & Edgar, 1976) than to members of out‐groups. In fact, preschoolers often expect others to distribute preferentially to the in‐group as well, particularly if the resource‐allocator is noted to prefer their own in‐group over a relevant out‐group (Elenbaas & Killen, in press‐a). However, far from a simple in‐group‐preference‐out‐group‐dislike pattern, recent research has revealed the complexity of children’s resource allocation decisions as they make sense of numerous different claims and factors for consideration, including prior histories of allocation to the groups in question, the type of resource to be allocated, group norms about allocation, and shifting group identities. For example, European American children as young as age 9 have been found to allocate more money to productive characters depicted as Black than to productive characters depicted as White and more money to poor characters depicted as White than poor characters depicted as Black, demonstrating an implicit form of lowered expectations for African Americans relative to in‐group European Americans (McGillicuddy‐De Lisi, Daly, & Neal, 2006). By contrast, European American 8–11‐year‐olds have been shown to rectify an experimental status quo resource inequality by giving more to an individual representing a disadvantaged racial group, even when that meant that a representative of their own racial group received less (Olson, Dweck, Spelke, & Banaji, 2011). These results reveal conflicting conceptions of the role of racial group membership in resource allocation decisions, and indicate an important avenue for future research.

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  115 Children do not always privilege in‐group members in their resource allocations. In fact, recent research has approached this question by asking not only when children choose to advantage the in‐group, but also when they prioritize fairness over group biases. The SRD model emphasizes the impact of group norms on ­children’s moral and social decision making and reasoning, and group norms have an important impact on children’s resource allocation decisions. For example, experimental introduction of an antiracist norm can prompt 9–10‐year‐olds to allocate equally to racial in‐group and out‐group members, or even to give more to an out‐ group member when societal inequalities are made salient (Monteiro, de França, & Rodrigues, 2009). Though several studies have demonstrated that children are motivated to control their prejudiced behavior under conditions of high public focus (Rutland et al., 2005), such social pressure is not always necessary. Children often prioritize moral norms about the fair treatment of others over in‐group favoritism (Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014b). In fact, Cooley and Killen (2015) found that children as young as the preschool years negatively evaluate a classroom in‐group member who deviates from a class norm of equal allocation by advocating for unequal allocation, and provide reasons for their evaluations that pertain to fairness and equality. By contrast, they positively evaluate a group member who deviates from their group’s norm of unequal allocation by advocating for equal allocation. Importantly, preschoolers are unfavorable towards members of their own group who espouse an unequal allocation, even when it benefits the group, demonstrating their priority for fairness over group membership. Thus, on the one hand, children as young as 5 years of age can take individuals’ relative need into account when allocating resources, choosing to give more resources to an individual who has received less in the past. And, on the other hand, young children sometimes demonstrate in‐group bias in their resource allocations, choosing to allocate more resources to an individual from their social (e.g., racial, gender) group. However, when fairness norms are made salient, children as young as the preschool years report disliking in‐group members who seek to keep more resources for the in‐group and give less to the out‐group. As outlined in the SRD model, children simultaneously reason and make judgments based on morality, social identity, and group norms when they allocate resources to in‐group and out‐ group members. Research drawing on this model has revealed how children’s conceptions of fair resource distribution vary based on the type of resource being allocated (luxury versus necessary resources) and the need and merit of resource recipients, and has highlighted the role of group norms in children’s resource allocation decisions, revealing that children do not always privilege in‐group members in their allocations, and even show support of out‐group members who advocate for fair distributions. This research is important for understanding the complexity

116  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland of children’s social reasoning about group dynamics and resource allocation, and can even shed light on the development of allocation behaviors and reasoning that contribute to group‐level resource inequalities in adult society.

Social inequalities and resource allocation In a recent line of research, Elenbaas and colleagues (Elenbaas & Killen, in press‐b; Elenbaas et  al., 2015) investigated whether and how children consider existing social inequalities in access to important resources as well as group identity when making decisions about resource allocation. When one group is disadvantaged relative to another group in terms of their access to or possession of important societal resources like job opportunities, housing, quality education, or medical care, individuals may determine that providing more resources for disadvantaged groups is the fair course of action (Anderson, 1999; Scheffler, 2015). Thus, one goal of this research was to determine whether children take disadvantaged backgrounds into account when allocating resources. Another goal was to examine group identity and group processes, and, specifically, whether children’s own racial group membership played a role in their resource allocation decisions when disadvantaged groups reflected (or did not reflect) their own racial group identity. To investigate these goals, U.S. kindergartners’ and fifth graders’ allocations of social resources (educational and health supplies) to institutions (schools and hospitals) that differed by racial group membership (African American and European American) was investigated. In contrast to previous work, which has largely focused on allocation of “luxury” items such as candy or stickers, which reflect inequalities of small, desirable goods, this study expanded the focus to the societal level in order to understand children’s reactions and reasoning about social resource inequalities. In addition, group identity functioned on three levels: (1) participants’ group identity by race; (2) the racial group identity of the recipient group; and (3) the societal association between racial group identity and access to resources. In two different studies (one pertaining to allocation of school supplies and one pertaining to allocation of hospital supplies), participants observed an unequal distribution norm that advantaged (gave more resources to) schools or hospitals attended by children of African American or European American background (Elenbaas & Killen, in press‐b; Elenbaas et al., 2015). The majority of kindergartners and fifth graders judged that this distributional inequality was not acceptable. When it was their turn to allocate educational supplies, kindergartners’ (ages 5–6 years) allocation decisions depended on the distribution norm that they had witnessed: when their racial in‐group had a history of disadvantage relative to their

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  117 racial out‐group, young children allocated more resources to the institution attended by children of their racial in‐group, but when the racial out‐group had a history of disadvantage, young children allocated equally between the two institutions. Thus, young children demonstrated a greater sensitivity to the needs of their in‐group, correcting the inequality when their in‐group was disadvantaged, but not when the racial out‐group was disadvantaged. By contrast, older children (ages 10–11 years) corrected the inequality by giving more to the group that had received less, regardless of whether it was their in‐group or their out‐group. These age‐ related changes in allocation decisions were supported by increased reasoning about the importance of equal access to educational supplies (Elenbaas et al., 2015). Interestingly, when allocating health supplies in a similar context, older children’s decisions differed based on which group they had seen receiving fewer supplies. With age, children demonstrated increasing awareness of average economic disparities between African Americans and European Americans in broader society (independent of the experimental paradigm). This increasing awareness of broader inequality between groups, as well as children’s increasingly negative judgments of an inequality of medical supplies, explained older children’s decisions to correct the inequality that was observed in the experiment for the disadvantaged African American peers (Elenbaas & Killen, in press‐b). With age, children also reasoned about others’ rights and the importance of access to medical care, revealing their moral concerns for others’ welfare in this complex context. Supporting the SRD model, the results of these studies highlight the ways in which children weigh morality, group identity, and intergroup norms when allocating resources between racial groups. Because these studies examined children’s allocations of resources that are, in fact, unequally distributed in United States to groups with a history of resource advantage or disadvantage, these results can be applied to understanding the development of behaviors and reasoning that either support or seek to shift the societal status quo. U.S. children are aware of some of the existing inequalities between racial groups in their society, and demonstrate strong concern for righting unjustified unequal distributions of important resources.

Conclusions, Implications, and Future Directions Group processes are central to the development of social cognition and moral judgment. In situations involving social inclusion/exclusion and resource allocation, children’s group identity plays a significant role in when and whether exclusion is viewed as unfair or legitimate as well as how resources are divided to ensure a fair outcome. Group processes reflect many different aspects of social development,

118  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland including group identity, group affiliation, and interpretations of group goals. Throughout development, children take multiple considerations into account when making moral judgments. Group processes are both a context for moral judgment decisions as well as an important consideration that must be weighed and considered when making decisions involving the fair treatment of others. Overall, the study of how group processes bear on social and moral development provides important insight into the developmental changes that occur throughout development. On the one hand, from a young age children view social exclusion as wrong and unfair, even when stereotypic expectations are salient. On the other hand, children are vulnerable to stereotypes, and, particularly in situations that are ambiguous or complex, they will exclude others who do not fit the group expectations, even when this is based on irrelevant criteria. Yet, children are also oriented towards fairness and equality, taking into account someone who has few resources in contrast to someone with lots of resources, and even considering a history of disadvantaged status when allocating resources. Determining what factors help children to give priority to morality in the context of group processes requires more detailed investigation. Group interactions provide children with a wealth of opportunities to engage with peers in constructive and meaningful ways, making friends, learning about new ideas and perspectives, and taking other viewpoints into account. At the same time, groups can serve to perpetuate inequalities, create social hierarchies, and foster in‐group and out‐group conflict. How children navigate the world of group identity and group processes is an important topic to investigate in child development. Understanding the role of groups in children’s lives provides a window into the development of morality, sociality, and psychology. References Abrams, D. (2011). Wherein lies children’s intergroup bias? Egocentrism, social understanding and social projection. Child Development, 82, 1579–1593. Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., & Marques, J. M. (2005). A social psychological framework for understanding social inclusion and exclusion. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The development of subjective group dynamics. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 47–65). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Pelletier, J. G., & Ferrell, J. M. (2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development, 80, 224–243. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2008.01256.x

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  119 Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of social equality? Ethics, 109, 287–337. Baumard, N., Mascaro, O., & Chevallier, C. (2012). Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods. Developmental Psychology, 48, 492–498. doi.org/10.1037/a0026598 Brenick, A., & Killen, M. (2014). Moral judgments about Jewish–Arab intergroup exclusion: The role of cultural identity and contact. Developmental Psychology, 50, 86–99. doi.org/10.1037/a0034702 Cooley, S., & Killen, M. (2015). Children’s evaluations of resource allocation in the context of group norms. Developmental Psychology, 51, 554–563. doi.org/10.1037/a0038796 Crystal, D., Killen, M., & Ruck, M. D. (2008). It is who you know that counts : Intergroup contact and judgments about race‐based exclusion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 51–70. doi.org/10.1348/026151007X198910 Daddis, C. (2011). Desire for increased autonomy and adolescents’ perceptions of peer autonomy: “Everyone else can; why can’t I?” Child Development, 82, 1310–1326. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01587.x Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development, 82, 793–811. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011. 01577.x Elenbaas, L., & Killen, M. (in press‐a). How do young children expect others to address resource inequalities? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j. jecp.2016.05.002 Elenbaas, L., & Killen, M. (in press‐b). Children rectify inequalities for disadvantaged groups. Developmental Psychology. Elenbaas, L., Rizzo, M. T., Cooley, S., & Killen, M. (2015). Children rectify social inequalities regarding access to educational resources. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Eslea, M., & Mukhtar, K. (2000). Bullying and racism among Asian schoolchildren in Britain. Educational Research, 42, 207–217. Helwig, C. C., & Turiel, E. (2002). Children’s social and moral reasoning. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 476–490). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hitti, A., & Killen, M. (2015). Expectations about ethnic peer group inclusivity: The role of shared interests, group norms, and stereotypes. Child Development, 86, 1522–1537. doi: 10.11.11/cdev.12393 Hitti, A., Mulvey, K.L., & Killen, M. (2011). Social exclusion and culture: The role of group norms, group identity and fairness. Anales de Psicologia (Special Issue: Prejudice: Socio‐developmental Perspectives), 27, 587–599. Horn, S. S. (2006). Group status, group bias, and adolescents’ reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 208–218. Horn, S. S. (2007). Adolescents’ acceptance of same‐sex peers based on sexual o­ rientation and gender expression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 373–373. doi.org/10.1007/ s10964‐007‐9176‐4

120  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland Horn, S.S. (2012). Attitudes about sexual orientation. In C. Patterson & A. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 239–251). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Horn, S. S., & Szalacha, L. A. (2009). School differences in heterosexual students’ attitudes about homosexuality and prejudice based on sexual orientation. European Journal of Developmental Science, 3, 64–79. Kienbaum, J., & Wilkening, F. (2009). Children’s and adolescents’ intuitive judgements about distributive justice: Integrating need, effort, and luck. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 481–498. Killen, M., & Cooley, S. (2014). Morality, exclusion, and prejudice. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 340–360). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Killen, M., Elenbaas, L., & Rutland, A. (2015). Balancing the fair treatment of others while preserving group identity and autonomy. Human Development, 58, 253–272. doi: 10.1159/000444151 Killen, M., Hitti, A., Cooley, S., & Elenbaas, L. (2015). Morality, development, and culture. In M. Gelfand, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (pp.161–220). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84, 772–790. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12012 Killen, M., & Rutland, A. (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice, and group identity. New York, NY: Wiley‐Blackwell. doi.org/10.1002/9781444396317 Killen, M., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Development of intra‐ and intergroup judgments in the context of moral and social‐conventional norms. Child Development, 84, 1063–1080. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12011 Liénard, P., Chevallier, C., Mascaro, O., Kiura, P., & Baumard, N. (2013). Early understanding of merit in Turkana children. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 57–66. doi.org/10.1163/15685373‐12342084 Malti, T., Killen, M., & Gasser, L. (2012). Social judgments and emotion attributions about exclusion in Switzerland. Child Development, 83, 697–711. McGillicuddy‐De Lisi, A., Daly, M., & Neal, A. (2006). Children’s distributive ­justice judgments: Aversive racism in Euro‐American children? Child Development, 77, 1063–1080. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00919.x Monks, C. P., Ortega‐Ruiz, R., & Rodriguez‐Hidalgo, A. J. (2008). Peer victimization in multicultural schools in Spain and England. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 507–535. Monteiro, M. B., de França, D. X., & Rodrigues, R. (2009). The development of intergroup bias in childhood: How social norms can shape children’s racial behaviours. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 29–39. doi.org/10.1080/00207590802057910 Moore, C. (2009). Fairness in children’s resource allocation depends on the recipient. Psychological Science, 20, 944–948. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2009.02378.x Mulvey, K. L., & Killen, M. (2015). Challenging gender stereotypes: Resistance and exclusion. Child Development, 86, 681–694. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12317

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  121 Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014a). Context differences in children’s ingroup preferences. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1507–19. doi.org/10.1037/a0035593 Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014b). When do children dislike ingroup members? Resource allocation from individual and group perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 29–46. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–245). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Nesdale, D. (2008). Peer group rejection and children’s intergroup prejudice. In S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesdale, D., Griffiths, J. A., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2007). Effects of group membership, intergroup competition and out‐group ethnicity on children’s ratings of in‐group and out‐group similarity and positivity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 359–373. doi.org/10.1348/026151006X150382 Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2005). Group norms, threat, and children’s racial prejudice. Child Development, 76, 652–663. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624. 2005.00869.x Ng, R., Heyman, G. D., & Barner, D. (2011). Collaboration promotes proportional reasoning about resource distribution in young children. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1230–1238. doi.org/10.1037/a0024923 Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, K. R., Dweck, C. S., Spelke, E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Children’s responses to group‐based inequalities: Perpetuation and rectification. Social Cognition, 29, 270–287. doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.270 Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of cooperation in young c­hildren. Cognition, 108, 222–231. Renno, M. P., & Shutts, K. (2015). Children’s social category‐based giving and its correlates: Expectations and preferences. Developmental Psychology, 51, 533–543. Rizzo, M. T., Elenbaas, L., Cooley, S., & Killen, M. (in press). Children’s recognition of fairness and others’ welfare in a resource allocation task: Age related changes. Developmental Psychology. Rizzo, M. T., & Killen, M. (in press). Children’s developing concern for equity in resource allocations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 571–645). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Rutland, A. (2004). The development of the social self. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 247–265). Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis. doi. org/10.4324/9780203391099

122  Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, and Rutland Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A. B., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐ presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. Rutland, A., & Killen, M. (2015). A developmental science approach to reducing prejudice and social exclusion: Intergroup processes, social‐cognitive development, and moral reasoning. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9, 121 – 154. Rutland, A., Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2015). When does the in‐ group like the out‐group? Bias among children as a function of group norms. Psychological Science, 26, 834–842. doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572758 Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social‐cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 279–291. doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369468 Scheffler, S. (2015). The practice of equality. In C. Fourie, F. Schuppert, & I. Wallimann‐Helmer (Eds.), Social equality: On what it means to be equals (pp. 21–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shaw, A., & Olson, K. R. (2012). Children discard a resource to avoid inequity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 382–395. doi.org/10.1037/a0025907 Sigelman, C. K., & Waitzman, K. A. (1991). The development of distributive justice orientations: Contextual influences on children’s resource allocations. Child Development, 62, 1367–1378. Smetana, J. G., Jambon, M., & Ball, C. (2014). The social domain approach to children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Publishers. Strohmeier, D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Intrapersonal and interpersonal risk factors for peer victimization in immigrant youth in Finland. Developmental Psychology, 47, 248–58. doi.org/10.1037/a0020785 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks‐Cole. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Turiel, E. (2006). The development of morality. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3: Social, pp. 789–857). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Verkuyten, M. (2007). Ethnic in‐group favoritism among minority and majority groups: Testing the self‐esteem hypothesis among preadolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 486–500. doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2007.00170.x Verkuyten, M., & Steenhuis, A. (2005). Preadolescents’ understanding and reasoning about asylum seeker peers and friendships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 660–679. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.002

Group Processes in Social Exclusion  123 Wainryb, C., & Recchia, H. (2014). Moral lives across cultures: Heterogeneity and conflict. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 259–278). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Publishers. Yip, T. (2014). Ethnic identity in everyday life: the influence of identity development status. Child Development, 85, 205–219. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12107 Zinser, O., Bailey, R. C., & Edgar, R. M. (1976). Racial recipients, social distance, and sharing behavior in children. Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 65–74. doi.org/10.2224/ sbp.1976.4.1.65

6 Toward a Contextualized Social Developmental Account of Children’s Group‐based Inclusion and Exclusion: The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics Dominic Abrams, Claire Powell, Sally B. Palmer, and Julie Van de Vyver

In this chapter we review evidence for a social developmental framework that draws together intergroup and intragroup processes to understand aspects of social inclusion and exclusion. Psychological research on ­children’s inclusion and exclusion in social relationships spans a variety of manifestations including peer acceptance and rejection (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006), bullying (Jones, Manstead, & Livingstone, 2011), ­prejudice (Aboud, 1988; Nesdale, 2008), exchange and fairness (Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach, 2008), implicit biases following social categorisation (Dunham & Emory, 2014), intergroup contact (Abbott & Cameron, 2014), conformity (Courriveau & Harris, 2010; Prinstein & Dodge, 2008), recognition of social norms (Schmidt, Rakoczy, & Tomasello, The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  125

2011; Smetana, 2006) and awareness of social audiences (Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005). Our premise is that children’s attitudes and behavior as members of groups can be understood better by considering how children face the challenge of understanding social relations in their social context. Building this contextualized social developmental account (e.g., Abrams, Rutland, Palmer, & Purewal, 2014) involves investigating the meanings children attach to their social judgments and actions as group members (Rhodes, 2012). This account is inspired by a nonreductionist meta‐theory shared by the social identity approach to intergroup relations (Abrams & Hogg, 2004) and a developmental social psychological approach that treats developmental processes as integral, rather than merely reactive, to cultural continuity and change (Durkin, 1995). Children and their groups are embedded in various social hierarchies and structures. We believe that children’s emerging understanding of how these structures connect also equips them to influence and shape their personal and collective situation. Generally, exclusion either as an individual or as a group member is a painful and aversive experience that threatens basic human needs for meaning, control, esteem, and belonging (Williams, 2007). Being excluded by others can cause anger, depression, withdrawal, self‐handicapping, lowered self‐esteem, and impaired cognitive capacity (Williams, Forgas, & von Hippel, 2005). Exclusion also appears to threaten the need to belong increasingly as children approach adolescence (Abrams, Weick, Colbe, Thomas, & Franklin, 2011). Intragroup and intergroup levels of inclusion and exclusion have implications for one another (Abrams & Christian, 2007). Therefore, a key issue is how children connect these two levels and how this relates to their own preferences for peers in their social relationships (Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013). Our research considers whether children understand that intragroup exclusion (i.e., among members within groups) may be motivated or inhibited by intergroup relations (i.e., between different groups), and whether they are aware of these combined intergroup/intragroup dynamics. Such awareness potentially equips children to negotiate and manage their social relationships with peers. In this chapter we focus on how the linkage between intragroup and intergroup relations frames children’s social inclusion and exclusion. We introduce subjective group dynamics theory (Marques, Abrams, Páez, & Hogg, 2001) to provide an account of this linkage, and explain the developmental subjective group dynamics (DSGD) model (Abrams & Rutland, 2011; Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Marques, 2003). Other chapters in this handbook focus in detail on aspects of children‘s intergroup behavior, moral and social reasoning, and social identity that are contributory and complementary to the DSGD model but cannot be considered at length in this chapter.

126  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver We argue that, during middle childhood, children develop “group nous” (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrell, 2009). Group nous is akin to more general social awareness such as social acumen (Nesdale, Zimmer‐Gembeck, & Roxburgh, 2014), social intelligence (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987) but it is a more specific type of lay theory (cf. Levy and Dweck 1999; Rhodes, 2012) that concerns the connection between intergroup and intragroup dynamics. Development of group nous helps to explain why, rather than becoming less prejudiced with age, as has traditionally been predicted by cognitive developmental theories (e.g., Aboud, 1988), children become more systematic and strategic in their evaluations and judgments of in‐group and out‐group members.

Subjective Group Dynamics Subjective group dynamics theory (see Marques et al., 2001) combines Durkheim’s (1951) theory of deviance with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and the social self‐regulation model (Abrams, 1994). Durkheim proposed that an important social function of deviance is that it allows society to define the boundaries of social conventions and rules. Deviance, therefore, provides a basis for social control and the maintenance of social order but this depends on individuals’ ability and motivation to ­differentiate clearly between deviant and non‐deviant behavior (Marques & Páez, 1994). Social identity is self‐definition as a group member, determined by awareness of shared group membership and the relative standing of that group vis–à‐vis other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to social identity theory, when shared self‐categorizations such as ethnic, team or other group memberships are salient, people will try to attain positive distinctiveness for the in‐group by favoring their in‐group over relevant out‐groups. The social self‐regulation model (Abrams, 1988; 1994) holds that, during social development, children’s reducing egocentrism enables them to regulate their behavior in terms of “standards of correctness” that are defined either by internalized in‐group norms or by the norms and standards judged to be held by a valued audience (e.g., other in‐group members). Sustaining positive social identity involves thoughtful and strategic choices, a process of social self‐regulation that engages when people feel accountable to other group members and when they are in situations that require selection among different possible standards (e.g., in‐group vs out‐group norms, moral versus instrumental goals). At the confluence of processes addressed by these three approaches are situations in which a group member needs to judge which standards (norms or attributes)



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  127

they should reinforce, and which they should ignore or undermine—the presence of deviant group members is an important instance of these situations. Deviant individuals potentially disrupt the coherence and homogeneity of the group and also weaken the distinctiveness of that group from other groups. Because deviance implies that the group norm is unstable, group members must decide whether to accept or to challenge the deviant position. Research on small groups highlights that people do not simply impose homogeneity and conformity on their groups, they devote considerable effort to reaching consensus, to debating, to dealing with procedures, setting goals, and so on (Shaw, 1976). Rejection of dissenters is a last resort (Schachter, 1951) because it represents a failure of these group processes by weakening the group numerically and by revealing publicly that it has been unable to enforce its norms. According to Subjective Group Dynamics (SGD) theory, these dilemmas are intensified in intergroup contexts wherein it becomes even more important to sustain consensus around in‐group norms because of the need to protect social identity. Social and developmental theories often contrast category‐based versus individuated processing of information about group members (Aboud, 1988; Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). However, SGD theory posits functional complementarity between differentiation within and between groups. Specifically, it holds that the more someone cares about intergroup differences, the more vigilant they will be for differences between group members that reinforce or undermine the in‐group’s validity (its alignment with prescriptive norms). A deviant in‐group member is especially threatening because he or she undermines the in‐group consensus. Out‐group deviants are also very important because they may indirectly validate the in‐group by undermining the out‐group consensus, or may directly validate the in‐group if they condone the in‐group consensus. Thus, a self‐regulatory vehicle for positive social identity is to reinforce relevant norms via selective treatment of normative and deviant group members.

Types of norm Different types of norms are relevant to these processes (see Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Viki, 2005). Norms can be denotative, or descriptive, if they define or are highly correlated with group membership (e.g., men are generally taller than women) but they may be somewhat irrelevant for the value of that membership in a particular situation. Norms are prescriptive when they contribute to the group’s value and subjective validity. Such norms may be opinion positions or forms of behavior or etiquette, to which group members are expected to adhere. There are two important types of prescriptive norm—generic and oppositional.

128  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver Generic norms apply generally to the social system in which all relevant groups exist. These can range from customs and societal expectations (such as to behave politely and sociably) to formal rules (such as those applying to all teams within a sports tournament). If group members behave in socially undesirable ways the social standing and reputation of the group as a whole is potentially undermined, which may discredit the social identity of its members. People are generally more concerned to ensure that in‐group members adhere to generic norms than that out‐group members do. This can result in a “black sheep effect” (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988), meaning that they differentiate more strongly between normative and deviant in‐group members than between normative and deviant out‐group members. Oppositional prescriptive norms exist when in‐groups and out‐groups hold competing positions. As a prototypical example, team loyalty norms mean that supporters should cheer for their own but not the opposing team. Oppositional deviance such as expressing agreement with a political opponent is liable to invite negative responses from other in‐group members, whereas oppositional deviance by out‐group members may often invite a degree of approval as it lends greater credibility to the in‐group norm (Abrams, Marques, Bown, & Henson, 2000). Oppositional deviance can also involve departure from criterial in‐group stereotypes or attitudes. In summary, SGD theory holds that while focusing on prescriptive group norms people differentiate between normative and deviant group members as a way of sustaining positive social identity.

A Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics The DSGD model seeks to explain how these SGD processes arise during social development and offers a series of propositions about children‘s judgments of group members in intergroup contexts, the underpinning social‐cognitive abilities, and social experiences that contribute to group nous. The model focuses on three types of differentiation—intergroup bias (favoring the in‐group as a whole over the out‐group as a whole), differential evaluation (the difference between evaluations of normative and deviant members of the same group), and differential inclusion (perceptions of how peers would apply differential evaluations).

Propositions 1–3: intergroup and intragroup differentiation Proposition 1 (P1) holds that, with age, children‘s intergroup and intragroup judgments become more systematically integrated. Younger children may judge groups and individuals somewhat independently (e.g., preferring in‐group members in general and



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  129

likeable individuals in general). Older ­children, like adults, should be more likely to base their distinctive responses to particular group members based on the implications for in‐group identity. Consequently, with age, children’s levels of intergroup bias become more systematically related to strategic favoritism toward particular individuals within in‐groups and within out‐groups (differential evaluation). The DSGD model also considers children’s expectations about how other group members may uphold group norms. Proposition 2 (P2) is that, as children get older, they will be more likely to link their own differential evaluation of group members with their beliefs about how in‐group or out‐group peers will respond to those particular group members (differential inclusion by peers). The connection between children’s own evaluations and their beliefs about peer evaluations is at the heart of subjective group dynamics because it involves self‐regulation with reference to group standards. Proposition three (P3) is that when social identity is more salient or important, older children will demonstrate a closer relationship between differential inclusion and differential evaluation. Further propositions from the model are introduced later in this chapter. Tests of P1–P3.  In various DSGD studies we constructed an experimental situation comparable to those used in previous research with adults (e.g., Marques, Abrams, Páez, & Martinez‐Taboada, 1998; Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). Across various studies the groups were summer schools, schools, countries, or minimal groups and teams. Children were first asked to rate how they felt towards the in‐group as a whole and the out‐group as a whole. This provided an intergroup differentiation measure. They then learned about, and later evaluated, normative and deviant targets who were children either from the in‐group or an out‐group. In most studies we either pre‐established group norms by pretesting or we reinforced them by presenting more than one normative member. In some studies deviants breached generic norms (such as acting nicely or showing up to a school fair), and in most they breached oppositional loyalty norms. We ensured that deviant individuals from both groups actually expressed the same views. For example, normative members made two positive statements about the group, such as “I really like my school, it is a great school to belong to” whereas deviants made one positive statement about the group but one positive statement about the other group (e.g., “I really like this school, but [the other school] would also be great to belong to”). Children gave their personal evaluations of these members (e.g., how favorable they felt toward each of them). These provided the differential evaluation measures. To measure differential inclusion we also asked how much, or how many, other group members would have favorable reactions toward the normative and deviant targets. Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, and Marques (2003) asked children, aged either 6–7 or 9–11 years, to evaluate normative (loyal) and deviant (partially disloyal)

130  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver individuals either from an in‐group or an out‐group summer school. Older children significantly favored an in‐group normative over an in‐group deviant member, but marginally favored an out‐group deviant over an out‐group normative member. In contrast, younger children did not evaluate these two members differently within either group. Thus, only the older children showed significant differential evaluation. Consistent with P1, the relationship between intergroup bias and differential evaluation of group members was larger among older children. Consistent with P2, only older children showed a significant relationship between differential evaluation and their anticipations of differential inclusion by others. In a similar design, Abrams, Rutland, and Cameron (2003) used the context of the 2002 soccer world cup, and asked English children, ranging from 5 to 12 years to evaluate normative and deviant supporters of the England soccer team (in‐group) or the German soccer team (out‐group). Intergroup bias, differential inclusion and differential evaluation all increased with age. Consistent with P3, not only did differential inclusion mediate age differences in differential evaluation but the relationship between differential inclusion and differential evaluation was significantly larger amongst children who identified with their in‐group more highly.

Propositions 4 and 5: developmental processes The DSGD model also proposes that children develop an understanding that, depending on the situation, some standards are more relevant than others for differentiating among members within groups. Proposition 4 (P4) is that: subjective group dynamics are likely to be domain specific. According to social domain theory (Turiel, 1983) children develop the ability to judge actions based on moral, psychological, or social conventional criteria, as befits the context (Killen, Lee‐ Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002; Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013; Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014). It follows that differential evaluation of normative and deviant group members most likely occurs when the deviant behavior is directly relevant to prescriptive norms that differentiate between the groups. Using a minimal groups paradigm to avoid any prior group history or identity, Abrams, Rutland, Ferrell, and Pelletier (2008) assigned children, via a lottery, to either a ‘star” or “diamond” team and then asked them to judge both in‐group and out‐ group members who were loyal and disloyal (Experiment 1) or behaved morally or immorally (Experiment 2). Whereas Experiment 1 revealed the same pattern of differential evaluation as earlier studies, Experiment 2 revealed that children’s preference for moral above immoral targets was unaffected by the in‐group or out‐ group membership of those targets. Thus, whereas differences in loyalty affected children’s judgments of in‐group and out‐group members (Experiment 1), differences



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  131

in moral behavior did not, because the latter were not directly relevant to intergroup differences (Experiment 2). The fifth proposition of the DSGD model addresses how children learn and make inferences about group dynamics in intergroup contexts, and what use they make of this knowledge. Proposition 5 (P5) is that children’s understanding of group inclusion processes should be related both to their social perspective taking and social experience. The ability to understand to whom particular norms are important, and when, enables people to adapt to different audiences. Children are often exposed to different norms simultaneously, for example they may be more likely to conform to school norms than to norms of a smaller in‐group (Nesdale & Lawson, 2011). They are responsive to public accountability when they evaluate in‐groups and out‐groups (Rutland 2004; Rutland, et al., 2005) and, consistent with the social self‐regulation model, higher self‐presentational concern moderates children’s in‐ group bias (Abrams, 1994; Abrams & Brown, 1989) and older children may express more bias when it is normative to do so (Rutland, et al., 2005). At the intragroup level, adults engage in stronger differential evaluation when they attend to prescriptive norms or there is an in‐group audience for their actions (Marques et al., 1998). Therefore older children’s greater self‐awareness and ability to self‐regulate in terms of self‐relevant norms (Abrams, 1988), means they should also be more responsive to accountability cues that focus attention on prescriptive norms. Consistent with P5, Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, and Ferrell (2007) found that in‐group accountability increased both intergroup bias and differential evaluations of loyal and disloyal group members, and this effect was stronger amongst older children. Audience effects imply that sophistication in perspective taking is also relevant to different elements of subjective group dynamics. For example, by the age of 9 or 10, children can easily identify that deviant group members are less typical of the group than normative counterparts (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003) but perspective taking enables them to link differences in typicality to differences in how deviants will be judged by others in the group. Abrams, Rutland, Palmer, Pelletier, Ferrell and Lee (2014) examined 6–7‐year‐old children’s second order mental state understanding (SOMSU, e.g., “he thinks that she thinks”; see Coull, Leekam, & Bennett, 2006) and found that only children with higher levels of SOMSU were able to infer that differences in normative and deviant group members’ typicality would lead to differential inclusion (see Figure 6.1). The DSGD model holds that differential inclusion should relate to children’s more advanced social perspective taking abilities. We developed a measure labeled “Theory of Social Mind” (ToSM; Abrams et  al., 2009), which tests whether children can distinguish between their own negative evaluation of a thief from the evaluation by someone who had no knowledge of the character’s wrongdoing.

132  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver 5 4.5

Low SOMSU High SOMSU

Differential Inclusion

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Low

High Differential Typicality

Figure 6.1  Relationship between Perceptions of Normative versus Deviant Typicality (Differential Typicality) and Perceptions of Differential Inclusion as a Function of Second Order Mental State Understanding (SOMSU). Abrams, Rutland, Palmer, Pelletier, et al., 2014.

Following a similar design to Abrams, Rutland and Cameron (2003) but with France rather than Germany as the out‐group, Abrams et al., 2009 (Study 1) found that ToSM performance was related to greater differential inclusion whereas ToSM was not related to either intergroup bias or differential evaluation. This is consistent with the idea that the ability to infer differential inclusion does not, in itself, mean that children will engage in differential evaluation. Specifically, the link between differential inclusion and differential evaluation only existed when children cared sufficiently about their group identity. Group nous.  People do not naturally know how to behave in groups, but rather they go through processes of socialization and influence which force them to engage with the social rules of group membership (Levine & Moreland 1994). Adults are likely to be able to anticipate these rules, but children are at the start of a ladder of experiencing group memberships. Over time they learn about a wider variety of social categories (e.g., nationality, religion), acquire specific group memberships (e.g., neighborhood, school), discover more about the way groups can be created and dissolved (e.g., during classroom assignments), and discover more about relationships between different groups. Such experience should provide children with



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  133

a better grasp of social conventions surrounding the inclusion and exclusion of group members. Indeed, research based on the social‐cognitive domain theory shows that, with age, children increasingly explain peer exclusion using social‐conventional justifications about “group functioning” (i.e., “the group won’t work well with someone different in”) (Killen, Lee‐Kim et al. 2002). We contend that children develop a generalized understanding of ways that individuals’ adherence to prescriptive norms in intergroup situations will affect the inclusion of those individuals by other group members. Abrams et al. (2009, Study 2) labeled this tacit understanding “group nous” (nous means practical know‐how). This was examined directly by asking children ranging from 5 to 10 years of age to complete an abstract measure of differential inclusion—one that did not involve the participant as a member of either group. The measure (labeled “group norm understanding”) described two teams (red and green) and showed two individuals (red and green). Children were asked which individual the red team would prefer. They were then shown that both the red and green individuals expressed positive attitudes to both teams (showing oppositional deviance) and were asked which individual the red team preferred. Better group norm understanding is revealed by the inference that red team members may select the green person (an oppositional deviant from an opposing group) rather than always selecting the red person (an oppositionally deviant same‐group member). This study also included a simple but direct index of group experience by asking children to list all the groups to which they had ever belonged. This measure has the advantage that it taps cognitive accessibility of group memberships without requiring children to reflect on the details of any particular group. As expected, better group norm understanding was predicted by both better ToSM scores and greater social experience of group memberships. The role of social experience was also revealed by Abrams (2011), who found that children who experienced more group memberships more strongly anticipated norms that peers would engage in in‐group bias (cf., Castelli, Tomelleri, & Zogmaister, 2008). In summary, consistent with P5, both perspective taking and social experience are implicated in the development of subjective group dynamics. Most of the studies reported above have used the context of oppositional norms to test DSGD processes, but comparable results have been obtained when prescriptive generic norms are focal, showing, among 5–12‐year‐olds, that only older children showed the black sheep effect (Abrams, Palmer, Rutland, Cameron, and Van de Vyver, 2014; see Figure 6.2). Specifically, they differentiated more strongly between normative and deviant members who were from the in‐group than when they were from the out‐group, and age differences in differential evaluation were mediated by differential inclusion. To explore how children reason about group dynamics Abrams, Palmer et al. (2014) asked children why other group members would feel inclusive or exclusive

134  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver 4.5 Ingroup Evaluations of Group Members

Outgroup 4

3.5

3

2.5

2 Normative

Deviant

5–6 yrs

Normative

Deviant

8–9 yrs

Figure 6.2  The Black Sheep Effect as a Function of Age. Note: Group members were either from an in‐group or an out‐group. Children evaluated both a normative and ­deviant member. Abrams, Palmer, Rutland, Cameron, & Van de Vyver, 2014.

towards the deviant. Responses were coded for references to groups, loyalty and traits (see Abrams et al., 2009) and moral, psychological and social conventional reasoning (see Killen, Rutland, Abrams, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013). Younger children predominantly referred to fairness (morality) across all explanations. However, older children were likely to explain favorable reactions to normative in‐group members in moral terms, but unfavorable reactions to deviants in terms of social conventions and loyalty. In other recent work (Hitti, Mulvey, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2014) adolescents regarded group exclusion of deviants who advocated unfairness as justifiable on moral grounds, but regarded exclusion of deviants as unjustifiable if they only contravened social conventions such as dress codes. Thus, consistent with evidence that expressions of intergroup prejudice become more specific, selective, and context‐sensitive during adolescence (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011), subjective group dynamics also operate with increasing sophistication to preserve the value and integrity of the in‐group and social identity. Our research program has periodically examined the potential role of various cognitive abilities in DSGD. For example, according to developmental intergroup theory (Bigler & Liben, 2006) multiple classification ability is a central developmental variable associated with changes in intergroup bias, and this has been supported by



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  135

research (e.g., Bigler & Liben, 1992; Liben, 2014) Yet, despite finding that multiple classification ability is related to intergroup bias we have found no evidence that it is related to differentiation between normative and deviant group members (Abrams et  al., 2007, 2008, 2009; Abrams, Rutland et  al., 2014). In addition, Abrams, Rutland et al. (2014) found no association between differential inclusion and either working memory or counterfactual reasoning ability. This interesting lack of association between abilities that tap cognitive capacity to deal with multiple sources of information and judgments involving social inclusion highlights that distinct processes might be involved in intergroup bias and intragroup social inclusion or exclusion. Greater cognitive complexity or flexibility (such as multiple classification ability) might help to reduce cognitively based biases that may underpin in‐group preference. However, it seems to be awareness of the social implications of differences between group members that bears more strongly on social inclusion and exclusion responses. Currently, in line with P5 therefore, the two consistent developmental influences on DSGD have been social perspective taking and social experience of groups.

Conclusions This chapter aimed to convey the key elements of, and evidence for, the DSGD model. To put this in a developmental narrative: as children get older, they gather expectations that in‐group and out‐group peers will want to include and exclude different individuals, depending on which group memberships are relevant and which norms are prescriptive. Better social perspective‐taking ability and greater experience of groups enables children to make inferences about differential inclusion both to their own existing and novel intergroup situations and relationships and to those which they observe as a third party. Consequently, older children are likely to distinguish between different types of norms, and to know when to pay greater attention to relevant prescriptive norms—for example, when they feel accountable to other in‐group members. As a result of their greater group nous, older children are also more likely to reflect the strength of their in‐group identification in terms of how closely they link their own evaluations of individual group members to their expectations of differential inclusion. Thus, with age, children respond to normative and deviant members more strategically, depending on how much it matters to support the in‐group. Psychological science values researchers’ efforts to isolate individual variables, processes or abilities and to provide piecemeal documentation of causal influence. However, this emphasis tends to abstract these processes from people‘s actual

136  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver experiences which are usually holistic, integrated and embedded in a social context. The DSGD model sits within a broader meta‐theoretical framework which emphasizes the value of building the social context of psychological experience into our theories (see Abrams & Hogg, 2004). Social relationships are multiply nested, and different goals and norms become focal in different relationships at different times. One important insight is that motives that serve one level (e.g., intergroup) can have implications for decisions at another (e.g., intragroup). For developmental theory it is, therefore, important to understand children’s appreciation of these complexities. The DSGD model aims to do this in a modest way by articulating how intergroup and intragroup judgments become integrated when children judge normative and deviant group members. For example, trying to address linkages between levels led us to develop new measures of theory of social mind and group norm understanding, as well as further ways to analyze reasoning about social exclusion. We believe it will be useful to apply insights from the DSGD model to develop interventions in a variety of social arenas that involve children’s decisions about, or responses to, potential inclusion and exclusion of peers from social relationships and group activities. For example, approaches to school‐based bullying and victimization can benefit from a focus on the wider relational context (Abrams & Killen, 2014; Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013; Nesdale, et al, 2014; Rutland, Abrams, & Cameron, 2006), and not just individuals’ cognitions or pathologies (e.g., Craig 1998). Consistent with tenets of DSGD, recent evidence shows that group membership (e.g., Nesdale, Killen, & Duffy, 2013) and group norms (e.g., Nesdale & Lawson, 2011) are highly relevant in framing children‘s attitudes towards bullying and aggression. Children tend to disapprove of bullying (Rigby & Bortolozzo, 2013) but they become less positive toward victims as they enter adolescence (Rigby, 1997). The DSGD model would consider this transition in terms of the dynamic connection between the intra‐ and intergroup components of attitudes and behavior. By focusing on developmental changes in how children and adolescents understand and attach importance to this dynamic, we may learn more about, and be able to intervene more effectively to address, low levels of victim‐helping in bullying incidents (e.g., Rigby & Johnson, 2006). When victimization is directed at children who challenge the validity of an in‐group (e.g., by working “too hard” compared with other members), effective intervention strategies by teachers might address salient group boundaries and norms rather than focusing only on the behavior of the bully or the victim. An important aspect of our approach is to build on both social and developmental psychology to reach a fuller account of social development. There is much to be gained by understanding the developmental processes that frame social behavior, just as there is much to be gained by asking what social psychological processes enable children to engage in complex social phenomena that are



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  137

commonplace among adults (Abrams 2004; Bennett & Sani 2004; Durkin, 1995). Because of their different research contexts, populations, and methods, social and developmental psychology sometimes appear to have little connection. Yet theories of group‐based inclusion and exclusion and group dynamics can clearly benefit from understanding the developmental pathways to typical adult forms. Discovering developmental patterns and antecedents can shed light on aspects that may, by adulthood, be implicit or difficult to track, or that adults may not be prepared to articulate. Conversely, referring to typical adult phenomena (e.g., that adults do express prejudices) is helpful in challenging developmental assumptions about possible progressions (e.g., that prejudices decline developmentally). There remain numerous questions for the DSGD model itself. Are these processes generalizable across cultures (as we assume they should be)? Are some children dispositionally more tuned to group dynamics than others? How and when do children seek out information about prescriptive norms? Current research is testing how children judge different kinds of deviance when norms emphasize shared identity with out‐group members rather than in‐group loyalty. It is also exploring how these dynamics function in older children and through adolescence (e.g., Mulvey, Hitti, Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2014). There may be additional social cognitive underpinnings of subjective group dynamics. For example, it is not known whether children’s expectations in new intergroup contexts reflect their inferences from specific salient past experiences of exclusion and inclusion in groups. Further work is also required to understand how children deal with situations in which both generic and oppositional norms are relevant but in which different group members deviate from one type, the other, or even both (Abrams et al, 2016). An interesting challenge arises when intergroup distinctiveness is threatened by oppositional deviance, such as when behavior is counter gender stereotypical (Abrams et al., 2000; Heinze & Horn, 2014). Finally, new research is needed to investigate how these dynamics play out in social interactions within children’s groups as they reach group decisions, including those about their intergroup preferences and behavior (Powell, Abrams, & Hopthrow, 2013). Overall, then, it is hoped that the model and its overarching meta‐theory can stimulate new research across these and other areas to help provide a fuller account of children’s intergroup and intragroup behavior.

Acknowledgments As well as the contribution of direct collaborators authoring this chapter, the research program has been a wider collaboration with Adam Rutland, Melanie Killen, Lindsey Cameron, Joseph Pelletier, and José Marques (University of Porto)

138  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver and Tom Andrews (People United), and has benefited from discussions with members of the Center for the Study of Group Processes including Norb Kerr and John Levine, as well as with Drew Nesdale. The work has been supported by research grants and postgraduate studentships to the University of Kent from the British Academy and the Economic and Social Research Council (R000230401, ES/ J500148/1, ES/J500148/1, ES/H020217/1).

References Abbott, N., & Cameron, L. (2014). What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness and in‐group bias on assertive bystander interventions. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 167–182. doi: 10.1111/josi.12053 Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford: Blackwell. Abrams, D. (1988). Self‐consciousness scales for adults and children: Reliability, validity and theoretical significance. European Journal of Personality, 2, 11–37. doi: 10.1002/ per.2410020103 Abrams, D. (1994). Social self‐regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 473–484. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205004 Abrams, D. (2004). The development of social identity: What develops? In M. Bennett, & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 291–312). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Abrams, D. (2011). Wherein lies children’s intergroup bias? Egocentrism, social understanding and social projection. Child Development, 82, 1579–1593. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2011.01617.x. Abrams, D., & Brown, R. J. (1989). Self‐consciousness and social identity: Self‐­regulation as a group member. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 311–318. Abrams, D., & Christian, J. N. (2007). A relational analysis of social exclusion. In D. Abrams, J. N. Christian, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research (pp. 211–232). Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 98–106. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_2 Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). Social exclusion of children: Developmental o­ rigins of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 1–11. doi: josi12043 Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N. J., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro‐norm and anti‐norm deviance within in‐groups and out‐groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906–912. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.906 Abrams, D., Palmer, S. B., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Van de Vyver, J. (2014). Evaluations of and reasoning about normative and deviant in‐group and out‐group members: Development of the black sheep effect. Developmental Psychology, 50, 258–270. doi: 10.1037/a0032461 Abrams, D., Palmer, S. B., Van de Vyver, J., Hayes, D. P., Delaney, K., Guarella, S., & Purewal, K. (2016). Adolescents’ social judgments of doubly deviant peers: Implications



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  139

of intergroup and intragroup dynamics for disloyal and overweight group members. Social Development. doi: 10.1111/sode.12187 Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G. R., Hutchison, P., & Viki, G. T. (2005). When bad becomes good (and vice versa): Why social exclusion is not based on difference. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of exclusion and inclusion (pp. 161–190). New York, NY: Psychology Press Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2011). Children’s understanding of deviance and group dynamics: The development of subjective group dynamics. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 135–157). Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and deviant in‐group and out‐group individuals. Child Development, 74, 1840–1856. doi:10.1046/j.1467‐8624.2003.00641.x Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Ferrell, J. (2007). Older but wilier: In‐group accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 43, 134–148. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.134 Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Marques, J. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: When in‐group bias gets specific. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 155–176. doi: 10.1348/026151003765264020 Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Ferrell, J. M., & Pelletier, J. (2008). Children‘s judgments of ­disloyal and immoral peer behavior: Subjective group dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79, 444–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01135.x Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Palmer, S. B., Pelletier, J., Ferrell, J., & Lee, S. (2014). The role of cognitive abilities in children’s inferences about social atypicality and peer exclusion and inclusion in intergroup contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 233–247. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12034 Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Palmer, S. B., & Purewal, K. (2014). Children’s responses to social atypicality among group members – Advantages of a contextualized social‐developmental account. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 257–261. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12053. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Pelletier, J., & Ferrell, J. M. (2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development, 80, 224–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01256.x Abrams, D., Weick, M., Colbe, H., Thomas, D., & Franklin, K. M. (2011). On‐line ostracism affects children differently from adolescents and adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 110–123. doi:10.1348/026151010X494089 Bennett, M., & Sani, F. (Eds.). (2004). The development of the social self. Abingdon: The Psychology Press. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in children’s gender ­stereotyping: Theoretical and educational implications of a cognitive‐based intervention. Child Development, 63, 1351–1363. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01700.x Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behaviour (Vol. 34, pp. 39–89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

140  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull, & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 177–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall. Castelli, L., Tomelleri, S., & Zogmaister, C. (2008). Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: Subtle preference for ingroup members displaying ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 807–818. doi:10.1177/0146167208315210 Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2010). Preschoolers (sometimes) defer to the majority in making simple perceptual judgments. Developmental Psychology, 46, 437–445. doi:10.1037/a0017553 Coull, G. J., Leekam, S. R., & Bennett, M. (2006). Simplifying second‐order belief ­attribution: What facilitates children’s performance on measures of conceptual understanding? Social Development, 15, 548–563. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9507.2006. 00340.x Dunham, Y., & Emory, J. (2014). Of affect and ambiguity: The emergence of preference for arbitrary ingroups. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 81–98. doi: 0.1111/josi.12048. Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York, NY: Free Press. Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young ­children. Nature, 454, 1079–1083. doi:10.1038/nature07155 Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category‐based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York, NY: Academic Press. Heinze, J. E., & Horn, S. S. (2014). Heterosexual adolescents’ reasoning about social exclusion based on sexual orientation and gender conformity. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 63–82. doi: 10.1111/josi.12047 Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). When is it okay to exclude a member of the ingroup? Children’s and adolescents’ social reasoning. Social Development, 23, 451–469. doi: 10.1111/sode.12047 Jones, S. E., Manstead, A. S. R., & Livingstone, A. G. (2011). Ganging up or sticking together? Group processes and children‘s responses to text‐message bullying. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 71–96. doi 10.1348/000712610X502826 Killen, M., Lee‐Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the society for research in child development (Vol. 67, No. 4). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84, 772–790. doi: 10.1111/ cdev.12012 Killen, M., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013), Development of intra‐ and intergroup judgments in the context of moral and social‐conventional norms. Child Development, 84, 1063–1080. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12011



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  141

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 305–336). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Levy, S., & Dweck, C. (1999). The impact of children’s static versus dynamic ­conceptions of people on stereotype formation. Child Development, 70, 1163–1180. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00085 Liben, L. S. (2014). The individual ↔ context nexus in Developmental Intergroup Theory: Within and beyond the Ivory Tower. Research in Human Development, 11, 273–290, doi: 10.1080/15427609.2014.967048 Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Páez, D., & Hogg, M.A. (2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In M. A. Hogg and S. Tindale (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3): Group Processes (pp. 400–424). Oxford: Blackwell. Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Páez, D., & Martinez‐Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and in‐group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976 Marques, J. M., & Páez, D. (1994). The “black sheep effect”: Social categorization, rejection of in‐group deviates and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68. Marques, J. M., Páez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identity and intragroup differentiation as subjective social control. In J. F. Morales, D. Páez, J. C. Deschamps, and S. Worchel (Eds.), Current perspectives on social identity and social categorization (pp. 124–142). New York, NY: Sage. Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180102 Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2014). When do children dislike ingroup members? Resource allocation from individual and group perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 29–46. doi: 10.1111/josi.12045. Mulvey, K. L, Hitti, A., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). Context d ­ ifferences in children’s ingroup preferences. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1507–1519. doi: 10.1037/a0035593 Nesdale, D. (2008). Peer group rejection and children’s intergroup prejudice. In S. R. Levy, & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesdale, D., & Lawson, M. J. (2011). Social groups and children’s intergroup attitudes: Can school norms moderate the effects of social group norms? Child Development, 82, 1594–1606. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01637.x Nesdale, D., Killen, M., & Duffy, A. (2013). Children’s social cognition about p ­ roactive aggression. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 674–692. doi: org/10.1016/j. jecp.2013.07.003 Nesdale, D., Zimmer‐Gembeck, M., & Roxburgh, N. (2014). Peer group rejection in childhood: Effects of rejection ambiguity, rejection sensitivity, and social acumen. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 12–28. doi: 10.1111/josi.12044

142  Abrams, Powell, Palmer, and Van de Vyver Powell, C., Abrams, D., & Hopthrow, T. (2013). Brainstorming with children: A comparison of nominal and interacting groups. Paper presented at the INGRoup Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2008). Current issues in peer influence research. In M. J. Prinstein, & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national ­prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta‐analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82, 1715–1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01668.x Rhodes, M. (2012). Naïve theories of social groups. Child Development, 83, 1900–1916. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01835.x Rigby, K. (1997). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school ­children. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 202–220. Rigby, K., & Bortolozzo, G. (2013). How schoolchildren’s acceptance of self and others relate to their attitudes to victims of bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 181–197. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9213-y Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educational Psychology, 26, 425–440. doi:10.1080/01443410500342047 Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571–645). New York, NY: Wiley Publishers. Rutland, A. (2004). The development and self‐regulation of intergroup attitudes in children. In M. Bennett and F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 247–265). Abingdon: Psychology Press. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00856.x Rutland, A., Abrams, D., & Cameron, L. (2006). Children’s attitudes towards non‐conformists: Intergroup relations and exclusion in middle childhood. International Journal of School Disaffection, 4, 45–52. Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–208. Schmidt, M. F. H., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Young children attribute normativity to novel actions without pedagogy or normative language. Developmental Science, 14, 530–539. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01000.x Shaw, M. E. (1976).Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill. Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social‐cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.



The Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics  143

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, K. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.psych.58.110405.085641 Williams, K., Forgas, J., & Von Hippel, W. (2005). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection and bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press

7 Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum

Communication, Development, and Group Processes The recent growth of interest in the development of children’s and adolescents’ knowledge of group processes has led to some significant advances in understanding and theory. These advances highlight how social and cognitive factors intertwine in development, how even young children can have quite complex understanding of groups, and how reasoning about one’s own and others’ group memberships show important shifts at certain ages and phases or stages in life (Bigler & Liben, 2007; Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010). It is important for group theorists to understand more about how children and adolescents go about forming, maintaining, and conducting themselves in social relationships because it is through communication within these relationships that much developmental “work” is done. Communication is the means through which children can acquire an understanding of the distinctiveness and characteristics of social groups, status relations, the salience and relevance of groups to judgments and decision‐making, and stereotypes

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  145 and norms about groups. Through communication children can affirm group memberships and identity and construct group norms together (Kyratzis, 2001). For the developing subject, interaction offers uniquely rich opportunities to understand oneself in terms of group memberships. Interaction allows children and adolescents to “test” out hypotheses about social roles, rules, and expectations, and also to debunk stereotypes and establish new groups, allegiances, and intergroup contact. Communication and interaction are, then, the context for doing social cognition and social identity, rather than just learning about it. In short, communication offers a particular type of opportunity to practice our group memberships and reenact the roles associated with them, as well as to find out directly how others understand those roles and perceive us (Leman & Tenenbaum, 2011). In this chapter we discuss research into communication in childhood and adolescence in the context of work on group dynamics. We begin by outlining the ways in which a better understanding of processes of communication can inform work in the area. We then describe research into processes of communication and development in relation to gender (and, to a lesser extent, race and ethnicity). We also discuss the ways in which communication teaches children about group norms in the context of gender. We follow this by an analysis of work about communication in different developmental contexts, particularly peer and adult–child interaction, and discuss how these processes affect learning, attitudes, and intergroup contact. We then introduce work that has sought to understand how group membership relates to processes of psychological and cognitive development as well as the development of social understanding. We conclude with a brief discussion of future directions for research into the development of communication and groups processes.

Communication and the Development of Knowledge Very little of the emerging body of work on the development of group understanding in children and adolescents has included detailed analysis of the specifics of children’s and adolescents’ social interactions. Moreover, research that has described interactions and communications has tended to do so as an adjunct to or additional component of an experimental study or reported anecdotal findings about children’s communication and interactions in conjunction with attitude and other measures (e.g., Bigler, Brown, & Markell, 2001). In several respects the current emphasis on experimentation runs counter to classical work in the field that often incorporated careful, if not always systematic, analyses of aspects of interactions. For example, Sherif ’s Robbers Cave “experiment”

146  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) reported several features of boys’ interactions and verbal exchanges as they generated conflicting (minimal) groups. Spontaneous features of verbal interactions including name‐calling (of members of other groups) and discussion of shared (in‐group) activities were used, by the boys, to create a common group identity, to bolster or reinforce that identity, and to generate distinctiveness from members of other groups. Of course, these are common and widely recognized features of everyday interactions. Such is the influence of Sherif ’s study that many, perhaps, assume the links between group processes and different features of communication. However, it is important to remember that not only does communication act as a forum for the creation and transmission of group information, it also offers the means for transforming group norms, intergroup and intragroup relations, and attitudes, behavior, and relationships. A greater focus on communication in the group context can help researchers not just to diagnose developmental change in group understanding, but also to gain important insights into the means by which that change happens. And, although it is often implicit, many accounts of the development of group knowledge argue that communication plays a central role in the development of knowledge and behavior. Similarly, research into the reduction of prejudice and promotion of positive intergroup attitudes typically argues that communication and contact are fundamentally important to effect changes in attitudes and relationships (e.g., Allport, 1954). Thus there are several good reasons for looking more closely at processes of communication among children and adolescents in terms of the development of groups understanding. Broadly, we might identify five reasons why it is important for developmental and social psychologists to give greater attention to the process of communication in children’s and adolescents’ social groups. First, if we wish to understand development better, a good place to start is to examine what goes on in communication, an activity that children and adolescents spend a good deal of their time doing. Through the course of development, individuals frequently engage in all sorts of interactions (with all sorts of people) and we commonly assume these interactions promote development in some way. Communication provides an easily accessible opportunity for learning, rehearsing, and practicing aspects of group understanding and social identities with others (Leman & Tenenbaum, 2011). Children self‐socialize through their interactions with peers (Corsaro, 1990). For example, through conversations with peers children learn that girls are typically collaborative in their speech and that boys are frequently assertive (Leaper, 1998). However, these gender norms are modified depending on the ethnicity of the children. Indeed, African American children show less stereotyped patterns, suggesting that both gender and ethnicity are important in understanding the effects of group memberships on the dynamics of interactions (Leaper, Tenenbaum, & Shaffer, 1999). The study of processes of

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  147 communication therefore directly examines activity in the social crucible in which learning and relationships happen (see also Aydt & Corsaro, 2003). Second, both the content and dynamics of children’s communication may be symptomatic of underlying cognition and attitudes; things are revealed in communication that are not obvious from other studies and an examination of communication may allow us to examine group understanding in more naturalistic and contextualized settings. Thus, communication can be a useful diagnostic tool to understand how children and adolescents play out their group knowledge in everyday contexts. For example, Leman and Lam (2008) explored 8‐year‐old children’s interethnic interactions and conversations about choosing an unfamiliar child as a potential playmate from the same or another ethnic group. Not only did ethnicity influence the behavioral dynamics of a pair’s interaction, it also affected the content of discussion and the choices that children made. After discussion with another majority group (white, European) child, children tended to choose an in‐ group (majority) child as a potential playmate. Minority group children (South Asian and African‐Caribbean) children also chose an in‐group playmate (i.e., a South Asian or African Caribbean), but this in‐group preference was less marked than among majority group children. In cross‐ethnic interaction (i.e., a majority and a minority child) pairs tended to choose the majority group (white, European) playmate. Although minority children showed less in‐group preference, levels of affiliation in interaction dynamics were highest in all‐minority pairs. Conversations tended not to discuss ethnicity explicitly as a reason for playmate choice, but behavioral outcomes indicated some implicit majority group bias in all children’s judgments. These findings, from children’s spontaneous interactions, resonate with findings from other studies (e.g., Aboud, 1988; Davis, Leman, & Barrett, 2007) that suggest that some group processes, and in particular self‐evaluations, operate differently among ethnic minority and ethnic majority group children. There is certainly merit in pursuing more studies of communication in children from this diagnostic perspective. Studies of adults’ interactions and group knowledge have revealed some interesting and important findings. For instance, in a series of studies Richeson, Shelton and colleagues (e.g., Bergsieter, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010; Richeson & Shelton, 2007; Trawalter, Richeson, & Shelton, 2009) have described the ways in which interracial attitudes and biases can affect interactions, and perceptions of others in interactions, and subsequent judgments and evaluations. A third reason for group research to focus more on processes of communication, is that it is primarily through communication within social groups that children and adolescents can come to understand in‐group norms and a sense of identity. In other words, communication facilitates in‐group identification and cohesion. This can be achieved not only through common identification and focus around a set of shared beliefs, attitudes, and values but also through comparison with salient

148  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum out‐groups (cf. Sherif et  al., 1961). For example, Kyratzis (2001) conducted a longitudinal study in which she followed a preschool girls’ and boys’ group throughout a school year. At the beginning of the school year boys referenced fear, but not by the end. In another study, Kyratzis and Tarim (2010) found that Turkish preschool‐aged girls explicitly voiced that girls’ groups were collaborative with no member differentiating themselves from others. In contrast, when interacting with boys, girls performed more hierarchical scripts, suggesting that they were aware than group norms differ depending on the group participants. Thus, through daily interactions, group norms were created. Such a finding may help to explain why children who spend more time with same‐sex peers in the autumn demonstrate more gender‐typed communication and behaviors by the end of the year (Martin & Fabes, 2001). It seems that children’s communication in peer groups influences their in‐group norms. Fourthly, communication and interaction are arguably the most important forums for intergroup contact leading to possible attitude change and influence. Communication is also, arguably, the chief means of establishing and maintaining relationships. Of course, communication can also be a forum for conflict between groups. The role of intergroup contact as a means of attitude change and prejudice reduction has been well established in children (Cameron, Rutland, Brown & Douch, 2006; Dalton & Nesdale, 2011). Fifth and finally, communication is essential for the transmission of information and the exchange of perspectives. For many developmental psychologists, this exchange is a prerequisite for understanding others and thus necessary for social and cognitive development (e.g., Doise & Mugny, 1983). For instance, sociocultural theorists of learning and education in a Vygotskian tradition have invoked notions such as guided participation, apprenticeship, and scaffolding (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1980; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1988) to describe the parent–child and peer interactions that promote learning in both the classroom and informal learning environments. While, in these approaches, communication is at the heart of the explanation of developmental change, the notion of the group is often invoked as a homogeneous entity. Thus these approaches emphasize the importance of, for instance, a “community of learners” (see again Lave & Wenger, 1991) and the developmental task for the child is to come to participate in the life of the group as an expert or full member of that community.

Gender and the development of communication In recent years there has been an empirical focus on ethnic groups in the context of developmental theory. With the exception of work on gender, the development of group processes in respect of other social categories has received somewhat less

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  149 attention from researchers. Some recent work has focused on social class (Horwitz, Shutts, & Olson, 2014), and some others on religious or national categories (e.g., Møller & Tenenbaum, 2011; Rutland, 1999). Historically a great deal of research explored the development of gender, and it is in respect of gender that the majority of work on processes of communication in the development of group knowledge can be found. This emphasis on gender may be because gender is one of very few binary social categories that is ubiquitous and commonly emphasized by others (Duveen & Lloyd, 1992). Arguably, gender is also a more potent social category even than ethnicity in terms of its influence on children’s and adolescents’ social relationships and reasoning (Shutts, Roben, & Spelke, 2013). There is plentiful evidence for the popularly held view that the conversational styles of men and women differ (e.g., Tannen, 1990). Although the terms used to describe these differences vary, they might be characterized as a more goal‐oriented, action‐based, and sometimes conflictual approach in male talk and a more relationship‐oriented and consensual or collaborative approach among females. These communication differences may partly be a consequence of differences in verbal ability (Tenenbaum, Leman, & Aznar, 2014) but, although these differences do exist, they are often only small, and variation can often be better explained by other factors such as social class and education (Hyde & Linn, 1988). Moreover, some commonly assumed differences in terms of male and female talk are not always borne out by research: for instance, while the stereotype that women speak more than men has received some support in research (James & Drakich, 1993), other studies using different methodologies and measures and in different communicative contexts, find no difference (Mehl, Vazire, Ramírez‐Esparza, Slatcher, & Pennebaker, 2007). In a meta‐analysis of gender effects in adult communication, Leaper and Ayers (2007) found that other factors such as familiarity and gender composition as well as the activity context were equally important factors that influenced conversation dynamics (specifically, whether those involved were assertive or affiliating in conversations). Leaper and Smith (2004) conducted a meta‐analysis to examine developmental trends in the influence of gender on the behavioral dynamics of interactions in children’s language use. As the authors note, the influence of gender on interaction varies as a function of children’s (and adolescents’) gender knowledge and reasoning at different ages. Thus, preschoolers and younger children will tend to think about gender in rigid ways whereas an adolescent might be better able to appreciate the mutable characteristic of gender roles (Katz & Ksansnak, 1994). Leaper and Smith suggest alternative patterns for the development of gender differences in communication that stem from different developmental theories. First, gender influence in conversation may simply reflect increasing gender flexibility in attitudes and thinking from childhood onwards. Accordingly, the influence of gender in conversations

150  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum and communication would show increasing flexibility between early and middle childhood, before stabilizing in middle childhood and into adolescence (e.g., Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993). Second, gender influences may follow a path of increased rigidity in thinking about gender roles in early adolescence (the Gender‐ intensification Hypothesis; e.g., Archer, 1984) as early adolescents start to think about sexualized relationships and a different set of social and role demands compared with childhood. Third, gender influence may simply increase in a linear fashion from early childhood through to adolescence because rigidity in thinking may not be reflected in what has become routinized gendered behavior by the end of childhood (Liben & Bigler, 2002). The meta‐analysis revealed surprisingly few gender effects across a range of measures and those that were identified were of a modest effect size (see again, Leaper and Smith, 2004). In line with several other studies (e.g., Leman, Ahmed, & Ozarow, 2005; Maccoby, 1998), girls were more talkative and affiliating than boys, whereas boys were more assertive. Between 1 and 3 years of age girls were significantly more talkative (i.e., they spoke more and for longer) and this is consistent with the suggestion that girls may develop language more quickly than boys (Tenenbaum, Aznar, & Leman, 2014), and perhaps learn, at an earlier age, how to use it. However, the behavioral dynamics of interaction appear to show a different developmental trajectory. Specifically, there were gender differences in levels of affiliation in interaction (working together, asking questions, and seeking a joint solution to problems) in early childhood and from adolescence onwards. But during middle childhood (5 to 9 years) there was no significant gender difference. Leaper and Smith (2004) suggest that this “U‐shaped” trajectory of gender differences may link affiliative speech with gender intensification (cf. Archer, 1994). That is, at the onset of adolescence gender attitudes become less flexible. In this respect, during middle childhood there is a period of no gender differences in affiliation in boys’ and girls’ styles of interaction. But before and after this period, boys are generally (and statistically) less affiliating than girls. The finding that gender‐intensification may affect children’s interactions differently at different ages is important for work into the development group understanding because it points to an inter‐linking of social‐cognitive factors and processes of communication. Thus, the reoccurrence of rigidity in attitudes to gender in early adolescence reflects underlying cognitive processes. It is also important because interpersonal affiliation is a natural focus for researchers interested in group theory and identification (e.g., Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011). It is also a finding of practical importance for parents and educators because it suggests that interventions aimed at prejudice reduction, or promoting opportunity and positive gender relations, ought to be targeted carefully at different age groups to achieve optimal effects.

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  151 From the perspective of work on the development of group processes, the finding that gender differences in levels of affiliation change across childhood and adolescence raises a further crucial question about how the gender of a child, and of her or his audience, affects communication. For instance, children interacting with a stranger may be aware of self‐presentational concerns and thus behave in more gender‐consistent ways to avoid what they perceive to be negative social consequences (Banerjee & Lintern, 2000). Indeed, from a relatively early age, children seem aware of the relationship between gender and the social context in which gender is expressed in talk. Cartei, Cowles, Banerjee, and Reby (2014) note that adults can identify the gender of child from the pitch of her or his voice at 4 years, even though there are few, if any, anatomical reasons for gender differences in pitch before puberty. Thus, from early childhood, children appear to be adapting their voice to achieve self‐presentational (gender) goals in different contexts. While gender differences may exist in interaction from a young age, it is also important to establish whether children and adolescents adjust or modify their interaction “styles” depending on the gender of a conversation partner. In their meta‐analysis Leaper and Smith (2004) found that, while there was a significant gender difference in the use of affiliation in same‐gender interactions (i.e., comparing boy–boy and girl–girl interactions) the difference was of a much smaller magnitude than in cross‐gender interaction (i.e., interaction between a boy and a girl). Leaper and Smith suggest that power and status differences between genders may account for girls doing more affiliative work in cross‐gender interaction. These findings map on to contrasting sociolinguistic accounts for the effects of gender (and other aspects of identity and social status) in communication. Certainly some of the conversational effects of gender are the consequence of acquired, socialized styles (see again Tannen, 1990). These gendered styles—or alternate ­cultures—are then reproduced by boys and girls in their subsequent interactions. However, as evidenced by the findings from Leaper and Smith’s meta‐analysis and other studies, the ability to react to adapt one’s style in reaction to a conversation partner’s gender indicates that an awareness that the status characteristics in any interaction (Berger, Hamit, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977) are also an influence, at least later in childhood. No studies have directly examined the age at which children adjust conversational styles in response to a peer’s gender. Yet Kyratzis and Tarim (2010) found that girls enacted more hierarchical scripts with boys than girls by preschool. And these effects are certainly evident at 7 and 9 years (see Leman et al, 2005; Leman & Björnberg, 2010). The ways in which cross‐gender relations change with age requires further study, and particularly important is to understand how this affects communication and interaction across childhood and into adolescence when attitudes, beliefs, and self‐knowledge are developing quickly. In this respect, recent

152  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum accounts of the development of group dynamics (e.g., Abrams et al., 2014) have argued that advances in social cognition (e.g., Theory of Social Mind and Second Order Mental State Understanding), underpin the development of group knowledge and attitudes. How this understanding affects communication has important implications not just for understanding children’s emerging social cognition but also their interactions and relationships with peers of both genders.

Ethnicity and Communication Although the influence of gender on children’s conversation dynamics has been well established, very little research has systematically explored the influence of ethnicity on them. The research that there is suggests ethnicity can have a marked influence on interactions. Perhaps the most consistent finding in this context is that ethnicity has a clear influence on levels of affiliation between children from around 7 years old: in cross‐ethnic interaction, children tend to disaffiliate (that is, they are less open, supportive, and warm towards conversation partners); and ethnic minority children show particularly high levels of affiliation in in‐group interaction (i.e., when interacting with another individual from a minority group) compared with majority group children’s in‐group interactions (Leman & Lam, 2008; Leman, et al., 2011). Research into communication between children of different ethnic groups corresponds to findings from other research which suggests that children respond to not just ethnic in‐groups and out‐groups but also the relative status of the ethnic group to which they belong. These responses have clear correlates in interaction dynamics between children that might affect learning, moral and social judgments and ethnic group attitudes and longer‐term relationship choices.

The Sources of Group Differences in Communication Research into the influence of gender and, to a lesser extent, ethnicity on children’s and adolescents’ processes of communication highlights the sometimes profound effect of group memberships on the social dynamics of interaction. Again, communication is not just the forum for transmitting information about groups or for expressing individual beliefs, but also a context for changing attitudes and beliefs and for learning. In this respect, along with social dynamics how far the content or topics of children’s and adolescents’ conversations are influenced by gender is an important consideration.

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  153 There is little evidence for innate gender differences in communication, as in most areas of psychological functioning, and even those that are widely assumed, such as male superiority in some visuospatial tasks, are rarely associated with large effect sizes (Hyde, 2005). The argument for innateness appears particularly problematic in the case of understanding of social groups, where relations between groups and their relative status in society can change from one generation to the next. What seems more likely is that differences reflect, at least in large part, learned differences in gendered styles of communication and group and societal norms. Parent–child conversation may contribute to gendered communication styles in children. For example, parents tend to use more emotion words with daughters than sons (Aznar & Tenenbaum, 2013). When mothers use emotion words with sons, mothers tend to explain rather than label these words, which may help sons learn to control emotions (Cervantes & Callanan, 1998). Parents also tend to be more supportive with daughters than sons (Leaper et al., 1999). From engaging in conversations, girls learn to be more supportive and use more emotional conversations than boys (Tenenbaum, Ford, & Alkhedairy, 2011). Peers are often viewed as one of the strongest influences on development and, as children get older, peers become increasingly more important for relationships, attitudes, and judgments although, importantly, parents’ importance does not diminish. From early childhood (Maccoby, 1988) and on to preschool, school, and the playground (Martin, Fabes, Evans, & Wyman, 1999) children tend to choose friends and playmates from their own gender group (the gender in‐group). The choice of same‐sex friends and friendship groups from preschool onwards, increases exposure to forms of gender in‐group behavioral dynamics and norms, thus children become socialized into gender ways of talking and interacting which, in due course, also restrict the ease with which they may easily engage in cross‐gender communication. This phenomenon, described as the Gender Segregation Cycle (see Di Donato, England, & Martin, 2014) therefore reinforces in‐group affiliation, may promote or motivate a need for differentiation from a salient out‐group, and can lock children into pursuing same‐sex friendships throughout childhood and into adolescence. The preference for in‐group friendship choices is likely mirrored in terms of ethnic group as well (Leman & Lam, 2008) because, from preschool onwards, children show a preference for friends from the same ethnic group (Finkelstein & Haskins, 1983). So friendship groups provide an opportunity for learning and rehearsing in‐group norms of communication, while simultaneously limiting exposure to out‐group norms. This has important implications for social developmental theory because communication within friendship groups therefore serves as a reinforcer of intergroup dynamics. Recent research has underscored the importance of considering friendship choices and emerging relationships in terms of promoting

154  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum positive ethnic group attitudes and reducing prejudice (e.g., Jugert, Noack, & Rutland, 2013; Rutland et al., 2012). This research suggests that cross‐ethnic relationships buttress against the development of negative ethnic group attitudes and connects with longstanding research into the benefits of intergroup contact for promoting interethnic relations (e.g., Allport, 1954; Binder et al., 2009).

Communication, Groups, and Developmental Change Communication in friendship groups may reinforce identification and in‐group norms (and maybe out‐group stereotyping). But from both a developmental and a social psychological perspective we know that individuals change their friends and friendship groups and allegiances, and that the extent to which an individual identifies with and participates in the activities of a group changes over time, too. These processes of change can become particularly evident in adolescence when many young people experience periods of transition in their schooling, and romantic relationships pull many individuals to engage in more cross‐gender (and cross‐ group) interactions. In this respect communication in groups may frequently reinforce in‐group norms, but in later childhood, children begin to appreciate the subtleties of intragroup dynamics (Abrams, Rutland, Ferrell, & Pelletier, 2008) and recognize the potential for forming relationships with out‐group members. These relationships can lead to attitude changes, trigger new groups, reduce the salience or significance of a social category in certain contexts, or break down barriers between groups. Moreover, alongside these changes to children’s and adolescents’ social relationships there is potential for acquiring new information, understanding diverse and different perspectives, and acquiring (constructing) new knowledge from intergroup interactions. In this respect, intergroup interactions can stimulate developmental change as well. Educators have long recognized the importance of social groups for communicating information and learning. Yet, to date, there has been little work that has sought to explore how the development of group processes in children overlaps with learning and development. Vygotskian and neo‐Vygotskian accounts of developmental change arguably define the process of learning as a matter of in‐group socialization: as a consequence of increasing levels of participation (and interaction) in a group’s activity. As such, central to these accounts is an idea that development is a process of apprenticeship or mastery whereby the child comes to internalize social or cultural norms (and forms of knowledge, Lerner, 1978). In some respects at least, development is a matter of participating in the life of the group—a process of socialization. Others have cast this process as one of the

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  155 developing child’s increasingly autonomous participation in group life where young children, who can play little part in active decision making acquire a status to contribute, as equals, to group decision making and discussion (e.g., Psaltis, Duveen, & Perret‐Clermont, 2009). In general, in sociocultural accounts development is simultaneously a matter of social and developmental (intellectual) change, where it is not just the knowledge that is transmitted that is important for development, but also the sense in which a child comes to participate in social activity. Another strand of developmental research stems from the Piagetian tradition. Although Piaget’s work is not readily associated with social or group‐based topics, his work on moral judgment and sociological studies sets out a role for social interaction, and in particular peer (in contrast to adult‐child) relations in promoting development and learning (see, for example, Lourneço & Machado, 1996). In brief, Piaget saw peer interaction as a positive developmental force because symmetric social relations between peers allowed for discussion and debate as equals. Adult–child interaction, on the other hand, constrained development because children merely followed adult instruction or anticipated an adult’s commands, and hence did not participate fully in communication and the co-construction of knowledge. There has been some support for this distinction between peer and adult–child interaction, with children often talking less, and having a diminished role in discussion and decision making in adult–child compared with peer interaction (see Kruger, 1992). The Piagetian distinction between adult–child and peer interaction (relations of constraint and relations of cooperation, respectively) is visible in more recent work that has sought to understand how children’s social identities might affect learning and development through peer interactions. For instance, on an ambiguous figures (illusion) task, Leman and Duveen (1996) observed that younger children (6–7 years) tended to have more conflictual discussions and this conflict was most pronounced in situations where the girl in a peer discussion pair possessed expertise. In a similar vein, Psaltis and Duveen (2006) found that gender influenced conversation dynamics and the effectiveness of learning through peer interaction. Using a moral judgment task, Leman and Duveen (1999) observed that gender also affected the dynamics of interaction between 9‐year‐old children. However, among these older children, although boys also resisted female expertise, they were eventually persuaded by it, and all children showed development in moral judgments after interaction. More recently, Leman and Björnberg (2010) found that, although gender influences interaction dynamics 10‐ year‐old children seem to be able to work around this and still show long‐term learning gains from peer communication on a moral judgment task. While at 6 and 7 years children appear to find it difficult to disentangle aspects of group membership (gender) from establishing the right answer or a correct decision, by 9 or 10 years they can do this, although gender still

156  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum has a profound influence on the dynamics of interactions. Towards the end of childhood, children are able to work around the influence of group memberships to achieve learning goals in interactions with their peers. This is a significant developmental achievement because it demonstrates a recognition that communication has a productive quality (see Leman, 2015; Gummerum, Leman, & Hollins, 2016). The finding that social identities can play an important part in constraining young children’s communication and interaction, and, in turn, their learning, has important implications for educationists and for developmental theory too. Young children could be said to have a rather entrenched, “my group is right,” attitude in many communicative learning tasks, whereas older children recognize that some issues or judgments transcend group norms. Of course, these patterns of communication are also reminiscent of the growing awareness of, and, with age, interest in, deviant out‐group members (Abrams, Palmer, Rutland, Cameron, & Van de Vyner, 2013). At around 10 years there is a shift in children’s orientation to communication in groups. It is also clear that the context (purpose or focus) of a task can have a profound effect on the dynamics of interaction. In their meta‐analysis of studies into the development of gender and interaction, Leaper and Smith (2004) found that the activity context was associated with gender effects. Similarly, in parent–child interaction different “gendered” activity contexts led to different dynamics in the interactions between parents and children (Leaper, 2000). Sociolinguistic studies with adults indicate that when there is little focus or structure to a discussion, people will tend to invoke any available source of status (such as gender or ethnicity) to act as a proxy for task expertise (Berger et al., 1977). However, more structured interaction requires that individuals focus their attention resources onto other relevant factors such as individuals’ knowledge or persuasiveness and away from ethnicity. The context interactive approach (Leaper & Ayres, 2007) suggests that structured, collaborative, or goal‐oriented discussion leads to more symmetric interaction where intergroup differences and conflicts are given less prominence. Interestingly, structured, goal‐directed action is often considered beneficial for promoting positive attitudes through cross‐ethnic contact (see again Allport, 1954).

Future Directions The development of group processes in childhood and adolescence is a growing area of research in developmental psychology. As theory develops, and empirical evidence is gathered to support theory, a fuller understanding of processes of communication is of fundamental importance to understanding how children actively

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  157 reason, learn, and adjust their knowledge of groups and group memberships. Future research therefore needs to examine processes of communication more systematically and more fully than has hitherto been the case, and to incorporate research findings to reflect the potential constructive role of communication in the development of group processes. In this respect, researchers and theorists ought to keep in mind that, while development can lead to different forms of communication, communication can also lead to development. Additionally, understanding the specifics of children’s in‐group and intergroup interactions better could be a valuable tool for educators and others who wish to stem the development of prejudice (in its many forms) and encourage diversity. Given its potential causal role in development and group processes, research needs to identify how communication changes with age in light of group membership, group knowledge, cognitive and social factors such as awareness of others (Theory of Mind) and interpersonal perception. It is likely that some processes of communication arise from social and cognitive changes and thus reflect progress in knowledge with age. Careful, systematic, and perhaps microgenetic studies (e.g., Siegler, 2006) of development are needed to unpick the interrelations between these factors and how far communication reflects group knowledge. Correspondingly, future research needs also to look more carefully and systematically not only at how intergroup communication can lead to attitude changes, but also how in‐group communication can obstruct this change and inhibit the formation of new, out‐ group relationships. There are two further important new directions that research into communication and group process needs to explore. First, the bulk of work has considered gender groups (a little has considered ethnicity), probably because gender is so pervasive and is often, therefore, the easiest social category to study. A consequence of this is that findings in respect of gender are often used as a proxy for group understanding generally. Yet there are good reasons to think that gender may be a rather unusual social category (Bem, 1993) precisely because it is so ubiquitous and the status relations so complex and widely understood. There is an urgent need to extend the work on communication in other social groups (such as social class), other groups (intelligence or ability groupings in classrooms), and even to minimal groups in order to bolster emerging theories in the area. A second area for future research into communication and group processes is to consider the effects of different communicative contexts. Most studies of children and adolescents are of face‐to‐face interactions, but, increasingly, young people engage in different forms of communication in virtual environments where identity may be more or less salient. Research in the area has great potential to inform work on group processes. For instance, Valkenburg, Sumter, and Peter (2011) found that girls and boys from preadolescence to the end of adolescence (10–17 years)

158  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum followed rather different developmental trajectories in terms of self‐disclosure (sharing personal thoughts or feelings) in online and offline settings. For girls, online self‐disclosure increased sharply from 10 up until 13 years and stabilized in middle adolescence. For boys, this increase started at around 12 years. Both genders appeared to use the online setting as a means of rehearsing offline disclosure of personal information. Different communicative fora may offer different opportunities for self‐presentation that may be influenced by, or influence, the quality and extent of children’s memberships of different social groups. The relative paucity of research into children’s and adolescents’ communication may be due to the fact that collecting and analyzing data from interactions is time‐ consuming and costly. Recent technological advances, for instance, data mining techniques that have been used to assess adults’ group interactions (e.g., Pentland, 2010), hold promise for use with child and adolescent groups because they make possible the efficient analysis of large amounts of data. However, the interdependence of participants in group interaction also means that different sorts of statistical analyses often need to be employed in order to identify psychological processes and the influence of different variables in interaction (e.g., Gonzalez & Griffin, 2000). There is also a pressing need for advances in measures used to assess the quality and characteristics of interactions and communication. Analyses of conversational content often rely on task‐specific coding schemes, and while this is no doubt often highly appropriate, few more “objective” measures of conversation content or speech exist to allow comparison across contexts (although, see again, Semin & Fiedler, 1988, for an exception). Behavioral analyses of interactions (e.g., Leaper, 1991) have proved very useful in assessing the quality and quantity of children’s interactions. Finally, there would also be value in developing techniques that are able to understand and model processes of change in conversations themselves, to unpick the dynamics of interpersonal interaction and the influence of others in communication and conversation. Approaches such as Dynamical Systems Theory (e.g., Di Donato et al., 2014), which explore the progress and synchrony in children’s interactions, offer considerable promise in this respect, because “getting inside” conversations in ways that yield reliable and generalizable findings is a complex and time‐consuming task. It is, nonetheless, a worthwhile one. Conversations are potentially rich sources of psychological data. And, while it is certainly true that no two conversations are the same, it could be argued that asking participants to respond to questionnaires, surveys or other “static” measures limits the sense in which children and adolescents, like adults, act as conscious and reflective individuals who employ processes of rhetoric and self‐presentation, as well as using reasoning, social skills, and their attitudes and beliefs, to understand groups.

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  159 There are doubtless challenges to incorporating an account of the processes of communication into emerging models of the development of group processes. But if theorists are to include communication as a key driver of development of group knowledge, they need to start studying it seriously. That might mean a new empirical focus to include the scientific study of communication processes in groups, or even a more nuanced look at the subtleties and specifics of children’s and adolescents’ interactions.

References Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford: Blackwell. Abrams, D., Palmer, S., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Van de Vyver, J. (2013). Evaluations of, and reasoning about, normative and deviant ingroup and outgroup members: Development of the Black Sheep Effect. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 258–270. doi: 10.1037/a0032461 Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Ferrell, J., & Pelletier, J. (2008). Children’s judgments of disloyal and immoral peer behaviour: Subjective group dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79, 444–446. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Palmer, S. B., Pelletier, J., Ferrell, J., & Lee, S. (2014). The role of cognitive abilities in children’s inferences about social atypicality and peer exclusion and inclusion in intergroup contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 233–247. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12034 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Archer, J. (1984). Gender roles as developmental pathways. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 245–256. Aydt, H., & Corsaro, W. A. (2003). Differences in children’s construction of gender across culture: An interpretive approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1306–1325. Aznar, A., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2013). Spanish parents’ emotion talk and their children’s understanding of emotion. Frontiers of Psychology, 4(670), 1–11. Banerjee, R., & Lintern, V. (2000). Boys will be boys: The effect of social evaluation ­concerns on gender‐typing. Social Development, 9, 397–408. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Berger, J., Hamit, F., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York, NY: Elsevier. Bergsieker, H., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264. Bigler, R. S., Brown, C., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 72, 1151–1162.

160  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L.S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., … Leyens, J.‐P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the Contact Hypothesis amongst majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R. J., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes towards refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219. Cartei, V., Cowles, W., Banerjee, R., & Reby, D. (2014). Control of voice gender in pre‐ pubertal children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32, 100–106. doi: 10.1111/ bjdp.12027 Cervantes, A. A., & Callanan, M. (1998). Labels and explanations in mother‐child emotion talk: Age and gender differentiation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 88–98. Corsaro, W. A. (1990). The underlife of the nursery school. In G. Duveen & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Social representations and the development of knowledge (pp. 11–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton, D., & Nesdale, D. (2011). Children’s social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 895–909. doi:10.1111/j.2044‐835X.2010.02017.x Davis, S. C., Leman, P. J., & Barrett, M. (2007). Children’s implicit and explicit ethnic group attitudes, ethnic group identification, and self‐esteem. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 514–525. Di Donato, M., Martin, C. L., & England, H. (2014). Gendered interactions and their consequences: A dynamical perspective. In P. J. Leman & H. R. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Gender and development (pp. 133–154). London: Psychology Press. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1983). The social development of the intellect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development,82, 793–811. doi. 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01577.x Duveen, G., & Lloyd, B. (1992). Gender identities and education. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Finkelstein, N. W., & Haskins, R. (1983). Kindergarten children prefer same color peers. Child Development, 54, 502–508. Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2000). On the statistics of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with respect. In W. Ickes & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 181–213). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Gummerum, M., Leman, P. J., & Hollins, T. (2014). How do children share information in groups? Developmental Psychology, 50, 2105–2114. Horwitz, S. R., Shutts, K., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Social class differences produce social group preferences. Developmental Science, 17(6), 991–1002. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  161 Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta‐analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69. James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2013): Children’s cross‐ethnic friendships: Why are they less stable than same‐ethnic friendships? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 649–662. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.734136 Katz, P. A., & Ksansnak, K. R. (1994). Developmental aspects of gender role flexibility and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 272–282. Kruger, A. C. (1992). The effect of peer and adult–child transactive discussions on moral reasoning. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 38, 191–211. Kyratzis, A. (2001). Children’s gender indexing in language: From separate worlds hypothesis to considerations of culture, context and power. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 1–13. Kyratzis, A., & Tarim, S. (2010). Using directives to construct egalitarian or hierarchical social organization: Turkish middle class preschool girls’ socialisation about gender, affect, and context in peer group conversations. First Language, 30, 473–492. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797–811. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.1991.tb01570.x Leaper, C. (1998). Decision‐making processes between friends during a problem‐solving task: Speaker and partner gender effects. Sex Roles, 39,125–133. Leaper, C. (2000). Gender, affiliation, assertion, and the interactive context of parent–child play. Developmental Psychology, 36, 381–393. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.36.3.381 Leaper, C. A., & Ayers, M. M. (2007). A meta‐analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 11, 328–363. doi: 10.1177/1088868307302221 Leaper, C., & Smith, T. (2004). A meta‐analytic review of gender variations in c­ hildren’s language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Developmental Psychology, 40, 993–1027. Leaper, C., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Shaffer, T. G. (1999). Gender effects on the communication strategies of African‐American children from low‐income, urban backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1489–1503. Leman, P. J. (2015). How do groups work? Age differences in performance and the social outcomes of peer collaboration. Cognitive Science, 39(4), 809–820. doi: 10.1111/ cogs.12172 Leman, P. J., Ahmed, S., & Ozarow, L. (2005). Gender, gender relations, and the social dynamics of children’s conversations. Developmental Psychology, 41, 64–74. Leman, P. J., & Björnberg, M. (2010). Gender, conversation, and development: A study of children’s conceptions of punishment. Child Development, 81, 958–972. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01445.x

162  Patrick J. Leman and Harriet R. Tenenbaum Leman, P. J. and & Duveen, G. (1996). Developmental differences in children’s understanding of epistemic authority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 683–702. Leman, P. J., & Duveen, G. (1999). Representations of authority and children’s moral reasoning. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 557–575. Leman, P. J., & Lam, V. L. (2008). The influence of race and gender on children’s conversations and playmate choices. Child Development, 79, 1329–1343. Leman, P. J., Macedo, A. P., Bluschke, A., Hudson, L., Rawlings, C., & Wright, H. (2011). The influence of gender and ethnicity on children’s peer collaborations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 131–137. doi: 10.1348/026151010X526344 Leman, P. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Practising gender: Children’s relationships and the development of gendered behaviour and beliefs. British Journal of  Developmental Psychology, 29, 153–157. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‐835X.2011.02032.x Lerner, J. (1978). Nature, nurture and dynamic interactionism. Human Development, 21, 1–20. Liben, L., & Bigler, R. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualising, measuring and evaluating constructs and pathways. Mono­graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 6 (serial no. 269). Lourenco, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, 103, 143–164. Maccoby, E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765. Martin C. L., & Fabes R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same‐sex peer interactions, Developmental Psychology, 37, 431–446. Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Evans, S. M., & Wyman, H. (1999). Social cognition in the playground: Children’s beliefs about playing with girls versus boys and their relations to sex‐segregated play. Journal of Social and personal Relationships, 16, 751–771. Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramírez‐Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317(5843), 82. doi: 10.1126/ science.1139940 Møller, S. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Danish majority children’s reasoning about exclusion based on gender and ethnicity, Child Development, 82, 520–532. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01568.x. Pentland, A. (2010). To signal is human. American Scientist, 98, 204–211. Psaltis, C. & Duveen, G. (2006). Social relations and cognitive development: The influence of conversation type and representations of gender. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 407–430. Psaltis, C., Duveen, G., & Perret‐Clermont, A.‐N. (2009). The social and the psychological: Structure and context in human development. Human Development, 52, 291–312. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 316–320. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rutland, A. (1999). The development of national prejudice, in‐group favouritism and self‐ stereotypes in British children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 55–70.

Communication in Children’s and Adolescents’ Social Groups  163 Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Nigbur, D., Brown, R., Hossain, R., Landau, A., … Watters, C. (2012). Group identity and peer relations: A longitudinal study of group identity, perceived peer acceptance and friendships amongst ethnic minority English children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 283–302. Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social‐cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: the interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 279–291. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568. Serbin, L., Powlishta, K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex‐typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(2) (serial no. 232). Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange. Shutts, K., Roben, C. K. P., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Children’s use of social categories in thinking about people and social relationships. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 35 –62. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2011.638686 Siegler, R. (2006). How children develop. New York, NY: Worth. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation. New York, NY: Ballantine. Tenenbaum, H. R., Ford, S, & Alkhedairy, B. (2011) Telling stories: Gender differences in peers’ emotion talk and communication style. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 707–721. Tenenbaum, H. R., & May, D. (2014). Gender in parent–child relationships. In P. J. Leman & H. R. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Gender and development (pp. 133–154). London: Psychology Press. Tenenbaum, H. R., Prior, J., Dowling, C. L., & Frost, R. E. (2010) Supporting parent– child conversations in a history museum. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 241–254. doi: 10.1348/000709909X470799 Tenenbaum, H. R., Leman, P. J., & Aznar, A. (2015). Gender differences in language. In P. Brookes & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Language Development. London: Sage. Tenenbaum, H. R. (2009). “You’d be good at that”: Gender patterns in parent–child talk about courses. Social Development, 18, 447–463. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9507.2008.00487.x. Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 243–268. Valkenburg, P. M., Sumter, S., & Peter, J. (2011). Gender differences in online and offline self‐disclosure in preadolescence and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 253–269. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17, 89–100.

PART III Social Categorization, Prejudice, and Stereotyping

8 Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Implicit and Explicit Prejudice Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele

For decades, theories and frameworks of prejudice have helped to guide our research. The findings of empirical research have also informed theory development. In this chapter we aim to make use of theory and empirical findings to help explain the development of implicit and explicit prejudice in children. To accomplish this goal, we start by defining prejudice and then briefly note some of the many theories that have shaped the study of prejudice development. We then summarize the current empirical findings from research examining racial preferences and prejudice in early and late childhood, and attempt to explain these findings. Finally, we conclude by discussing how both theory and research can inform our attempts to reduce prejudice in childhood. In this chapter, we define prejudice as holding “derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negative affect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behavior towards members of a group on account of their membership of that group” (Brown, 1995, p. 8). Although we include behavioral reactions in our definition, most measures of prejudice that we review use either explicit or implicit evaluations (e.g., good, mean) that assess cognitive and/or affective The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

168  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele processes. As negative evaluations may only sometimes translate into behavior, most of our findings and theories focus on evaluations. Thus, the scope of this chapter is delineated in terms of explanations of the development of evaluative aspects of prejudice, especially pertaining to its acquisition in the early years and subsequent development during childhood. There are many theories of prejudice development. Some of these theories are domain‐specific (with constructs that apply to prejudice development as a unique phenomenon) and others are domain‐general (with constructs taken from developmental theories, but which also serve to explain the development of prejudice across age). A theory can be defined as a set of interrelated concepts, definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of events or situations (in this case prejudice development), by specifying relations among variables, in order to explain and predict it (Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008). All theories specify a certain scope of application, which is broader than the findings of a specific study but nonetheless apply only under specific conditions. Importantly, an ideal theory is both testable and parsimonious. Commonly cited early theories of prejudice development include learning theory (Bandura, 1986), conformity to norms (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991), contact theory (Pettigrew, 1998), social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), and social‐ cognitive developmental theory (Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget & Weil, 1951). Allport (1954) was eclectic and used elements from many of these theories to explain how and why children become prejudiced. He gave most emphasis to learning, conformity, and contact. However, he lacked rigorous data to support any of these theories; they all seemed feasible at the time (Aboud, 2005). More recent theories of prejudice development have integrated components of domain‐specific and/or domain‐general theories (e.g., Aboud, 2008; Bigler & Liben, 2006; Nesdale, 2007). In addition, emerging theories about the development of implicit racial prejudice (e.g., Banaji, Baron, Dunham, & Olson, 2008; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2008) have built on theory and research with adults on dual attitudes (Chaiken & Trope, 1999) and implicit social cognition (Gawronski & Payne, 2010), in addition to theories of explicit prejudice development. In the current chapter we outline and then explain research examining the acquisition of prejudice, and differences across ages in the expression of prejudice. The findings are somewhat different for explicit and implicit attitude measures; however, as we will explain, both sets of findings could emerge from the same underlying processes. Explicit attitudes are often measured with a photograph or drawing of an in‐group and/or out‐group child and an explicit question such as “How friendly (or mean) is this child?” (Tredoux, Noor & de Paulo, 2009). Thus, the child is making a direct, controlled, and conscious evaluation using evaluative terms that are age‐appropriate. Older children might be asked more sophisticated



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  169

evaluations such as “Who is bossy?” (Tredoux et  al., 2009), “Who broke the window?” (Katz & Zalk, 1978), or “How loyal would this person be as a friend?” (Aboud, Friedmann, & Smith, 2015). In each case, the question includes an explicit evaluation of the stimulus person. By contrast, implicit attitudes, which can be defined as unintentional, unconscious, or uncontrollable evaluations that are automatically activated by the presence of an attitude object (Gawronski & DeHouwer, 2014), are often measured using computer‐based reaction time tasks. The most frequently used measure of implicit racial attitudes is the Implicit Association Test (or IAT; Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003), which provides attitude estimates by comparing the speed with which participants associate two target concepts (e.g., the racial categories Black and White) with two attributes (e.g., pleasant and unpleasant). The child‐friendly version of this measure (ch‐IAT) often makes use of picture and/or audio stimuli instead of words (e.g., Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006; Williams & Steele, 2016) to ensure that results are not affected by individual differences in reading ability. It is assumed that, if racial biases have become automatic, children should be faster at matching one pairing (e.g., White faces with pleasant stimuli and Black faces with unpleasant stimuli) as compared with the reverse pairing (e.g., Black faces with pleasant stimuli and White faces with unpleasant stimuli). Unlike many of the most widely used measures of explicit prejudice, this measure of implicit prejudice is both categorical and comparative; children must categorize target faces by race in order to successfully complete the task. Other measures of implicit attitudes that are not categorical or comparative are beginning to be modified for use with children (Degner & Wentura, 2010; Williams & Steele, 2016). Findings using these exemplar measures, where race is not explicitly made salient to children, are helping to paint a richer picture of implicit prejudice development.

Prejudice Acquisition and Development: Summary of Empirical Findings In order to understand why children show a specific pattern of prejudice development, it is first important to review what we know about when prejudice develops. Fortunately, a systematic review and meta‐analysis on the development of prejudice has been published recently, outlining age changes between 2 and 19 years of age (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). It is unlikely that the findings from these studies will be substantially overturned in the next decade as they have shown a good deal of stability, especially among younger age groups, for the past 50 years.

170  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele Rather than selectively highlighting specific studies, we make use of the findings from this review as the empirical basis for conclusions about the acquisition and development of explicit prejudice. However, it is worth noting that Raabe and Beelmann’s review was limited in several ways by the studies that fit their eligibility criteria. For example, their studies mainly used explicit measures, and therefore our review of the findings from implicit measures comes directly from the key empirical studies conducted to date. Moreover, they only selected studies where there was an age‐group comparison on out‐group negativity, assessed independently or in relation to in‐group attitude (i.e., bias). Most of their studies used cross‐sectional designs but the findings were consistent with seven longitudinal studies. Conclusions were based on 193 between‐age‐group comparisons and 102 within‐age‐group comparisons. Their findings are most robust for age comparisons, although they also draw some conclusions about changes in absolute levels of prejudice. We outline seven important findings below that we believe a parsimonious theory of prejudice development needs to explain. With respect to explicit prejudice, Raabe and Beelmann’s (2011) conclusions were: 1.  The first significant rise in prejudice was found to occur between the age groups 2–4 years and 5–7 years. Changes within the 2–4 and within the 5–7 ranges were not significant. This was particularly so for out‐group targets with low status that are visibly different, and as such this pattern best describes, for example, White children’s increase in prejudice toward Black children. 2.  The second change was a significant decline in prejudice between 5–7 years and 8–10 years, which also continued to change within the 8–10 year age group. These changes were moderated by the status of the target out‐group, such that White children showed a strong decline in prejudice toward Blacks, while Blacks showed an increase in prejudice toward Whites. 3.  Changes after the age of 10 years were nonsignificant until late adolescence, when slight increases in prejudice were noted within the 17–19 year age group. However, heterogeneity among the adolescent effects indicated important individual and experiential influences at this age. 4.  Prejudice toward lower status racial and ethnic out‐groups, such as Blacks and immigrants, showed the inverted‐U curve described under items 1–3, whereas prejudice toward higher status out‐groups such as Whites and national groups (e.g., Germans and British) had a slow start but increased monotonically after 7 years of age. This may also be the case for out‐groups whose ethnicity or religion is not visually salient to children, such as French‐ and English‐speaking Canadians. 5.  Prejudice toward lower status out‐groups was moderated by contact opportunities, even when contact was very slight. Prejudice increased ­between the 2–4 and 5–7 age groups regardless of contact, but more so in those with no contact. However, even few opportunities for contact resulted in a significant drop in



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  171

prejudice between the 5–7 year and 8–10 year age groups, whereas no contact resulted in a small but continuous rise in prejudice. In terms of implicit prejudice, results from studies conducted to date suggest the following: 6.  When implicit bias is measured using the ch‐IAT (see Banaji et  al., 2008; Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham et al., 2006; Dunham et al., 2008; Lipman, Steele, & Williams, 2013; Newheiser & Olson, 2012; Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005; Williams & Steele, 2016), implicit intergroup biases favoring in‐groups and high status groups are present from as early as 5 years of age. The magnitude of this bias, especially for White majority and high‐status children, remains high into late childhood and even adulthood (Dunham et al., 2008). For minority children, such as Black children, results show no reliable implicit intergroup bias at any age when the comparison group is of higher status (Newheiser & Olson, 2012). However, minority children show implicit intergroup bias when the comparison group is of lower status (e.g., Hispanic children comparing Hispanic to Black; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2007; Dunham, Newheiser, Hoosain, Merrill, & Olson, 2014). 7.  A different pattern of implicit racial biases is found when majority children are not required to categorize others by race, and implicit attitudes are instead measured using non‐categorical exemplar measures, in which targets’ faces are presented individually and race is not made explicitly salient (Degner & Wentura, 2010; Williams & Steele, 2016). Preliminary evidence with White children in Canada suggests that implicit in‐group positivity (but not out‐group Black negativity) is present in children aged 5–8 years (Williams & Steele, 2016). For children aged 8–11 years, bias was absent in this Canadian sample, despite reliable intergroup biases emerging for these children on the categorical ch‐IAT. Research from the Netherlands and Germany, which similarly examined implicit racial attitudes using exemplar measures, also found no biases in children aged 9–11 years. Instead, implicit prejudice was apparent in early adolescence, around the ages of 12–15 years (Degner & Wentura, 2010). The out‐groups for the Netherlands and German samples were Moroccan and Turkish, respectively.

Overview of Theoretical Constructs for Understanding Empirical Findings Two theoretical mechanisms that are helpful for understanding the early high levels of explicit prejudice and implicit intergroup biases include brain maturation and experience with in‐group and out‐group faces. Later declines in explicit prejudice

172  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele and some forms of implicit bias may also rely on brain maturation and experience, but also social cognitions and, in the case of explicit prejudice, social influences from peers. We feel that maturation, and therefore the age variable, is important in a full explanation of prejudice development. This becomes clear in the first section below, which provides some initial evidence for early processing of own‐ and other‐ race faces. It is also a central feature of the consistent age changes reported by Raabe and Beelmann (2011). Moreover, although learning theory is useful for explaining how children learn their identity and social categories, it does not explain why these constructs drive evaluations at specific ages, for example at 6 years of age but not at 3 years, and not always at 10 years. One interesting way to merge what we know of maturation, whether phrased as brain maturation or cognitive maturation, with social influences such as out‐group contact, is to suggest that there are optimal windows of social influence. The concept of an optimal window refers to an age, however wide or narrow, when exposure may have its greatest effect on attitudes or behavior. It has been used to explain language acquisition and preference (Maurer & Werker, 2014) by referring to ages when the language structures in the brain are ready to re‐organize as a result of language exposure. It may apply equally well to the acquisition of cognitive skills such as conservation and class inclusion (Siegler & Svetina, 2002, 2006).

Attention to Race in Infancy Brain maturation does not imply that prejudice is innate or inevitable. Researchers have found that, from birth, infants show a preference for looking at faces and by 3 months they prefer faces over all complex stimuli (for reviews of material presented in this paragraph, see Anzures et al., 2013; Maurer & Werker, 2014; Nelson, 2001). This preference ensures that infants will receive a great deal of exposure to the faces of their mother and other family members. Between 3 and 9 months of age, the exposure they receive influences the organization and function of face‐perception circuitry in the brain. At 3 months, they attend equally to own‐race and other‐race faces. By 8–9 months, they attend more to own‐race faces and discriminate more among own‐race than other‐race faces that differ on internal features such as the distance between eyes, nose, and mouth. The preference for novelty commonly reported in infancy remains, but the preference is for novel own‐race faces, not other‐race faces. So, the right hemisphere brain sites for face recognition become specialized in processing same‐race faces. Importantly, this does not take place when infants have exposure to family members who come from two or more racial groups (Gaither, Pauker, & Johnson, 2012).



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  173

These findings are relatively new and need replication with different ages and control stimuli. Their interpretation is still speculative, however they suggest what is called a “perceptual narrowing” revealed in both brain function and behavioral responses (preference, recall, discrimination). This occurs at a specific age, namely 3 to 9 months, called an “optimal window” because this is the age range when the brain, because of maturation, quickly develops or prunes synapses as a result of exposure (Nelson, 2001). As a result of typically greater exposure to their mother, infants individuate female faces by 9 months (Maurer & Werker, 2014). They start to show the same individuation of other‐race faces as a result of exposure at any age of childhood to other‐race faces. However, without exposure, out‐group faces may become processed for their category rather than for their individuating features. As a category, other‐race faces would be treated similarly to one another and different from own‐race faces. Similarly, exposure to only one’s mother tongue deletes synapses for foreign languages starting in infancy, so this perceptual narrowing for language may lead to stronger language preferences and prejudices as seen in some research (Kinzler, Shutts, DeJesus, & Spelke, 2009). Thus, maturation and exposure to faces and speech during the first few years set the stage for early in‐group preference, and possibly out‐group prejudice toward novel out‐group faces. In the next sections, we discuss the implications of this early maturation and exposure for racial prejudice in early and late childhood.

Explaining In‐group Positivity in Early Childhood The systematic review by Raabe and Beelmann (2011) suggests that there is typically a significant rise in prejudice between 2–4 years and 5–7 years, with the magnitude of bias toward visible minorities among majority‐group children peaking between 5–7 years. Similarly, numerous studies have now found that by 5 years of age, children show implicit intergroup racial biases. Research examining in‐group and out‐group attitudes separately at this age suggest that prejudice is largely driven by a strong in‐group positivity and, at most, a mild out‐group negativity (Aboud, 2003; Williams & Steele, 2016). Still, it is important to explain each attitude (in‐ group and out‐group), and the discrepancy (in‐group compared with out‐group evaluations), which we refer to as intergroup bias. It is generally acknowledged that out‐group negativity at the age of 5–7 years is not experienced with the same emotions as adolescent or adult prejudice. The latter is sometimes characterized in terms of anger, hostility and discriminatory acts (e.g., Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003), whereas young children’s prejudice may reflect suspicion, fear, sadness, and disapproval. Yet, it is expressed overtly in explicit

174  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele evaluative measures. Most of the research has been done with White children from monoracial families who live in predominantly White communities, possibly attending predominantly White preschools. This is to say that our explanation assumes high early exposure to own‐race people. The only group in the systematic review that showed a weak rise in prejudice at this age was children from lower status groups who evaluated higher status out‐groups. There is heterogeneity in their evaluations because many show an out‐group preference or equal preference for in‐group and out‐groups. Even on measures of implicit intergroup bias, minority children tend to show an equal preference for the in‐group relative to the out‐ group, provided the out‐group is of higher status (Dunham et al., 2007; Newheiser & Olson, 2012). Our explanation for the rise in prejudice at this age, due to strong in‐group positivity and mild out‐group negativity, is based in social‐cognitive developmental theory. Theory and research published by Piaget (Piaget & Weil, 1951), Kohlberg (1969), and Selman (1980) point to the mindset of children in this age group which influences their perceptions of themselves and others. Social‐cognitive developmental theory and research point to a strong focus on oneself and one’s group (egocentrism and sociocentrism), strong attention to perceptions of external features over internal attributes, and the assumption that all people share the same attitudes as the child. For example, at 5–7 years, children perceive racially different people to be very different regardless of their clothing, color, and facial expression (Aboud, 2003). They segregate photos of children into piles by race, according to which of them they think belong together (Aboud, 2003). They assume that racial characteristics foretell underlying essential differences that prevent a person from changing (Aboud & Skerry, 1983; Diesendruck, Goldfein‐Elbaz, Rhodes, Gelman, & Neumark, 2013; Kinzler & Dautel, 2012). Children also predict that the attitudes of others, such as parents, friends, and generalized “others,” match their own (Aboud & Doyle, 1996a; Augoustinos & Rosewarne, 2001; Johnson & Aboud, 2013). Perhaps most importantly, they are motivated to maintain a strongly positive self‐identity (Verkuyten & De Wolf, 2007). These social cognitions appear to be general and to reflect perceptions of themselves and their friends (Selman, 1980). They also appear to change rapidly after 8 years of age. Consequently, they form the basis of our theoretical explanation of the rise of prejudice, both explicit and implicit, between the age groups 2–4 years and 5–7 years. One controversial variation in findings concerns whether out‐group prejudice is strong, mild, or possibly even absent during these early years. When only one score comparing in‐group and out‐group attitudes is derived, as with the forced‐choice PRAM and the ch‐IAT, bias and relative out‐group negativity appear to be strong (Aboud, 2003; Dunham et  al., 2006; Williams & Steele, 2016). Furthermore, when the task requires that children rely on social categories (e.g., White and



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  175

Black), individuating features of the stimuli may not modify their evaluations (Lipman et  al., 2013). Finally, as was noted earlier, exposure to the out‐group softens negativity, and this may occur at least in part because out‐group faces are processed more as individuals (Anzures et al., 2013; Maurer & Werker, 2014) and less as a category to be contrasted with the in‐group (Aboud, 2003). Theoretical explanations are less clear on minority children’s attitudes, namely a lack of bias or possibly an even distribution of some children preferring their in‐ group, others the out‐group, and others showing no preference. Given their bicultural status, as members of a predominantly White society as well as a minority racial group, and their exposure to Whites in their society, they may process individual faces and attach positively valenced attributes to White faces as well as members of their racial in‐group. There is also some evidence to suggest that children from minority groups who value status show greater implicit intergroup biases favoring the advantaged out‐group as opposed to their in‐group (Newheiser & Olson, 2012). Using the maturation constructs outlined for face recognition, we might describe this rise in in‐group positivity as demonstrating a narrowing of the window of influence to in‐group events. As children move from their family to community living, they may be motivated to learn about themselves and their in‐group; they might also begin to acquire positive associations with high‐status groups. Brain maturation for face attention and preference provides a mindset that processes same‐race faces and language efficiently. As such, children’s age‐related social motivation, social environment, and brain maturation converge to allow them to optimize entry into their social world. At this age, the window appears to be narrowed to include mainly members of their in‐groups and possibly advantaged groups. We might expect that they will not be very receptive to information and attitudes that are positive toward out‐groups and negative toward in‐groups, unless the out‐ groups are relatively advantaged. This is not to say that all children experience such a narrowing of attention and influence. Those with early exposure to families and friends who are Black and White, who speak French and English, and who live in multiracial multilingual environments may have experiences that enhance the brain circuitry for processing people as individuals rather than categorically.

Explaining Increased Respect for Other Races in Middle Childhood The second change reported by Raabe and Beelmann (2011) was a significant decline in explicit prejudice between the age groups 5–7 years and 8–10 years, which also continued within the 8–10 year age group. These changes were strongly moderated

176  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele by the status of the target out‐group, such that White children showed a strong decline in prejudice to Blacks, while Blacks showed an increase in prejudice to Whites. Changes were also moderated by out‐group contact, such that the decline was seen only among White children who had out‐group contact. Note that contact also had some impact on the early rise in prejudice, being more consistent among those with no contact. The results of research examining implicit racial biases at this age have been interesting. One consistent finding is that when comparative, category‐based measures such as the ch‐IAT were used to measure implicit racial biases, intergroup biases remained at levels that were comparable to the biases of younger children (Banaji et  al., 2008; Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham et  al., 2008; Williams & Steele, 2016). However, preliminary findings using exemplar measures of bias, that do not require that targets’ faces be categorized by race, revealed no implicit intergroup bias, no in‐group preference or out‐group negativity, among White children aged 9 to 12 years (Williams & Steele, 2016), or majority Dutch and German children aged 9 to 11 years (Degner & Wentura, 2010). A sound theoretical explanation must explain what happens between 8 and 10 years of age that potentially facilitates an increase in respect for visible minority out‐groups and decrease in in‐group preference among majority group children. Both out‐group respect and the lack of bias on implicit and explicit measures need to be explained, as well as the stable high levels of implicit intergroup bias found on category‐based measures. Researchers who study child development have noted that many aspects of social‐ cognitive development change at this age. A domain‐general explanation relies on changes in the way children perceive themselves and others. Evidence shows that children in this age range start to think about attributes that are internal and unobservable such as abilities and personality attributes (Aboud & Fenwick, 1999; Katz & Zalk 1978), they start to pay more attention to internal features as opposed to external features such as race (Doyle & Aboud, 1995), and they become more aware of others’ attitudes that diverge from their own (Aboud, 1981). For these reasons, the social‐ cognitive theory (Aboud, 2008) emphasizes general age‐related increases in children’s use of cognitive outcomes over perceptions in guiding their attitudes. The social‐ cognitive theory also emphasizes children’s ability to process internal attributes, such as sports‐lover or math fanatic, attributes that differentiate them from some in‐group peers but create a likeness with some out‐group peers. Although not all children show the decline in prejudice at this age, those who do also show acquisition of these social‐ cognitive abilities in longitudinal research (Doyle & Aboud, 1995). At the same time, these social‐cognitive abilities facilitate children’s understanding that members of their in‐group are not all highly positive, and that some of them may hold respectful attitudes toward others. We found, for example, that



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  177

children of this age evaluated in‐group members with a mix of positive and negative evaluations (Aboud, 2003; Aboud & Doyle, 1996b; Doyle & Aboud, 1995), they acknowledged that in‐group members might like out‐group people (Augoustinos & Rosewarne, 2001), and they started to agree that out‐group children might prefer their own race. Because of their greater in‐group focus, young children might change their in‐group attitudes ahead of their out‐group attitudes, but the sequence is not yet confirmed. It is not solely the change in social cognitions that explains the drop in explicit prejudice, but it forms the backdrop to children’s receptivity to social influences. The change in receptivity is indirectly supported by a number of studies. For example, a systematic review of the relation between child and parent ethnic/racial attitudes showed a small correlation (r = .130) among 4 to 6.5‐year‐olds, with a jump to r = .183 among 6.5 to 9.5 year‐olds, and r = .256 among adolescents (Degner & Dalege, 2013). Furthermore, whereas White 5‐year‐old children were not receptive to others who said that Blacks are, for example, friendly and likeable, 8‐year‐old children were (Aboud, 1981). Only the latter age group acknowledged that maybe the Blacks were right and maybe their own attitude ratings could be changed a bit. The younger children denied that others held unbiased attitudes and stated explicitly that, if they did, they must be wrong. We also found that highly prejudiced children of 10 years were more receptive to explanations of their low‐ prejudiced friends as to why Blacks had positive qualities and in‐group Whites had many negative qualities (Aboud & Doyle, 1996b). Others have found that social desirability and normative influences are more likely to be felt at this age (Monteiro, de França, & Rodrigues, 2009). Yet others have expressed it as an increased awareness of fairness and equality (Singh, Choo, & Poh, 1998). Therefore, more mature social cognitions may serve to give children the ability to process and give meaning to discrepant attitudes that they are now exposed to in their social world. We believe that these changes in social cognitions can also help to explain why some measures of implicit racial attitudes yield high and stable bias throughout childhood, while others show low levels of bias in middle childhood that parallel what is found on explicit measures of prejudice. The social cognitions that allow for greater noncategorical individuated processing of others in middle childhood may decrease the likelihood that children at this age will spontaneously activate category‐based associations in response to racial exemplars. By contrast, when contextual cues encourage or require that others be categorized by race, the race‐based associations formed and solidified in early childhood will be automatically activated. Thus, the seemingly discrepant findings can be explained by children’s more sophisticated social cognitions at this age, combined with the availability of category‐level associations with racial categories that were previously acquired in early childhood, and that can still be activated when race is salient.

178  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele

Understanding Why Intergroup Contact Moderates Prejudice Development We conclude this chapter with a focus on how prejudice might be reduced in childhood, by considering why intergroup contact moderates explicit prejudice development. In the review by Raabe and Beelmann (2011), contact with visible minority out‐group members was found to be a strong moderator of age‐related changes in explicit prejudice. Although there is not yet any research examining the impact of out‐group contact on implicit racial attitudes (cf., Gonzalez, Steele, & Baron, in press), we anticipate that, at least on exemplar measures, contact would similarly moderate implicit racial bias, with stronger implicit in‐group positivity emerging among children who have had less out‐group contact with racial out‐group members, and greater out‐group positivity emerging among children with contact. There are at least two theoretically interesting explanations of contact moderation. According to brain maturation research, children with early exposure to other races will develop a functional response to other‐race faces similar to own‐race faces in the fusiform face site of the brain. Even among older children, those with contact will process Black faces as proficiently as White faces by attending to the individuating feature details of in‐group as well as out‐group faces (Maurer & Werker, 2013). As the frontal lobes mature, they are recruited to continue the cognitive and evaluative processing of an individual out‐group person similar to an in‐group person, that is, with a great deal of neural activation (Walker, Silvert, Hewstone, & Nobre, 2008). Brain maturation and exposure consequently determine how much circuitry is available to use when processing structural features of faces (e.g., skin color and distance between features) and individuating features (e.g., facial expression). Attending to individual features of faces rather than simply skin color is one of the signature developments of middle childhood associated with the decline in prejudice (Aboud & Fenwick, 1999; Katz & Zalk, 1978). Having the neural capability and readiness to process individuating features, as a result of combined brain maturation and out‐group contact, is therefore central to the reduction of prejudice. The second explanation centers on the way contact is associated with direct and indirect friendship, and the benefits of friendship for prejudice reduction. Prejudice is lower in children from 8–12 years who not only have opportunities for contact, but who also socialize with mixed‐race groups of friends and have a high‐quality out‐group friend (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). Two reviews form the basis of our theoretical explanation for why this is the case (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011; Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2005). Both reviews provide evidence for a number of specific social‐cognitive skills that



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  179

develop during a friendship, including greater processing of individuating out‐ group attributes with a focus on internal ones such as emotions, greater attention to similarities with the out‐group, positive emotions associated with intimacy and companionship, and a belief that cross‐race friendship and respect is normative. The reviews largely cite adult research, so it will be important in the future to test the results with children in the 5–7 and 8–10 year old age groups. It will also be imperative to continue testing the benefits of friendship in intervention research (e.g., Aboud et al., 2012, 2015), where social influences appear to be stronger in the 8–10 year age group, and to examine whether these benefits extend to implicit racial attitudes. In conclusion, we have proposed a set of theoretical constructs able to explain known empirical findings on the development of implicit and explicit attitudes. Using both domain‐specific and domain‐general theories of prejudice, we have suggested that maturation of brain circuitry and social cognitions provide optimal windows of social influence when implicit and explicit prejudice is most likely to be acquired and expressed, and when positive intergroup contact is most beneficial. Given the current momentum driving research on prejudice in children, we expect continued research can build on this theoretical framework to increase our understanding of how childhood prejudice not only develops, but how it can ultimately be reduced. References Aboud, F. E. (1981). Egocentrism, conformity, and agreeing to disagree. Developmental Psychology, 17, 791–799. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.17.6.791 Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39, 48–60. doi: 10.1037/ 0012‐1649.39.1.48 Aboud, F. E. (2005). The development of prejudice in childhood and adolescence. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 310–326). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2008). A social‐cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 55–71). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. B. (1996a). Parental and peer influences on children’s racial attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 371–383. doi:10.1016/0147‐1 767(96)00024‐7 Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. B. (1996b). Does talk of race foster prejudice or tolerance in children? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 161–170. doi: 10.1037/0008‐ 400X.28.3.161

180  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Exploring and evaluating school‐based i­nterventions to reduce prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 767–785. doi: 10.1111/0022‐4537.00146 Aboud, F. E., Friedmann, J., & Smith, S. (2015). Direct and indirect friends in cross‐ethnolinguistic peer relations. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(1), 68–79. doi:10.1037/a0037590 Aboud, F. E., Mendelson, M. J., & Purdy, K. T. (2003). Cross‐race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 165–173. doi: 10.1080/01650250244000164 Aboud, F. E., & Skerry, S. H. (1983). Self and ethnic concepts in relation to ethnic ­constancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 15, 14–26. doi: 10.1037/ h0080675 Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C. S., Niens, U., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: a systematic review. Developmental Review, 32, 307–336. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.05.001 Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Perseus Books. Anzures, G., Quinn, P. C., Pascalis, O., Slater, A. M., Tanaka, J. W., & Lee, K. (2013). Developmental origins of the other‐race effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 173–178. doi: 10.1177/0963721412474459 Augoustinos, M., & Rosewarne, D. L. (2001). Stereotype knowledge and prejudice in children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 143–156. doi: 10.1348/ 026151001165912 Banaji, M. R., Baron, A. S., Dunham, Y., & Olson, K. (2008). The development of intergroup social cognition: Early emergence, implicit nature, and sensitivity to group status. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 197–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2005.01664.x Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 39–89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual‐process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). New York: Academic Press. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross‐group friendships and intergroup attitudes: a meta‐analytic review. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  181

Degner, J., & Dalege, J. (2013). The apple does not fall far from the tree, or does it? A meta‐ analysis of parent–child similarity in intergroup attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1270–1304. doi:10.1037/a0031436 Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2010). Automatic activation of prejudice in children and adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 356–374. doi: 10.1037/ a0017993 Diesendruck, G., Goldfein‐Elbaz, R., Rhodes, M., Gelman, S., & Neumark, N. (2013). Cross‐cultural differences in children’s beliefs about the objectivity of social categories. Child Development, 84, 1906–1917. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12108 Doyle, A. B., & Aboud, F. E. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children’s racial prejudice as a social‐cognitive development. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209–228. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/23090532 Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross‐cultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77, 1268–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00933.x Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Children and social groups: A developmental analysis of implicit consistency among Hispanic‐Americans. Self and Identity, 6, 238–255. doi: 10.1080/15298860601115344 Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 248–253. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006 Dunham, Y., Newheiser, A., Hoosain, L., Merrill, A., & Olson, K. R. (2014). From a different vantage: Intergroup attitudes among children from low‐ and intermediate‐status racial groups. Social Cognition, 32(1), 1–21. Gaither, S. E., Pauker, K., & Johnson, S. (2012). Biracial and monoracial infant own‐race face perception: An eye‐tracking study. Developmental Science, 15, 775–782. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2012.01170.x Gawronski, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 283–310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (2010). Handbook of implicit social cognition. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Theory, research, and practice in health behavior and health education. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 23–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Gonzalez, A. M., Steele, J. R., & Baron, A. S. (in press). Reducing children’s implicit racial bias through exposure to positive outgroup exemplars. Child Development. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.85.2.197 Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14, 640–643. doi:10.1046/ j.0956‐7976.2003.psci_1478.x

182  Frances E. Aboud and Jennifer R. Steele Johnson, P. J., & Aboud, F. E. (2013). Modifying ethnic attitudes in young children: The impact of communicator race and message strength. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(3), 182–191. doi: 1.1177/0165025412466522 Katz, P. A., & Zalk, S. R. (1978). Modification of children’s racial attitudes. Developmental Psychology, 14, 447–461. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.14.5.447 Kenworthy, J., Turner, R., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup contact: When does it work, and why? In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278–292). Oxford: Blackwell. Kinzler, K. D., & Dautel, J. B. (2012). Children’s essentialist reasoning about l­anguage and race. Developmental Science, 15, 131–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2011.01101.x Kinzler, K.D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., & Spelke, E.S. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27, 623–626. doi: 10.1521/ soco.2009.27.4.623 Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive‐developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Lipman, C., Steele, J. R., & Williams, A. (2013, April). The effect of person construal on children’s implicit racial attitudes. Paper presented at the fourth Implicit Bias, Philosophy and Psychology Conference in conjunction with the Leverhulme‐funded Implicit Bias and Philosophy Project, Sheffield, UK. Maurer, D., & Werker, J. (2014). Perceptual narrowing during infancy: a comparison of language and faces. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 154–178. doi: 10.1002/dev.21177 Monteiro, M., de França, D., & Rodrigues, R. (2009). The development of i­ ntergroup bias in childhood: How social norms can shape children’s racial behaviors. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 29–39. doi: 10.1080/00207590802057910 Nelson, C. A. (2001). The development and neural bases of face recognition. Infant and Child Development, 10, 3–18. doi: 10.1002/icd.239 Nesdale, D. (2007). The development of ethnic prejudice in early childhood. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on socialization and social development in early childhood education (pp. 213–240). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Newheiser, A., & Olson, K. R. (2012). White and Black American children’s implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 264–270. doi:10.1016/j. jesp.2011.08.011 Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Piaget J., & Weil, A. M. (1951). The development in children of the idea of the homeland and of relations to other countries. International Social Science Journal, 3, 561–578. Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national ­prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta‐analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82, 1715–1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01668.x Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2005.00856.x



Theoretical Perspectives on the Development of Prejudice  183

Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Siegler, R. S., & Svetina, M. (2002). A microgenetic/cross‐sectional study of matrix completion: Comparing short‐term and long‐term change. Child Development, 73, 793–809. doi: 10.1111/1467‐8624.00439 Siegler, R. S., & Svetina, M. (2006). What leads children to adopt new strategies? A microgenetic/cross‐sectional study of class inclusion. Child Development, 77, 997–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00915.x Singh, R., Choo, W. M., & Poh, L. L. (1998). In‐group bias and fair‐mindedness as strategies of self‐presentation in intergroup perception. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 147–162. doi: 10.1177/0146167298242004 Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–98). New York: Academic Press. Tredoux, C. G., Noor, N. M., & de Paulo, L. (2009). Quantitative measures of respect and social inclusion in children: overview and recommendations. Effective Education, 1, 169–186. doi: 10.1080/19415530903522568 Verkuyten, M., & De Wolf, A. (2007). The development of in‐group favoritism: Between social reality and group identity. Developmental Psychology, 43, 901–922. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.43.4.901 Walker, P. M., Silvert, L., Hewstone, M., & Nobre, A. C. (2008). Social contact and other‐ race face processing in the human brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 16–25. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsm035 Williams, A., & Steele, J. R. (2016). It’s not you, it’s me: The development of implicit racial attitudes in childhood. Manuscript under review.

9 Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children: Insights from Novel Group Studies Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson

Introduction In the fall of 2003, we (Patterson & Bigler, 2006) approached two childcare ­centers—one affiliated with a local church and one with a local university—with an unusual request. We asked whether the centers would be willing to require children in their “4‐year‐old” classrooms (which included some 3‐ and 5‐year‐olds) to wear special t‐shirts while at the center. The directors agreed and, using passive consent procedures, we obtained seven classrooms of preschoolers whose parents had all agreed to allow them to wear either red shirts (printed with squares) or blue shirts (printed with triangles) each day for three consecutive weeks. Using active consent, we then obtained permission to interview 87 of those preschoolers before and after their wardrobe change. In the intervening weeks, we observed the children during playtimes and washed their red and blue shirts nightly. Our purpose was to study the origins of social stereotyping and prejudice.

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  185 Patterson and Bigler (2006) and other “novel group” studies like it (e.g., Bigler, Brown, & Markell, 2001; Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011; Master & Walton, 2013) have revolutionized the understanding of stereotyping and prejudice among children. Prior to the adoption of this research paradigm, it was well known that young children showed biases related to many human traits, including race (Aboud, 1988; Bigler & Liben, 1993), gender (Arthur, Bigler, Liben, Gelman, & Ruble, 2008; Liben & Bigler, 2002), age (Kwong See, Rasmussen, & Pertman, 2012), and physical attractiveness (Langlois et al., 2000). The causal mechanisms involved in producing these phenomena were difficult to identify, however, in part because children are exposed to myriad messages about social groups in the first years of life. Using an experimental novel group paradigm, the environmental cues regarding the meaning and characteristics of the novel groups could be manipulated, providing information about the conditions that might cause stereotypes and prejudice to arise (Bigler, 1995; Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997). So, for example, novel groups might be of equal or unequal sizes (Brown & Bigler, 2002), associated with positive or negative characteristics (Bigler et al., 2001; Patterson, Bigler, & Swann, 2010), or be comprised of homogeneous or heterogeneous group members (Patterson & Bigler, 2007). As a result, new insights into the origins of stereotyping and prejudice have emerged. The primary goal of this chapter is to describe recent advances in our understanding of the causes of stereotyping and prejudice stemming largely, albeit not exclusively, from novel group paradigms. This chapter is organized into five sections. We begin by defining stereotyping and prejudice. In the second section, we argue for the importance of the developmental study of stereotyping and prejudice. In the third section, we briefly review the history of theoretical approaches to understanding stereotyping and prejudice. In the fourth section, we review the processes involved in the formation of stereotypes and prejudices through the framework of Developmental Intergroup Theory (DIT; Bigler & Liben, 2006, 2007). In the fifth section, we suggest directions for future research.

Definitions and Forms of Stereotyping and Prejudice We define a stereotype as a “cognitive structure that contains the perceiver’s knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group” (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986, p. 20). Stereotyping is frequently, although not always, accompanied by prejudice, a more affectively laden facet of individuals’ thinking about groups. We define prejudice as “positive or negative affective reactions to others based on their membership in a particular social group” (Bigler & Wright, 2014, p. 18).

186  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson Unlike some other theorists, we view positive as well negative affect as prejudice when it is based solely upon individuals’ group membership (e.g., a child who shows moderately positive affect towards out‐group members and strongly positive affect towards in‐group members). Stereotyping and prejudice are often tightly interwoven. Groups that are stereotyped as having negative attributes (e.g., lazy, unintelligent) are also likely to be regarded with prejudice (negative affect). The distinction is useful, however, because children sometimes show prejudice toward a social group while simultaneously endorsing positive, or few, stereotypes concerning the group. For example, boys frequently show prejudice against girls (e.g., express dislike for them), while simultaneously endorsing some positive stereotypes about them (e.g., caring, gentle). Because of this distinction between stereotyping and prejudice, many intergroup studies aim to assess both constructs. Recent work has also highlighted the distinction between two processes related to stereotypes and prejudice. The first is an automatic process (referred to as implicit attitudes), which involves unconscious stereotyping and prejudice toward groups. The second is a controlled process (referred to as explicit attitudes), which concerns conscious stereotyping and prejudice toward groups. Research indicates that individuals sometimes hold negative (or biased) implicit attitudes toward a group while simultaneously endorsing positive (or nonbiased) explicit attitudes about that same group (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Devine, 1989). Implicit attitudes are the focus of ­several chapters in this volume; we focus primarily on the formation of explicit stereotypes and prejudice.

Rationales for a Developmental Focus on  Stereotyping and Prejudice Why is it important to understand stereotyping and prejudice among infants, children, and adolescents? First, although stereotyping and prejudice have potentially serious consequences at all ages, the effects of bias may be especially serious during childhood, when individuals’ values, aspirations, and identities are being formed. Social stereotypes and prejudice affect many facets of children’s cognition and behavior, including their ability to remember information (Averhart & Bigler, 1997; Bigler & Liben, 1993; Liben & Signorella, 1980; Martin & Halverson, 1981); occupational judgments and goals (Bigler, Averhart, & Liben, 2003); academic self‐efficacy, aspirations, and performance (Cimpian, Mu, & Erickson, 2012; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Osborne, 1997); peer relationships (Martin & Fabes, 2001); and activity or object preferences (Coker, 1984, Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993). Thus, it is vital to understand how and why

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  187 children come to endorse stereotypic beliefs about social groups. Furthermore, peer victimization (including rejection, unfair treatment, harassment, and bullying) on the basis of social group membership or failure to conform to social stereotypes is common (Huynh & Fuligni, 2010; Leaper & Brown, 2008; Poteat, 2007; Seaton, Neblett, Cole, & Prinstein, 2013) and appears to have life‐long repercussions (e.g., Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999). Second, preventing the initial formation of bias may be easier and more cost‐ effective than working to eradicate stereotypes and prejudice after they are well established. Reviews of the intervention literature suggest that attitudes toward social groups are often highly resistant to change. Interventions designed to change children’s and adults’ gender and racial attitudes, for example, are frequently limited in effectiveness (see Aboud et al., 2012; Banks, 1995; Bigler, 1999; Paluck & Green, 2009). Third, the developmental history of individuals’ thinking about social groups may affect the functioning of such attitudes during adulthood. Devine (1989) has argued that adults’ implicit attitudes toward social groups (e.g., race and gender) may represent beliefs formed in childhood, and that these beliefs are deeper, more entrenched, and less available to consciousness than more recently acquired beliefs. So, for example, although individuals’ beliefs about race may evolve during adulthood, perhaps as a result of formal education or encounters with peers from diverse racial backgrounds, beliefs and affect acquired during childhood are believed to persist. The ­latter may continue to influence individuals’ race‐related judgments and behaviors, often without individuals’ awareness. Understanding the processes involved in the formation of social stereotypes and prejudice in childhood is therefore critical to understanding behavior across the life course.

History of Theoretical Approaches Research on stereotyping and prejudice among children and adolescents began in the 1940s (Allport, 1954; Clark & Clark, 1950; Goodman, 1952; Radke‐Yarrow & Trager, 1952). For many decades, developmental research on stereotyping and prejudice was highly compartmentalized within specific domains. That is, researchers typically addressed only a single category of stereotyping and prejudice in their theoretical and empirical work (e.g., attitudes toward race, gender, or religion). The tendency to focus on a single domain had important consequences, including the tendency to propose domain‐specific (rather than domain‐general) theoretical accounts of ­stereotyping and prejudice. For example, Williams and Morland (1976) ­proposed that innate fear of darkness drives young children to

188  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson develop prejudice toward African Americans, an explanation that is obviously inapplicable to other forms of stereotyping and prejudice. By the late 1960s, a single broad theoretical perspective emerged as ­universally applicable to understanding forms of stereotyping and prejudice: socialization. Specifically, traditional and social learning theories (Bandura, 1977; Skinner, 1969) offered a set of mechanisms such as classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and modeling that appeared relevant to the acquisition of all forms of stereotyping and prejudice, and empirical ­evidence for these mechanisms accumulated. Over time, however, the ability of traditional and social learning theories to account for stereotyping and prejudice was questioned (Kohlberg, 1966; Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002). Empirical evidence for a causal role of environment was difficult to obtain because children’s exposure could not be experimentally controlled. Furthermore, studies employing correlational and experimental methods often generated weak or even contradictory e­ vidence for the role of environment. For example, the modeling of counter‐stereotypic behavior (e.g., women fire fighters) sometimes increased, rather than decreased, children’s stereotyping and prejudice (see Bigler, 1995). In addition, the proposed mechanisms involved in forming social stereotypes (e.g., reinforcement) were assumed to remain constant across development, a supposition that become untenable as increasing empirical evidence indicated that cognitive skills affect the formation, function, and revision of ­stereotypes (e.g., Aboud, 2008; Martin et al., 2002).

Intergroup perspectives At the same time that learning‐based theories dominated explanations for stereotyping and prejudice, the seeds for a new perspective arose from a study by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues. In one of the first studies to use experimentally created groups, Sherif and his colleagues (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) separated boys attending a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park into two groups, which the campers named the Rattlers and the Eagles. Sherif and colleagues then introduced a series of competitions between the groups. The boys quickly developed negative attitudes toward out‐group members, leading to name‐calling and physical altercations. Interestingly, the boys at Robbers Cave appeared to develop intergroup antipathies well before actually encountering out‐group members, an observation that was consistent with a new theoretical perspective on stereotyping and prejudice espoused by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In a series of studies, Tajfel and colleagues found that when sorted into groups (even when group membership was random or based on meaningless criteria), individuals

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  189 tended to show favoritism toward their own group (Tajfel, 1978). For example, Tajfel, Billing, Bundy, and Flament (1971) told adolescent boys that they were classified into two groups based on their individual tendency to over‐ or under‐ estimate the number of dots briefly displayed on a screen (in reality, group assignments were random). When later given the opportunity to allocate rewards and penalties to the two groups, participants tended to favor their own group, despite the fact that such behavior conferred no individual benefit. Tajfel and his colleagues’ “minimal group” studies became the basis for a collection of theories, which we refer to as intergroup theories, positing that categorization is a sufficient condition for producing in‐group favoritism and outlining the motivational mechanisms driving such behavior (Hogg & Haines, 1996; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Although early intergroup work occasionally used children or adolescents as participants, the theories generated from this work (e.g., Social Identity Theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), were not developmental in nature. That is, the motivations hypothesized to account for the formation of in‐group biases were, it was implied, equivalent across the life course. In recent years, much of the focus of intergroup work has been aimed at integrating intergroup and cognitive‐developmental theories (Banaji & Gelman, 2013).

Cognitive‐developmental perspectives Most developmentalists now believe that it is impossible to understand s­ tereotyping and prejudice without attention to the cognitive skills that ­children bring to understanding their social environments. In our own work, we have drawn on Piagetian theory (Piaget, 2000) in thinking about the developmental origins of stereotyping and prejudice. One relevant Piagetian perspective is its emphasis on the ways that children’s logical skills change with development. Cognitive skills applicable to the formation of stereotypes and prejudice include classification ability, probability computation, and perspective taking. Space constraints prohibit us from discussing the ways in which these skills contribute to stereotyping and prejudice, but, broadly speaking, children’s limited cognitive flexibility facilitates the development of rigid biases rather than egalitarian views. Another relevant concept drawn from Piagetian theory is constructivism. When applied to stereotyping and prejudice, this perspective implies that children’s stereotypes and prejudices are unlikely to arise directly and automatically from those held by adults in the environment. Instead, children actively participate in creating cognitive schemata about social categories. Once these schemata are in place, children use them to filter newly encountered information, thereby strengthening existing beliefs (Bigler & Liben, 1993; Liben & Bigler, 1987).

190  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson

Developmental Intergroup Theory In 2006, Bigler and Liben published a theoretical account of stereotyping and prejudice, titled “Developmental Intergroup Theory,” based on the integration of work stemming from intergroup and cognitive‐developmental traditions. The theory outlines the endogenous and exogenous conditions that promote or inhibit the development of specific stereotypes and prejudices among children. Specifically, three core processes are hypothesized to contribute to the formation of stereotypes and prejudice: (1) establishment of the psychological salience (EPS) of person attributes, (2) categorization of encountered individuals (CEI) by salient dimensions, and (3) development of stereotypes and prejudices (DSP) of salient social groups (see Figure 9.1).

Establishment of the psychological salience of person attributes There are almost endless bases on which humans might be parsed into social groups. Individuals vary with respect to features such as skin pigmentation, height, weight, facial attractiveness, age, hair color, eye color, and handedness. Although all of these traits have a basis in biology, only some of them become important as a basis for social group membership. Why does any particular set of individuals become a group in the mind of the child? Explanations can be construed as falling along a continuum from hardwired to flexible. One the one hand, it is possible that evolution has constrained development so that some traits automatically and universally become the basis of social grouping (Pietraszewski, Cosmides, & Toobey, 2014; Williams & Morland, 1976). Consistent with such evolutionary explanations, researchers operating from the perspective of “core knowledge” theory have argued that humans display group‐ based preferences from very early in life, and are perhaps neurologically hardwired to do so (Ziv & Banaji, 2012). Given the vast diversity of potentially important categories and the complexity of the cues that mark such categories, we reject the idea that evolution has “hardwired” specific dimensions as salient bases for classification. We instead suggest that evolution led to a flexible cognitive system that motivates and equips children to infer—from environmental data—which bases of classification are important within a given context. According to DIT, four factors contribute to the psychological salience of particular attributes. Perceptual discriminability.  The first factor posited by DIT concerns children’s tendency to focus on perceptually salient or highly visible attributes in person‐ p­erception tasks (Livesley & Bromley, 1973). As a consequence of this child characteristic, features such as skin color and secondary sex characteristics are

Self-esteem

PERCEPTUAL DISCRIMIN– ABILITY

PROPORTIONAL GROUP SIZE Drive to Classify

ESTABLISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SALIENCE OF PERSON ATTRIBUTES [EPS]

EXPLICIT LABELING AND USE

IMPLICIT USE

CATEGORIZE ENCOUNTERED INDIVIDUALS BY SALIENT DIMENSION [CEI]

Classification Skill

ESSENTIALISM

INGROUP BIAS

Internal Cognitive Motivation

Internal Affective Motivation

DEVELOP STEREOTYPES AND PREJUDICES CONCERNING SALIENT SOCIAL GROUPS [DSP]

EXPLICIT ATTRIBUTIONS Internalize Environmental Aliment

STEREOTYPE ENCOUNTERED INDIVIDUALS entailing • assignment to categories • associating stereotypic attributes

GROUP-ATTRIBUTE COVARIATION OR IMPLICIT ATTRIBUTIONS

Organize Environmental Aliment

Figure 9.1  The Key Processes Involved in the Formation of Social Stereotypes and Prejudice in Developmental Intergroup Theory. Rectangles represent the three key processes contributing to the formation of social stereotyping and prejudice: (1) establishment of the psychological salience of different person attributes, (2) categorization of encountered individuals by salient dimensions, and (3) development of stereotypes of and prejudices toward salient social groups. Ovals represent the factors that shape the operation of core processes, including four factors that shape the establishment of psychological salience (perceptual discriminability, proportional group size, explicit labeling and use, and implicit use) and four factors that shape the development of stereotypes and prejudice (essentialism, ingroup bias, explicit attributions, and implicit attributions). From Bigler & Liben (2006), reprinted by permission of the authors.

192  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson poised to become the bases for social groups and stereotypes. Importantly, attributes of all kinds can be made more or less p ­ erceptually salient. Clothing, hairstyles, and accessories can exaggerate the perceptual discriminability of gender, religious, and age groups. For example, such distinctions assist children in discriminating between males and females (see Arthur et al., 2008). Perceptual discriminability of group membership is particularly important to children (relative to adolescents or adults; Bigler, 1995). Children who are assigned to novel groups that are imperceptible typically do not develop stereotypes and prejudices (Bigler & Liben, 2006). Thus, studies of novel social groups with preschool and elementary school aged children (such as the one described at the beginning of this chapter) often use colored t‐shirts as a visual marker of group membership (Bigler, 1995; Dunham et al., 2011; Master & Walton, 2013; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). Proportional group size.  A second factor hypothesized to impact the psychological salience of social groups among children is proportional group size, that is, whether the members of social groups are equally represented within particular settings (e.g., classrooms, neighborhoods, cities) or one group has numerical majority status. Theoretical and empirical work within social psychology indicates that proportionately smaller social groups are more distinctive than proportionately larger groups (Mullen, 1991; Mullen & Hu, 1989). The distinctiveness of minority groups is believed to cause (1) social categories characterized by unequal size groups to be more salient than those characterized by equal size groups, especially among members of the smaller group, and (2) social groups that have minority status to become the focus of stereotypes and prejudice more often than social groups that have majority status (see Brewer & Brown, 1998). Explicit labeling and use.  The third major tenet of DIT is that children develop stereotypes and prejudice on the basis of those characteristics that adults indicate are important. Bigler’s (1995) study of teachers’ use of gender in the classroom supports this tenet of DIT. In that study, teachers in an experimental condition were asked to use gender to label children and to organize their classroom activities. For example, teachers used gender to assign children to desks and to form lines. In contrast, teachers in a control condition ignored students’ gender. At posttest, children in the experimental condition, especially those with limited skills in classification, showed elevated levels of gender stereotyping relative to children in the control condition. Hilliard and Liben (2010) extended this line of work to show that preschool teachers’ labeling and use of gender affects not only children’s gender stereotyping but also their peer preferences and behaviors. Following a two‐week classroom manipulation similar to that used in Bigler (1995), children in the experimental

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  193 (but not control) classes expressed significantly increased gender stereotyping, reported significantly reduced interest in playing with classmates of the other gender, and interacted significantly less often with other‐gender peers. Labeling and use of groups by authority figures also affects the development of intergroup biases (Bigler et al., 1997). Patterson and Bigler (2006) reported that 3‐ to 5‐year‐old children were more likely to express bias in favor of a novel in‐group when their teachers labeled and used the groups in the classroom (e.g., “Good morning, reds and blues”) than when their teachers did not mention them. Indeed, even within l­aboratory‐based studies in which children are assigned to novel groups for only a brief time (e.g., 30 minutes), the labeling and use of social groups by experimenters appears to facilitate in‐group biases (Dunham, Barron, & Carey, 2011). Implicit use.  In addition to explicit mechanisms in which categories are directly labeled, DIT posits that implicit mechanisms operate to draw children’s attention to particular human attributes. One particularly powerful example is de facto segregation. DIT posits that children notice perceptual similarities among those who live, work, and socialize together and then infer that the social divisions they observe must have been caused by meaningful, inherent differences between groups (Bigler & Liben, 2006). This notion is consistent with recent theorizing by Pietraszewski et al. (2014) about individuals’ understanding of social groups. They posit that children come prepared to detect actual and potential alliances among people, and thus that exposure to de facto segregation on the basis of a particular attribute (race, gender, class) serves as a powerful motivator of categorization along that particular dimension.

Categorization of encountered individuals by salient dimensions DIT posits that children classify encountered individuals into groups using those dimensions that become psychologically salient as a result of one or more of the factors described above (e.g., explicit or implicit use of the characteristic for sorting individuals in the environment). Importantly, Bigler and Liben (2006) argue that even highly perceptually salient characteristics do not become the basis of stereotypes and prejudice when those dimensions are ignored by authority figures. For example, novel group studies show that children are unlikely to express biases in favor of a novel in‐group when teachers abstain from labeling and using the groups in their classrooms, even when groups are marked by colored t‐shirts (e.g., Bigler et al., 1997; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). In other words, children do not develop intergroup biases merely as a function of wearing colored t‐shirts. The degree and way in which groups become salient and individuals are c­ ategorized will be affected

194  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson by the individual child’s classification skill (which undergoes age‐related change) and environmental experience (e.g., the number of encounters with exemplars). The mere act of categorization ­triggers processes involved in the construction of social stereotypes.

Development of stereotypes and prejudice concerning salient social groups DIT posits that categorization results in constructivist, cognitive‐developmental processes that attach meaning to social groups in the form of stereotypes and prejudice. DIT outlines both internally and externally driven processes that lead children to attach meaning to psychologically salient groups (see Figure 9.1). Internally driven processes are ones in which children go beyond information available in the environment to inferentially construct beliefs about the attributes associated with particular social categories. A child might claim, for example, that African Americans and European Americans have different blood types (Hirschfeld, 1996). Novel group studies demonstrate that children often claim that their in‐ group is characterized by more positive traits than their out‐group, despite the fact that such beliefs are neither expressed by adults nor objectively true (see Bigler & Liben, 2006). Externally driven processes are ones in which children learn correlations between attributes and categories that exist in the environment. Gender and race, for example, are correlated with occupational roles and activities. Such observations influence children’s stereotypic beliefs regarding who can or should engage in these occupations (Bigler et  al., 2003). Importantly, internal and external processes operate in tandem; children not only detect group–attribute associations but also explain them. Consistent with this notion, Cimpian and Salomon (2014) argue that children (as well as some adults) show a bias, referred to as the inherence heuristic, to explain observed patterns in terms of inherent properties. For example, individuals observe that girls and women frequently wear pink clothing, and explain the association as based on the idea that pink is an inherently feminine color, rather than as a product of cultural convention. Bigler and Liben (2006) described four factors (two internal and two external) that contribute the formation of stereotypes and prejudices. Essentialism.  Essentialist thinking is characterized by the belief that category members share important, internal (or nonobvious), and permanent characteristics (Gelman & Taylor, 2000). Empirical work indicates that children (relative to adults) are especially likely to describe social groups as defined by physical or

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  195 genetically inherited traits (Quintana, 1994), and to believe that members of particular social groups share important, internal qualities that are not shared with members of other groups. Thus, essentialist thought contributes content to social stereotypes. In‐group preference.  A second internal mechanism that facilitates the development of stereotyping and prejudice is in‐group preference. Social psychological research indicates that the mere act of categorizing individuals into social groups is sufficient to produce intergroup bias (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Although there are developmental constraints on this process, children, like adults, show a reluctance to interpret groups as separate but equal. In‐group favoritism may stem from children’s projection of their typically positive self‐views onto in‐group members (see Aboud, 2008, Patterson et al., 2010). Positive views of one’s in‐group are likely to facilitate children’s attention to and memory for positive attributes of their in‐group (and to negative attributes of out‐groups), thereby contributing to the development of stereotype content (Dunham et  al., 2011; Schug, Shusterman, Barth, & Patalano, 2013). For example, although adults from a variety of racial backgrounds rate “snobby” and “smart” as equally strongly associated with European Americans, European American children more strongly associate their in‐group with “smart” than with “snobby” (Hughes & Bigler, 2007). Explicit attributions.  A third factor hypothesized to contribute to stereotyping and prejudice is exposure to explicit messages regarding attributes of group members. Such messages may stem from parents, peers, media, or other sources. Explicit messages are powerful because they operate at two levels simultaneously: by employing labels that mark the social groups as important (thus contributing to the psychological salience of social groups) and by providing information about attributes associated with the group. Explicit remarks about some social groups are relatively common among peers (e.g., Kowalski, 2007) and may be a mechanism by which children “teach” their peers about attributes that they have detected or invented (e.g., a child may inform others that particular objects are “for boys” or “for girls”) or convey prejudice without reference to attributes (e.g., “I don’t like girls”). Group‐attribute covariation or implicit attributions.  Beginning in infancy, children learn about the attributes of various categories of people through their detection of group‐attribute covariation (see Spelke & Kinzler, 2007). Implicit information linking group membership to social roles is theorized to promote the formation of stereotyping and prejudice. For example, a child who encounters five doctors, four of whom are male, is likely to construct the stereotypic belief that doctors should be men. Children may also encounter implicit messages about the links between

196  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson groups and affective qualities through others’ nonverbal behavior (e.g., Castelli, De Dea, & Nesdale, 2008). European American parents may, for example, show increased nervousness or social withdrawal when among African Americans and increased comfort and affection when among European Americans; as a consequence, their children are likely to develop racial prejudices (Pahlke, Bigler, & Suizzo, 2012).

Summary Since its inception, Developmental Intergroup Theory has been used to explain the development of stereotyping and prejudice in a number of domains, including gender (Hilliard & Liben, 2010), race (Pauker, Ambady, & Apfelbaum, 2010), and experimentally created groups (Dunham et al., 2011; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). We hope that future research will ­continue to explore the implications of DIT for these important aspects of identity and also extend research to other critical domains (e.g., religious and national identity).

Directions for Future Research Much has been learned about stereotyping and prejudice among children and yet there is much left to learn. We highlight two areas of research that seem especially important and promising. The first concerns processes involved in the movement from interpersonal to intergroup lenses for understanding social relations. The second involves the integration of views of the self with views of in‐groups and out‐groups.

From interpersonal to intergroup processes Stereotyping and prejudice involve the treatment of others as group members. It is highly likely, however, that children’s understanding of group processes builds upon their understanding of interpersonal processes. That is, it is likely that infants’ and toddlers’ nascent experience and understanding of interpersonal relations contribute to their expectations of social groups (see Bloom, 2014). For example, children’s interpersonal interactions occur with others who vary in their similarity to the self in terms of factors such as language, hair color, and skin color. Relatedly, children’s interactions occur with others who vary in their familiarity to the child. Furthermore, these interactions may be marked by positive or negative affect (e.g., they may be experienced as smooth, warm, and cooperative or

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  197 difficult, distant, and competitive). Children’s own interpersonal experiences—and observations of others’ interpersonal experiences—are likely to contribute to their developing ­schemata concerning group alliances (Pietraszewski et al., 2014) and, in turn, social stereotypes and prejudices. Investigation of the ways in which children’s experience and understanding of interpersonal interactions contribute to intergroup biases will help build a more thorough model of social stereotyping and prejudice.

Self and group integration processes Another area that appears ripe for progress concerns the psychological integration of self‐views and group‐views. Correspondence tends to exist between individuals’ views of the self and their views of relevant in‐groups (e.g., believing oneself to be intelligent is correlated with believing one’s in‐group to be intelligent as well). However, researchers disagree about the extent to which such correlations reflect a self‐to‐group or a group‐to‐self causal influence (Cho & Knowles, 2013; Robbins & Krueger, 2005). Novel group paradigms are a promising means of testing such influences (see Patterson et  al., 2010). Indeed, some of the preschoolers in our study (Patterson & Bigler, 2006) made spontaneous comments that illustrated connections between their self and group views (e.g., “I am a fast runner and so the reds are faster than the blues!”). Future research should explore the developmental processes associated with reciprocal beliefs regarding self and social groups. Such work is likely to help illuminate the innumerable ways in which individuals’ experiences of and with social groups shape their developmental outcomes. References Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2008). A social‐cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 55–71). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C. S., Niens, U., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32, 307–336. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Arthur, A. E., Bigler, R. S., Liben, L. S., Gelman, S. A., & Ruble, D. N. (2008). Gender stereotyping and prejudice in young children: A developmental intergroup perspective. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 66–86). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

198  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson Averhart, C. J., & Bigler, R. S. (1997). Shades of meaning: Skin tone, racial attitudes, and constructive memory in African American children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 363–388. Banaji, M. R., & Gelman, S. A. (Eds.) (2013). Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species can teach us. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender role attitudes. In J. A. Banks and C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 617–627). New York, NY: Macmillan. Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53–58. Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66, 1072–1087. Bigler, R. S. (1999). The use of multicultural curricula and materials to counter ­racism in children. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 687–705. Bigler, R. S., Averhart, C. J., & Liben, L. S. (2003). Race and the workforce: Occupational status, aspirations, and stereotyping among African American children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 572–580. Bigler, R. S., Brown, C. S., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 72, 1151–1162. Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530–543. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1993). A cognitive‐developmental approach to racial stereotyping and reconstructive memory in Euro‐American children. Child Development, 64, 1507–1518. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 34, pp. 39–89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166. Bigler, R. S., & Wright, Y. F. (2014). Reading, writing, arithmetic, and racism? Risks and benefits to teaching children about intergroup biases. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 18–23. Bloom, P. (2014). Just babies: The origins of good and evil. New York: Random House. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 554–594). New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill. Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). Effects of minority status in the classroom on children’s intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 77–110.

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  199 Castelli, L., De Dea, C., & Nesdale, D. (2008). Learning social attitudes: Children’s sensitivity to the nonverbal behaviors of adult models during interracial interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1504–1513. Cho, J. C., & Knowles, E. D. (2013). I’m like you and you’re like me: Social projection and self‐stereotyping both help explain self‐other correspondence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 444–456. Cimpian, A., Mu, Y., & Erickson, L. C. (2012). Who is good at this game? Linking an activity to a social category undermines children’s achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 533–541. Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2013). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 461–527. Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54, 805–816. Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1950). Emotional factors in racial identification and preference in Negro children. The Journal of Negro Education, 19, 341–350. Coker, D. R. (1984). The relationships among gender concepts and cognitive maturity in preschool children. Sex Roles, 10, 19–31. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development, 82, 793–811. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfield, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self‐ and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Gelman, S. A., & Taylor, M. G. (2000). Gender essentialism in cognitive development. In Miller, P. H., & Kofsky Scholnick, E. (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 169–190). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis. Goodman, M. E. (1952). Race awareness in young children. Oxford: Addison‐Wesley Press. Hamilton, D. L., & Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 127–163). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81, 1787–1798. Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996). Race in the making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hogg, M. A., & Haines, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295–309. Hughes, J. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2007, March). Development and validation of new measures of racial stereotyping and prejudice. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.

200  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Discrimination hurts: The academic, psychological, and physical well‐being of adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 916–941. Kohlberg, L. (1966). Cognitive‐developmental analysis of children’s sex‐role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.) The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kowalski, K. (2007). The development of social identity and intergroup attitudes in young children. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.) Contemporary perspectives on social learning in early childhood education (pp. 49–82). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Kwong See, S. T., Rasmussen, C., & Pertman, S. Q. (2012). Measuring children’s age stereotyping using a modified Piagetian conservation task. Educational Gerontology, 38, 149–165. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta‐analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. Leaper, C., & Brown, C. S. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79, 685–704. Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (1987). Reformulating children’s gender schemata. In L. S. Liben & M. L. Signorella (Eds.), Children’s gender schemata (New Directions for Child Development, No. 38, pp. 89–105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2), 1–147. Liben, L. S., & Signorella, M. L. (1980). Gender‐related schemata and constructive memory in children. Child Development, 51, 11–18. Livesley, W. J., & Bromley, D. B. (1973). Person perception in childhood and adolescence. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same‐sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37, 431–446. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119–1134. Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender role development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933. Master, A., & Walton, G. M. (2013). Minimal groups increase young children’s motivation and learning on group‐relevant tasks. Child Development, 84, 737–751. Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297–323. Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta‐ analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233–252. Osborne, J. W. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 728–735. Pahlke, E., Bigler, R. S., & Suizzo, M. A. (2012). Relations between colorblind socialization and children’s racial bias: Evidence from European American mothers and their preschool children. Child Development, 83, 1164–1179.

Social Stereotyping and Prejudice in Children  201 Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development, 77, 847–860. Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2007). Effects of physical atypicality on children’s social identities and intergroup attitudes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 433–444. Patterson, M. M., Bigler, R. S., & Swann, W. B. (2010). When personal identities confirm versus conflict with group identities: Evidence from an intergroup paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1–20. Pauker, K., Ambady, N., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2010). Race salience and essentialist thinking in racial stereotype development. Child Development, 81, 1799–1813. Piaget, J. (2000). Piaget’s theory. In K. Lee (Ed.), Childhood cognitive development: The essential readings (pp. 33–47). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pietraszewski, D., Cosmides, L., & Toobey, J. (2014). The content of our cooperation, not the color of our skin: An alliance detection system regulates ­categorization by coalition and race, but not sex. PLoS ONE, 9(2): e88534. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0088534 Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer group socialization of homophobic attitudes and behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 78, 1830–1842. Quintana, S. M. (1994). A model of ethnic perspective‐taking ability applied to Mexican‐ American children and youth. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 419–448. Radke‐Yarrow, M., & Trager H. G. (1952). They learn what they live: Prejudice in young children. New York: Harper. Robbins, J. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2005). Social projection to in‐groups and out‐groups: A review and meta‐analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 32–47. Schug, M. G., Shusterman, A., Barth, H., & Patalano, A. L. (2013). Minimal‐group membership influences children’s responses to novel experience with group members. Developmental Science, 16, 47–55. Seaton, E. K., Neblett, E. W., Jr., Cole, D. J., & Prinstein, M. J. (2013). Perceived discrimination and peer victimization among African American and Latino youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 342–350. Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(2), 1–99. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89–96.

202  Rebecca S. Bigler and Meagan M. Patterson Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Oxford: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall. Williams, J. E., & Morland, J. K. (1976). Race, color, and the young child. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Ziv, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2012). Representations of social groups in the early years of life. In S. Fiske & C. N. Macrae (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 372–389). London: Sage.

10 Implicit Intergroup Bias and the Long Road to Predicting Discrimination Yarrow Dunham

Introduction The study of intergroup processes begins from many places, and a diversity of approaches in both theory and method is a hallmark and strength of the literature. This chapter focuses on one more recent addition to the landscape, “implicit” or “automatic” forms of intergroup attitude. The central goals are to elucidate the gaps in prior literature that this work emerged to address, and to critically evaluate the extent to which it has been successful in doing so. As we will see, research on implicit intergroup attitudes has been a valuable supplement, but has not always accomplished all that it promised. A recent handbook chapter (Olson & Dunham, 2010) provides a review of developmental implicit social cognition research across many areas of psychology; the focus of this chapter will be the narrower topic of implicit forms of prejudice (positive or negative evaluations of social groups or their members). Although prejudice is often linked with stereotypes (i.e., specific beliefs about what groups are

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

204  Yarrow Dunham like), stereotypes will not be a focus here, because there is little developmental work on implicit stereotypes. A final central concept, discrimination, refers to positive or negative behavior directed at someone as a consequence of their membership in a social group. Put simply, prejudice and stereotypes are in the head, while discrimination is out in the world. Prejudice is an individual shortcoming; discrimination is a social phenomenon that perpetuates injustice. It is natural to assume that prejudice causes discrimination, and that one reason to study prejudice is to understand how it gives rise to discrimination. However, there is surprisingly little research actually investigating the link between prejudice and discrimination, and a call for more such work will be one prescriptive upshot of this review. There is some irony in a review of implicit prejudice calling for more research on behavioral prediction given that one of the promised benefits of work on implicit social cognition is new insight into the link between prejudice and discrimination. But I argue that, at least in the developmental context, implicit social cognition research has led to broader conceptualizations of intergroup attitudes but has not demonstrated that this broader conceptualization allows us to predict discriminatory behavior more successfully.

Making the Implicit Turn Research on implicit intergroup attitudes emerged against a voluminous body of work on intergroup attitudes more generally. That work urged several primary conclusions. First, intergroup bias, with respect to a range of social categories, is present early in development. For example, with respect to race, those in the best studied social category, White North American children, express positive views of Whites and negative views of Blacks by age 3 or 4 (reviewed in Aboud, 1988; Brand, Ruiz, & Padilla, 1974; Fishbein, 1996). Similar patterns appear with other social categories such as gender (Yee & Brown, 1994), religion (Heiphetz, Spelke, & Banaji, 2013) and nationality (Barrett, 2007). Second, these expressions of bias tend to decline as a function of age. For example, expressions of race bias are weak or even absent in White North American adolescents (Aboud, 1988). One recent contribution to the literature has been a meta‐analytic treatment of age‐related change in prejudice (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011), which documented an age‐related increase in prejudice between approximately 3 and 6, perhaps as social categories are acquired, followed by a gradual decline into adolescence. This descriptive clarity is valuable, but it does not uniquely support any one theoretical explanation. In particular, two broad issues loom. First, why does self‐reported



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  205

prejudice decline so markedly, and how can the decline be reconciled with the purported continued presence of prejudice in adults? Second, does the development of self‐reported prejudice, as revealed through these findings, provide insight into the development of discrimination or related phenomena such as changes in friendship patterns and school‐based self‐segregation? Why do reports of prejudice decline as a function of age? One answer involves taking the decline at face value. The most influential set of views arising around this interpretation are cognitive developmental accounts, generally influenced by Piagetian stage theories (Aboud, 1988; Katz, 1983). The upshot of these views is that young children have a set of cognitive limitations that make them particularly susceptible to acquiring prejudice. For example, children may egocentrically assume their own social identities are normative or preferred, or they may rigidly apply stereotypes due to limitations in cognitive flexibility. As these limitations are gradually overcome, prejudice declines. These views have been influential, providing a compelling account for a surprising pattern of data and moving past simplistic views of children as passive internalizers of societal ills. However, some limitations should be noted. Theoretically, many thinkers in developmental psychology no longer subscribe to broad Piagetian stages, instead arguing that development occurs in several at least partly independent domains that do not necessarily generalize widely (see Carey, 2009 for a recent review). What’s more, the overall picture of cognitively limited and egocentric children has been shaken by accumulating evidence of robust abilities in the first years of life, including surprisingly sensitive perspective taking and abstract reasoning (e.g., Onishi & Baillargeon, 2005; Xu & Garcia, 2008). More practically, can rapid decline in childhood prejudice be reconciled with persistent intergroup bias described by adult‐focused social psychologists (e.g., Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002)? The primary worry is that over the same periods during which self‐reported prejudice declines, children become increasingly concerned with how they are perceived by others (see, e.g., Harter, 1999). This increasing awareness will surely alight upon the fact that expressing intergroup bias is generally frowned upon, and that (at least for members of the majority) parents themselves are often uncomfortable talking about it (Hughes et al., 2006). Could children begin to censor views they know will be received with approbation? There is evidence to support this possibility. Manipulating self‐focus and/or publicity of expression of race attitudes leads children as young as 6 to report less bias in the domain of race and national attitudes (Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005), and as they enter middle childhood children become increasingly unwilling to even mention race, even in a wholly task‐relevant context such as trying to refer to an individual (Apfelbaum, Pauker, Ambady, Sommers, & Norton, 2008). Thus, the decline in self‐reported prejudice cannot necessarily be interpreted as a decline in prejudice itself.

206  Yarrow Dunham Of course, children are not just learning that expressing prejudice is bad; many of them are also coming to believe that being prejudiced or engaging in exclusionary behavior is bad. Thus, part of the shift in self‐reported bias may also reflect the adoption of an explicitly egalitarian value system, where judging others based on factors like race is morally wrong (e.g., Killen, 2007). This sort of shift might be interpretable as a genuine reduction in bias, but, again, adult social psychology suggests that things are not so simple, and that such egalitarian views can coexist with patterns of thinking that constitute a form of race bias. For example, Modern Racism Theory (McConahay, 1986) argues that an “old‐fashioned” form of bigotry in which groups are explicitly disparaged has given way to a modern form of bias in which subtler political and moral views give cover or post‐hoc justification for ignoring continued inequities, often beneath a veneer of “color blindness” (e.g., Apfelbaum, Norton, & Sommers, 2012). Thus, while general cognitive maturation may well reduce bias to some extent, there are clear alternative explanations for the observed reduction, most prominently self‐presentational demands and the adoption of an explicitly egalitarian veneer over subtler forms of intergroup bias. What, then, about the second issue I raised, the ability of existing self‐report work to explain race‐related behavior across these same ages? Unfortunately, there is surprisingly little research on actual discrimination in children. Thus, in seeking to answer the question of whether self‐reported prejudice predicts discrimination, there is less to go on than we’d like. Still, the observed trend of self‐reported prejudice has difficulty accounting for observed behavioral trends. Most of the relevant work in this area focuses on race, so that will be our focus as well. Observational studies of playmate preference and related measures in preschool and early elementary aged children paint a somewhat mixed picture of whether or not race exerts a substantial influence on children’s behavior. Some studies have reported predictive effects of race on free play or friendship nominations as early as preschool (Finkelstein & Haskins, 1983; Girouard, Stack, & O’Neill‐Giblert, 2011; Ramsey & Myers, 1990), but these studies also suggest that some of these early effects could be accounted for by factors correlated with, but independent of, race such as play style. Still other, primarily older studies report no effects of race on friendship profiles until the middle elementary school years (Hraba & Grant, 1970; Porter, 1971; Stevenson & Stevenson, 1960). In any case, it is clear that the most pronounced shift in association patterns occurs considerably later, over the latter half of elementary school, with the result that many pre‐ existing cross‐group friendships disappear (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Moody 2001; Shrum, Cheek, & Hunter, 1988). Why does this shift occur just as prejudice allegedly goes into decline?



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  207

Of course, prejudice is by no means the only potential explanation for increasing school‐based segregation, and the authors just cited point to factors like socioeconomic status, contact opportunities, teacher diversity, and ability‐ based tracking as likely contributors. Another prominent possibility is identity development. For example, in later childhood and adolescence, children, and especially nonmajority children, become increasingly interested in understanding and elaborating an ethnic identity, with a corresponding desire to associate with others who share similar identity commitments (Phinney, 1989; Quintana, 1998). Any complete treatment of ethnic preferences will have to take these aspects of social identity into account as well. Thus, the context of age‐related shifts in intergroup association are complex and multifaceted, but it remains surprising that prejudice and these behavioral outcomes paint such different pictures of intergroup functioning. It is at this point that a powerful, even paradigm‐shifting body of work in social psychology enters the picture. Memory researchers were among the first to reveal a striking phenomenon: stimuli that had been previously encountered but that could not be consciously recalled could nonetheless exert an influence on other tasks, for example, by leading participants to more rapidly recognize or prefer previously encountered stimuli (e.g., Roediger, 1990). Memory could operate in an implicit, even unconscious manner and yet still be causally efficacious! Applying these findings to the domain of intergroup attitudes, researchers raised a tantalizing if disturbing possibility: what if there is a form of prejudice that also operates outside conscious awareness, but which is able to affect other cognitive processes (for reviews, see Gawronski & Payne, 2010)? If so, the question of whether someone holds prejudice cannot, even in principle, be answered solely by asking (even putting aside social desirability), because they may genuinely be unaware of their own bias. There are now literally hundreds of studies confirming and elaborating this intuition, demonstrating a range of pervasive yet subtle tendencies to negatively evaluate some groups, in particular racial minority groups in the United States. This implicit form of prejudice is only weakly correlated with self‐reported prejudice (Nosek, 2007), suggesting an at least largely distinct cognitive construct. The rise of implicit social cognition ushered in a new perspective on predicting behavior: Some behaviors stem from explicit beliefs, but others, especially subtler forms such as body language, are more closely related to implicit bias (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). While it took some time to penetrate developmental research, there is now a growing body of work seeking to understand the developmental origins of implicit prejudice. The next sections summarize this work and suggest that two primary “ingredients” can account for observed developmental trajectories.

208  Yarrow Dunham

The First Ingredient: Mere Membership Most social and cognitive psychologists studying implicit social cognition had argued—or at least assumed—that phenomena such as implicit pre­ judice emerged gradually through a “slow learning” internalization of statistical regularities in the environment (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Smith & DeCoster, 2000). For example, perhaps repeated exposure to ­negative portrayals of some racial groups creates a subtle, introspectively inaccessible negative association with those groups. Such biases could coexist with the honest and explicit endorsement of egalitarian views, leading to implicit and explicit attitudes that are inconsistent. Note that this account of implicit bias makes clear developmental predictions: Young children should show little or no implicit bias, and should gradually acquire such bias as the relevant social information is encountered and internalized over development. It was against this backdrop that the first studies exploring implicit intergroup bias in children began to emerge. Early studies on the development of implicit intergroup bias focused on majority children in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom, and employed the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Because it features prominently, it is worth briefly reviewing the IAT. Conceptually, imagine sorting a standard deck of cards into two piles, one of hearts and diamonds and the other of spades and clubs. This would be easy. But consider a second task, in which one pile consists of hearts and spades, the other diamonds and clubs. This would be more difficult and, if you hurried, you’d be prone to errors. The reason why is intuitive enough. In the first case, it is easy to subsume the two red and two black suits into single categories based on color, while, in the second case, you must carefully consider all four suits. The IAT shares this logic. Participants rapidly categorize stimuli from two different pairs of categories using only two response keys. In a standard race IAT, members of two racial groups (photographs or names of Black and White people) are categorized in alternation with positive and negative adjectives. In one condition, White faces are paired with positive words and Black faces with negative words; in a second (counterbalanced) condition, White faces are paired with negative words and Black faces with positive words. If a participant has relatively more positive associations with one group than the other, these two conditions will differ in difficulty. The speed advantage in one condition over the other serves as an individual difference index of implicit intergroup bias. As noted above, an initial assumption was that implicit prejudice emerged gradually as cultural values were internalized. However, this early prediction was not supported. In the domain of race, the first inquiry (Rutland et al., 2005) revealed that White 6‐year‐olds in the United Kingdom showed a degree of implicit preference for White over Black that did not differ from 10‐year‐olds. Later work



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  209

replicated this “age invariance” in the United States, revealing that White American 6‐year‐olds showed a level of bias that did not differ from adults (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006). Furthermore, native Japanese children showed a similar pattern, preferring their racial in‐group from the youngest ages tested and showing only modest evidence of age‐related change. Other recent studies have demonstrated implicit in‐group preference in other domains, including religion (Heiphetz et al., 2013) and nationality (Rutland et al., 2005). Might these findings, beginning as they do in 6‐year‐olds, be missing a more dynamic period of attitude consolidation in younger children? A more recent and larger scale investigation suggests not; including children as young as 3, and thereby a number of children who did not yet understand race as a means of classifying people, still produced age invariance: White American 3–4‐year‐olds showed a form of implicit bias that was every bit as strong as that shown by adults (in this case, categorizing more angry as opposed to happy faces into the racial out‐group). This pattern also generalized beyond the U.S. context. For example, Taiwanese children showed Taiwanese‐over‐White implicit preference of similar magnitude (Dunham, Chen, & Banaji, 2013). How is it that young children, even children so young as to have only recently acquired race bias, can show implicit intergroup attitudes every bit as strong as adults? These findings are surprising because they speak against the assumption that preferring one group to another is the result of having learned that one group is better than another. But social psychologists have long known that there are other routes to intergroup bias. Most notably, a large body of work with the so‐ called “Minimal Groups Paradigm” demonstrates that older children and adults show preferences for groups that were previously unfamiliar and that were of little prior or intrinsic importance (Brewer; 1979; Tajfel, 1970). The upshot of this work is that merely belonging to a group is, at least in some cases, enough to induce prejudice. Could the early emergence of both implicit and explicit intergroup bias, described in the prior studies, be the consequence of this more automatic affiliation with in‐groups? Two substantial series of studies, while focusing on self‐reported measures, provide strong reasons to think the answer could be yes. In a paradigm developed by Bigler and colleagues, children in school settings are assigned to groups based on shirt colors, and wear shirts of their assigned colors on a daily basis. When teachers and other school staff ignored the groups, evidence for bias was weak, but when linked to positive outcomes or being used to organize classroom activities, intergroup bias robustly appeared (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997; Bigler, Spears, Brown, & Markell, 2001; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). A second body of work by Nesdale and colleagues also assigned children to previously unfamiliar novel groups, and also showed that children rapidly affiliate with such groups, though they

210  Yarrow Dunham remain sensitive to features of the groups such as status and ethnic make‐up (Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Nesdale, Griffith, Durkin, & Maass, 2007; Nesdale, Maass, Griffiths, & Durkin, 2003). Do such findings extend to implicit forms of measurement? The answer here is also a clear “yes”; children randomly assigned to groups based on t‐shirt color showed strong implicit in‐group bias on the IAT (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011) as well as on a form of evaluative priming (Dunham & Emory, 2014). A simple heuristic that allows us to summarize these broad results is that in‐groups are automatically preferred, and thus that bias towards real world groups is, in some cases, merely the specific instantiation of this more general tendency (for some elaboration of this argument, see Dunham, 2011). The first ingredient for implicit prejudice, then, is not biased social information, but rather mere membership in a social collective.

The Second Ingredient: Status Awareness Some readers will have noted a major omission in the preceding discussion, namely that it has focused on majority or culturally high‐status children. White American and British children show implicit in‐group bias in favor of their own group over racial out‐groups. But what about children who are not members of a privileged majority? When a member of a dominant cultural majority shows preference for his/her own group, a preference for high status and a preference for the in‐group are confounded, both pointing in the direction of in‐group preference. The findings with minimal groups demonstrate that status differences are not necessary for the production of social preference, but status could nonetheless be a major contributor to the bias described in the preceding section. Status and membership can be unconfounded by focusing on non‐majority groups, and adult research has shown that members of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States, as well as members of sexual minorities and some other disparate but potentially stigmatized groups such as the elderly or the obese, do not show implicit preference for their own group, instead showing either a population‐level neutrality or even an implicit preference for the higher status out‐group (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002; Nosek et al., 2007). How do children progress towards this adult pattern? The first study of this sort focused on Latino American children, and examined their implicit Latino‐over‐ White and Latino‐over‐Black preference between the ages of 5 and 12 as well as a comparison sample of adults (Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2007). The primary finding with respect to Latino‐over‐White implicit bias was that there was little or



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  211

no age‐related change, and that the mean pattern was no implicit preference in either direction. That is, the adult pattern of implicit attitudinal neutrality was present in the youngest children tested. By contrast, when comparing their own group to another minority (Black), children showed the familiar pattern from prior work on implicit race attitudes, namely robust and developmentally stable preference for the racial in‐group. More recently, it has been shown that Black children also show a largely age‐invariant pattern of implicit attitudinal neutrality, whether measured with the IAT (Newheiser & Olson, 2012) or the angry faces task (Dunham, Chen et  al., 2013). Furthermore, a series of recent studies explored the implicit racial evaluations of non‐White children in South Africa (Dunham, Newheiser, Hoosain, Merril, & Olson, 2014; Newheiser, Dunham, Merrill, Hoosain, & Olson, 2014), who are subject to a dramatically more powerful degree of class and status disparity. Supporting the notion that these disparities are directly encoded in implicit attitudes, Black and Colored children in South African implicitly evaluated White more positively than their own group, and indeed appeared to mirror the broader status hierarchy in which White > Colored > Black. As before, there was little evidence of age‐related change. These findings are not restricted to race. For example, children of varying positions along the Hindu caste hierarchy nonetheless showed implicit preference for high caste over low caste on both the IAT and a more projective measure of social attitudes involving expectations regarding the appearance of in‐group and out‐group faces (Dunham, Srinivasan, Dostch, & Barner, 2014). These findings suggest that children’s early attention to social status is a second key ingredient producing implicit intergroup evaluations. Indeed, this second ingredient is capable of canceling out or even reversing the tendency towards implicit in‐group preference described previously. The lack of age‐related change demonstrates that it too occurs from quite early in development and is not a temporally subsequent process. Rather, groups are recognized as in‐groups but also as high‐ or low‐status seemingly from their initial apprehension. Membership and status are very different sorts of things. A child can understand that s/he belongs to a group without knowing very much about the group (perhaps without knowing anything at all beyond the label that picks out group membership: Hirschfeld, 1998), and adults do explicitly label their children by group membership, at least some of the time, and at least for some affiliations. But understanding the consensual social status accorded a particular group is a more complex affair. How do children—and young children at that—identify status? What cues do they attend to? Research is only just beginning to tackle this question, but some promising directions have emerged. First, for members of lower status groups, two investigations, one with Black children in the US and another with Black children in South Africa, have found that children’s self‐reported preference for wealth predicts

212  Yarrow Dunham their implicit preference for a higher status out‐group (Newheiser & Olson, 2012; Newheiser et al., 2014). This suggests that one input into status awareness are the readily available and socially salient cues to wealth that surround us and that, unfortunately, are frequently correlated with group membership (see also Horwitz, Shutts, & Olson, 2014). There are also examples in which the expected status effect does not emerge. In a region of India with a large and high‐status Hindu majority, Muslim minority children nonetheless showed implicit pro‐Muslim attitudes just as strong as the Hindu majority (Dunham, Srinivasan et al., 2014). Similarly, girls remain more implicitly positive towards their own gender than do boys (Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2015), suggesting that something about these identities plays a protective role, preserving implicit in‐group favoritism in the face of salient status disparities. Future work will be needed to explore why some groups function differently in this way.

Caveats and Complications The preceding two sections have distilled the emergence of implicit intergroup bias down to the action of two key “ingredients,” namely a tendency to prefer in‐groups and a tendency to prefer higher status groups. Interestingly, despite the seeming independence of implicit and explicit forms of prejudice, these factors have also emerged as central contributors to explicit forms of bias (e.g., Bigler et al., 2001; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001). Still, it is important to emphasize that this effort to explain broad trends via two central factors should not be taken to imply that other factors, and in particular richer forms of social and cultural experience, are not important. Surely they are. Nonetheless, science progresses by noting generalities that are capable of predicting more specific patterns, and the ones described here fit this bill: If you know whether children belong to a given group, and if you know the status relationships that group figures in, you will generally do a pretty good job predicting the mean level of implicit bias in those children. Even so, the goal of this section is to highlight additional considerations that are not captured in that simple picture. First, all work to date is cross‐sectional. This places an important caveat on how we interpret the data, and in particular the repeated observation of “age invariance” taken to indicate the rapid fixation of implicit prejudice. Absent longitudinal data, it is wholly possible that age invariance describes the population mean but not the trajectory of many individual children. That is, many individual children could show pronounced change in implicit prejudice, but, if as many children



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  213

move upward as downward, the mean‐level pattern would remain a flat line. Despite its difficulty and expense, a longitudinal inquiry will be essential to confirming prevailing interpretations. In very similar spirit, most work to date focuses on main effects or population differences; very few studies explore individual differences factors that might relate to the strength of implicit preferences (e.g., Dunham et al., 2014; Newheiser & Olson, 2012; Newheiser et al., 2014). Second, the data to date has relied predominately on the IAT (for a broader discussion of various implicit measures, see Fazio & Olson, 2003). The IAT is the most popular measure of implicit social cognition and has a number of strengths including flexibility, ease of use, and the production of large effects—but it has also been a frequent target of criticism (e.g., Arkes & Tetlock, 2004; Blanton et  al., 2009; Rothermund & Wentura, 2004). Even putting aside these debates, it has two features that constrain the interpretations we can draw from it. First, it is a relative measure, meaning it is difficult or impossible to separate in‐group positivity from out‐group negativity (but see Conrey, Sherman, Gawronski, Hugenberg, & Groom, 2005; Dunham et al., 2015), a distinction long recognized as important (Aboud, 2003; Brewer, 1999; Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001). Other implicit measures, including single‐category variants of the IAT (Karpinski & Steinman, 2006), the Affect Misattribution Procedure (Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), and evaluative priming (Hermans, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1994) allow these two components of prejudice to be dissociated. A second critical feature of the IAT is that it involves the explicit use of categories. That is, completing the IAT requires attending to and making use of the categories in question (e.g., by explicitly categorizing faces by race). Some other measures, such as evaluative priming, involve measuring subtle responses to individuals who are incidentally presented, but who happen to belong to a social category of interest. This difference is important, because we do not always make use of every available means of categorizing someone. That is, we may hold a particular prejudice but not draw upon it, for example because we are thinking of other things, other social identities are more salient, or because we are not so good at picking out category members in the first place (e.g., Gilbert & Hixon, 1991). Thus, the IAT measures evaluations of categories, but does not measure our tendency to draw on those categories outside the context of the task (for further discussion, see Dunham & Degner, 2013). This appears to matter: In one inquiry focusing on ethnic attitudes in Europe, implicit prejudice appeared on the IAT several years prior to appearing on evaluative priming (Degner & Wentura, 2010), and this may be true with respect to race in the US as well (Dunham, 2015). Thus, a critical task for future researchers is to use a wider range of measures and to map results from those measures onto underlying cognitive constructs.

214  Yarrow Dunham One final issue harkens back to an original motivation for incorporating implicit prejudice research into our developmental understanding, namely forging stronger links between prejudice and discrimination. However, success here remains limited. The conclusion from the work described above is that young children—in addition to reporting large amounts of prejudice—also show implicit forms of bias as strong as those seen in adults. Overall, then, young children appear to be more prejudiced when reporting bias, and equally prejudiced on implicit measures. And yet these children appear to be less biased in terms of their behavior (e.g., their racial association patterns) than are older children. This remains an important puzzle in the literature.

Concluding Remarks: Where To Go From Here As with adult‐focused research, the study of implicit prejudice in children has broadened our conceptualization of intergroup bias, forcing us to recognize that verbal reports do not exhaust, and may even obscure, some aspects of the prejudice. It has further suggested that implicit forms of bias can emerge rapidly and powerfully, even as the mere consequence of recognizing a social group to which one belongs. This work has created important continuity between social and developmental fields and has contributed to theorizing as to the origin and nature of implicit attitudes (Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2008; Dunham & Olson, 2008). It has also pointed to a need to widen our methodological toolkit to include measures of implicit or automatic prejudice as well as more traditional self‐report instruments. But these findings are dispiriting in some respects, as they show that implicit prejudice can emerge in the absence of positive or negative characterizations of the groups, and therefore that “de‐biasing” children will not be as simple as de‐biasing the input. In many respects, however, this work is still in its infancy. Building on the caveats described above, I highlight two primary areas in need of future work. First, it is critical to understand how status is inferred from patterns of group difference. What cues are available to even a very young child that allow him or her to infer that an entire social collective is of lower status than some other group? And what features of early experience, or of the groups themselves, can arrest the tendency to internalize potentially harmful or stigmatizing status disparities? A second area is somewhat more complex, and concerns the interplay between measures of implicit prejudice, the cognitive processes they tap into, and the prediction of behavior. The IAT appears to capture broad group evaluations. But perhaps one reason those evaluations are only weakly linked to behavior is that most behavioral contexts are much more complex than their laboratory analogs. The potential interaction partner in front of me may belong to a particular (e.g.) ethnic



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  215

group, but they also belong to a racial group and a national group; they have various preferences and mannerism of which I am aware, we may have a particular history of interaction, and so on. In the midst of all that, when does a particular social group membership (such as in a racial category) become impactful to a social ­perceiver (for discussion bearing on the complexity of these self‐ and other‐categorizations, see Linville, 1985; Roccas & Brewer, 2002)? The broader literature has underemphasized these processes, too hastily concluding that results from measures that make a given dimension of categorization salient will apply to contexts in which that dimension is not so salient. One recent theoretical account, Developmental Intergroup Theory (DIT: Bigler & Liben, 2007), provides a promising framework for thinking about these issues. DIT separates the processes by which a potential dimension of categorization becomes culturally salient from the process of categorizing an individual along that dimension. While it is a promising start, DIT is still relatively silent on what specific factors influence the in‐the‐moment decision to categorize (or not) along a given dimension (but for relevant considerations see Oakes, 1987). Numerous contextual and individual features will likely be involved here, including a number of the same features that establish a category’s more general psychological salience. Thus, while much excellent work has focused on category acquisition and prejudice acquisition, if we want to understand how prejudice influences behavior we will need to devote as much effort to understanding how and when those categories, and thereby that prejudice, is actually engaged in the midst of complex social interactions, and we will need to actually take the challenging step of measuring real‐world behavior.

References Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of in‐group favoritism and out‐group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 48–60. doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.39.1.48 Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross‐race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 165–173. Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Racial color blindness emergence, practice, and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 205–209. Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Learning (not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1513–1518. doi:10.1037/a0012835 Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the implicit association test?” Psychological Inquiry, 15(4), 257–278.

216  Yarrow Dunham Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes e­ vidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(1), 53–58. Barrett, M. (2007). Children’s knowledge, beliefs and feelings about nations and national groups. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68(3), 530–543. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental Intergroup Theory explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 162–166. Bigler, R. S., Spears Brown, C., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 72(4), 1151–1162. Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Klick, J., Mellers, B., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2009). Strong claims and weak evidence: reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 567. Brand, E. S., Ruiz, R. A., & Padilla, A. M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 81(11), 860. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In‐group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive‐ motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 118–128. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conrey, F. R., Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., Hugenberg, K., & Groom, C. J. (2005). Separating multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The quad model of implicit task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 469. Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2010). Automatic prejudice in childhood and early a­ dolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 356. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62. Dunham, Y. (2011). An angry = Outgroup effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 668–671. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.003 Dunham, Y. (2015). Rethinking the development of race bias: The role of category salience. Unpublished manuscript. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross‐cultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77(5), 1268–1281. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Children and social groups: A developmental analysis of implicit consistency in Hispanic Americans. Self and Identity, 6(2–3), 238–255. doi:10.1080/15298860601115344



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  217

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 248–253. doi: 10.1016/j. tics.2008.04.006 Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2015). The development of implicit gender attitudes. Developmental Science, 18, 469–483. doi: 10.1111/desc.12321 Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development, 82(3), 793–811. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011. 01577.x Dunham, Y., Chen, E. E., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Two signatures of implicit intergroup attitudes: Developmental invariance and early enculturation. Psychological Science, 24(6), 860–868. doi:10.1177/0956797612463081 Dunham, Y., & Degner, J. (2013). From categories to exemplars (and back again). In M. R. Banaji & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species can teach us (pp. 275–280). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dunham, Y., & Emory, J. (2014). Of affect and ambiguity: The emergence of preference for arbitrary ingroups. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 81–98. Dunham, Y., Newheiser, A. K., Hoosain, L., Merrill, A., & Olson, K. R. (2014). From a different vantage: Intergroup attitudes among children from low‐and intermediate‐status racial groups. Social Cognition, 32(1), 1–21. Dunham, Y., & Olson, K. R. (2008). The importance of origins: Why cognitive development is central to a mature understanding of social cognition. The Open Psychology Journal, 1, 59–65. Dunham, Y., Srinivasan, M., Dotsch, R., & Barner, D. (2014). Religion insulates ingroup evaluations: the development of intergroup attitudes in India. Developmental Science, 17(2), 311–319. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 297–327. Finkelstein, N. W., & Haskins, R (1983). Kindergarten children prefer same‐color peers. Child Development, 54, 502–508. Fishbein, H. D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination: Evolutionary, cultural, and developmental dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications. Guilford Press. Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 509–517. Girouard, N., Stack, D. M., & O’Neill‐Gilbert, M. (2011). Ethnic differences during social interactions of preschoolers in same‐ethnic and cross‐ethnic dyads. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 185–202. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self‐esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464.

218  Yarrow Dunham Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Heiphetz, L., Spelke, E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes in children and adults: Tests in the domain of religion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 864–879. Hermans, D., de Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (1994). The affective priming effect: Automatic activation of evaluative information in memory. Cognition & Emotion, 8(6), 515–533. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. Hirschfeld, L. A. (1998). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Horwitz, S. R., Shutts, K., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Social class differences produce social group preferences. Developmental Science, 17(6), 991–1002. Hraba, J., & Grant, G. (1970). Black is beautiful: A reexamination of racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 398. Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic‐racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16–32. Katz, P. A. (1983). Developmental foundations of gender and racial attitudes. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The child’s construction of social inequality (pp. 41–78). New York: Academic Press. Killen, M. (2007). Children’s social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 32–36. Linville, P. W. (1985). Self‐complexity and affective extremity: Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3(1), 94–120. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, racism, and discrimination (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press. Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America, 1. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716. Nesdale, D., & Flesser, D. (2001). Social identity and the development of children’s group attitudes. Child Development, 72(2), 506–517. Nesdale, D., Griffiths, J. A., Durkin, K., & Maass, A. (2007). Effects of group membership, intergroup competition and out‐group ethnicity on children’s ratings of in‐group and out‐ group similarity and positivity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 359–373. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Griffiths, J., & Durkin, K. (2003). Effects of in‐group and out‐ group ethnicity on children’s attitudes towards members of the in‐group and out‐ group. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 177–192.



Implicit Intergroup Bias and Predicting Discrimination  219

Newheiser, A.‐K., Dunham, Y., Merrill, A., Hoosain, L., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Preference for high status predicts implicit outgroup bias among children from low‐status groups. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1081–1090. doi:10.1037/a0035054 Newheiser, A.‐K., & Olson, K. R. (2012). White and Black American children’s implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 264–270. Nosek, B. A. (2007). Implicit–explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 65–69. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 101–115. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., … Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner (Ed.), Rediscovering the social group: A self‐categorization theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Blackwell. Olson, K. R., & Dunham, Y. (2010). The development of implicit social cognition. In B. Gawronski, & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 241–254). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15‐month‐old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258. Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development, 77(4), 847–860. Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group ­adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(1–2), 34–49. Porter, J. (1971). Black child, white child: The development of racial attitudes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quintana, S. M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 7, 27–45. Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national ­prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta‐analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82, 1715–1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01668.x Ramsey, P. G., & Myers, L. C. (1990). Salience of race in young children’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to social environments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11(1), 49–67. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1043–1056.

220  Yarrow Dunham Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 139–165. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76(2), 451–466. Shrum, W., Cheek, N. H., Jr., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61(4), 227–239. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual‐process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131. Stevenson, H. W., & Stevenson, N. G. (1960). Social inter‐action in an interracial nursery school. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 61, 37–75. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102. Xu, F., & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8‐month‐old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(13), 5012–5015. Yee, M., & Brown, R. (1994). The development of gender differentiation in young children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 183–196.

11 The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele

One of the most important and complex responsibilities that young children have is to make sense of their social world. From a very young age it would seem that children do this, at least in part, by parsing those around them into groups through a process of social categorization. Children demonstrate the ability to group people based on race early in development, but when does this categorization influence attitudes, beliefs, and behavior? In this chapter we review what is known about the development of racial categorization in childhood, and consider when and for whom racial categorization leads to racial stereotyping and prejudice. Social and developmental psychologists have worked for decades to better understand the causes and consequences of stereotyping and prejudice in childhood (see Levy & Killen, 2008, for a review). A main focus of this vast literature has been on racial prejudice, which we define as negative evaluations of other people based on their race. Researchers have also examined racial stereotypes, defined as cognitive structures composed of consensual knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about members of specific racial groups (Pauker, Ambady, & Apfelbaum, 2010). In this chapter, we focus on two main questions that have emerged from this vast The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

222  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele literature: When and how do racial stereotypes and prejudice develop? And what factors affect, and specifically reduce, the acquisition and expression of racial bias in childhood? To answer these questions, we take as a starting point the Developmental Intergroup Theory (DIT) put forth by Bigler and Liben (2006, 2007), which focuses largely on the contextual nature of children’s intergroup biases, and the role of social categorization in shaping these biases. According to this theory, stereotyping and prejudice towards out‐groups can develop when (1) groups are psychologically salient and (2) children begin to categorize others by these salient group dimensions. They propose that the act of categorizing others along a salient dimension, such as race, can initiate a process that results in the development of stereotypes and prejudice. This sequence of events, where psychologically salient groups are used as a basis for social categorization and ensuing intergroup cognitions and attitudes, has received a good deal of empirical support, particularly from studies that make use of minimal group paradigms (see Bigler & Liben, 2007, for a review). Building on this theory, in this chapter we aim to first briefly explain what we know about when and how racial categorization and racial prejudice emerge, spanning from infancy into preadolescence. Second, we describe two key factors that have been found to impact the acquisition and/or expression of racial stereotyping and bias: essentialism and social norms. Finally, we conclude by outlining some of the limitations of our current understanding of racial categorization, stereotyping, and prejudice in childhood, and describe what we believe are important directions for future research.

Racial Categorization and the Emergence of Prejudice According to the DIT, in order for stereotypes and prejudice to develop, a social group (e.g., race, gender) must be psychologically salient and children must subsequently use this dimension as a basis for social categorization. Importantly, Bigler and Liben (2006, 2007) argue that humans have evolved such that there is a tremendous amount of flexibility in the dimensions that can become psychologically salient. Given this flexibility, one important question to consider is why children attend to race, as opposed to other dimensions such as eye color or height? According to the DIT, there are four main factors that help to explain why some person attributes are more likely than others to become psychologically salient and used as a basis for social categorization in childhood (Bigler & Liben, 2006, 2007). The first is the proportional size of the group. Social groups that are proportionately smaller



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  223

(e.g., racial minority groups) are more distinct, particularly in comparison to proportionally larger groups (e.g., majority groups). The second is the extent to which adults explicitly label and make use of social categories. Actively labeling groups can suggest to children that this dimension is worthy of attention. This information can also be conveyed implicitly when social grouping exists (e.g., in cases of segregation). The implicit use of social categories is, therefore, a third factor that can increase the psychological salience of specific attributes. In the absence of explanation, children may come up with their own explanation to justify the observed social divisions, such as inferring that the shared attributes (e.g., race) must reflect important and inherent differences. A fourth and final factor that contributes to the psychological salience of person attributes outlined by the DIT is perceptual discriminability. Attributes that are perceptually salient, or easy to differentiate based on visual cues (e.g., gender, race), are more likely to be used by children as the basis of social categorization than attributes that are less salient (e.g., religion, political affiliation). Importantly, Bigler and Liben (2007) argue that perceptual salience alone is insufficient to trigger psychological salience. For example, other attributes, such as shirt color, are perceptually salient to children (i.e., they can easily pick out those wearing blue or red), but they are not normally the basis for categorization and ensuing stereotyping and prejudice, unless combined with other factors that support their psychological salience (e.g., explicitly labeling them as the Blue or Red group). Perceptual salience is a particularly noteworthy factor when discussing the acquisition of racial stereotypes and prejudice. Race is perceptually salient to children early in development (see below), but this should not be confused with psychological salience. A child may innocently comment, “Mommy, that man’s skin is brown,” but making note of this difference may not mean the same thing for the child and the adult. The child may simply be commenting on a perceptual difference, while the adult may attach the psychological weight of the category and its associated content (e.g., “my child is starting to stereotype!”). Thus, the adult lay public (and researchers) should be careful not to that attribute psychological salience to situations (and data) that only speak to perceptual salience of an attribute. Consistent with this idea is the possibility that race is perceptually (although likely not psychologically) salient in infancy. By 3 months of age African, Chinese, and White infants are able to distinguish between own‐race and other‐race faces and demonstrate a preference for the familiar in‐group by looking longer at own‐ race faces (e.g., Bar‐Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006; Kelly, Liu et  al., 2007). Over the next 6 months, this visual preference for own‐race faces becomes solidified into robust recognition biases that favor the racial in‐group (e.g., Kelly, Quinn et al., 2007). However, there is some reason to suspect that preferential looking at own‐race faces in infancy is due to infants’ greater expertise in processing familiar

224  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele (i.e., own‐race) faces, as opposed to an emerging attitudinal preference. Infants who have increased exposure to and familiarization with other‐race faces do not demonstrate preferential looking at own‐race faces (Bar‐Haim et al., 2006; Gaither, Pauker, & Johnson, 2012). Further, older infants do not appear to use race to guide their behavior. When offered a toy by a Black or White actor, White 10‐month‐old infants were equally likely to select toys offered by an own‐ or other‐race actor (Kinzler & Spelke, 2011). Taken together these studies suggest that, at least among infants with limited cross‐race exposure, race may be perceptually salient and used to some extent as a basis for social categorization. However, it seems likely that the psychological salience of race, and the ensuing use of race as a consistent basis for social categorization, is still quite fluid and context‐dependent in infancy (see also Pauker, Williams, & Steele, 2016), and that racial stereotypes and/or prejudiced attitudes have not yet been acquired. By 3 to 4 years of age, children begin to show some consistency in their ability to categorize themselves and others based on race (Aboud, 1988, 2003), and preschoolers, particularly those in high‐status majority groups, begin to express greater positivity towards own‐race as opposed to other‐race others (e.g., Aboud, 2003; Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001). Importantly, preschoolers do not appear to exhibit out‐group negativity. Although out‐group negativity appears on measures that contrast two racial groups (the in‐group and an out‐group), it does not always occur at this age when researchers use measures that decouple in‐group positivity from out‐group negativity (Cameron et  al., 2001). Despite exhibiting some forms of racial bias on measures that clearly make race psychologically salient (e.g., through explicit labeling or implicit use of race), there is evidence that race is not consistently used by preschoolers to guide their behavior. For example, Kinzler and Spelke (2011) found that 2‐ to 3‐year‐olds did not differ in their allocation of toys to own‐ or other‐race actors. Similarly, Shutts, Roben, and Spelke (2013) found that 3‐ to 4‐year‐olds did not select own‐ over other‐race children as friends. This is not to suggest that at this age children are unable to categorize others into social groups and demonstrate ensuing biases. Shutts and her colleagues have found that preschoolers demonstrate strong gender biases in friendship selections (Shutts et  al., 2013) and that they choose activities endorsed by someone of the same gender and same age, rather than the same race (Shutts, Banaji, & Spelke, 2010). These findings suggest that, for preschoolers, social categories other than race, such as gender and age, are more psychologically salient or at least more likely to guide their behaviors. In early childhood (5–7 years) racial categories begin to more consistently affect children’s attitudes. At this age majority children, such as White Americans, reliably express strong explicit racial biases that favor the in‐group relative to lower status



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  225

and/or visible minority out‐groups (see Raabe & Beelmann, 2011, for a review). There is also robust evidence of implicit (automatically activated) racial biases among White children starting as young as 6 years (see Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2008, for a review). Both implicit and explicit attitudes at this age seem to reflect positive associations with racial in‐groups and high‐status groups as opposed to negativity towards racial out‐groups (Aboud, 2003; Dunham et al., 2008; Nesdale, 2004; Williams, Steele, & Durante, 2012). Overall, in early childhood the expression of intergroup biases have been found under conditions where race is made psychologically salient in the task— either through explicit labeling (Aboud, 2003) or implicit cues (Williams, Steele, & Durante, 2012). Although there is evidence from sorting tasks that race becomes increasingly psychologically salient around 6 to 7 years (Pauker et al., 2010), other social categories, such as gender or accent, may still be prioritized in early childhood (Kinzler, Shutts, & Correll, 2010; Lipman, Steele, & Williams, 2013). By middle childhood (8–10 years), children exhibit a marked decrease in their racial biases and are less likely to report intergroup bias on explicit m ­ easures (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). This decrease appears to be a function of (1) social‐cognitive development that decreases the psychological salience of racial categories and/or (2) self‐presentation concerns stemming from an increased awareness of egalitarian social norms. In addition to a marked decrease in the expression of explicit racial bias, preliminary evidence also suggests a lack of implicit racial bias in middle childhood when the task does not require target faces to be categorized by race (Degner & Wentura, 2010; Williams, Steele, & Durante, 2012). This work suggests that children at this age may be less likely to spontaneously activate racial biases when viewing racial exemplars. However, in line with the DIT, when using a comparative categorical measure of implicit bias, where target faces are categorized by race throughout the task (hence, making race psychologically salient), children at this age show implicit racial biases favoring in‐groups and high‐status groups (see Dunham et al., 2008, for a review). Somewhat paradoxically in light of evidence that prejudice is less pronounced in middle childhood relative to early childhood, around this age children begin to demonstrate increasingly biased behavior toward cross‐race peers. For example, as children transition from middle childhood to preadolescence (11–12 years), cross‐ race friendships become less stable (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Jugert, Noack, & Rutland, 2013) and children begin to self‐segregate on the basis of race, a trend that continues into adolescence (Shrum, Cheek, & Hunter, 1988). It is possible that the process of identity formation in preadolescence may again heighten the psychological salience of race (Nesdale, 2004) and increase the regularity with which children use race to guide their behavior. Race is theorized to

226  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele take on more meaning throughout preadolescence, as individuals start to formulate their group identity (e.g., Nesdale, 2004). Indeed, recent evidence from Europe supports the possibility that race becomes increasingly psychologically salient in the pre‐adolescent years. For example, in a who‐said‐what paradigm, 11‐ and 12‐year‐olds used race to process information to a greater extent than did 9‐ and 10‐year‐olds, suggesting that the spontaneous use of racial categories differs in middle childhood versus preadolescence (Degner & Wentura, 2010). Moreover, the spontaneous use of race in person perception as measured by the who‐said‐what task was related to increased implicit bias on a task that assesses attitudes toward racial exemplars in the absence of categorization (Degner & Wentura, 2010), suggesting that, as attention to race increases, so does the spontaneous activation of race‐based evaluations. This increase in psychological salience in turn guides the automatic activation of race‐related information (e.g., prejudice and ­stereotypes) when preadolescents are presented with individual racial out‐group members. To summarize, children’s early emerging ability to visually discriminate on the basis of race can ultimately contribute to the psychological salience of race. However, it is not typically until early childhood that intergroup biases are expressed (Raabe & Beelmann, 2010) and, even then, biases are measured with tasks that typically make race psychological salient. The expression of explicit racial attitudes wanes in middle childhood, somewhat paradoxically given the increasing tendency for race to influence behavior at this age (e.g., the tendency to self‐segregate; Jugert et al., 2013), but then seems to re‐emerge, at least for some, in adolescence and into adulthood. One question to emerge from this review is: What factors impact whether racial stereotypes and prejudice are acquired and expressed?

Factors Impacting the Acquisition and Expression of Bias: Essentialism and Social Norms While a variety of factors that influence the development of stereotyping and prejudice in childhood have been examined by researchers across the years, in this section we review two factors that have received increasing empirical support in recent years: social essentialism and social norms. Social essentialism provides insight into how and when racial categories take on a deeper meaning that might affect the acquisition of racial stereotypes and prejudice, whereas social norms constrain when and whether those category‐based racial judgments and evaluations are acquired and applied.



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  227

Social essentialism According to the DIT, children categorize others along psychologically salient dimensions, and this process of categorization can initiate the formation of stereotypes and prejudice. This theory outlined four main factors that can influence the development of stereotypes and prejudice towards psychologically salient social groups: in‐group bias, explicit attributions in the environment, implicit group/attribute covariation, and essentialism (Bigler & Liben, 2006, 2007). Although the first three factors outlined in the DIT are not any less important, in this chapter we review the literature examining social essentialism. Essentialist thinking—the tendency to think of categories as immutable and inductively powerful—is grounded in the belief that certain categories have important underlying essences that define their nature and properties (Gelman, 2003). People frequently construe race in terms of one or more components that support essentialist thinking, such as viewing race as biologically based, a natural kind that is reflective of an objective category marked by discrete features, immutable, or ascribing inherent meaning to an entire category on the basis of physical characteristics associated with racial groups (i.e., inductive potential; Rothbart & Taylor, 1992). Research ­suggests that people who essentialize race have a very different cognitive representation of race compared to those who do not: they construe racial groups as fundamentally different and believe that surface‐level attributes (e.g., skin color) correspond to deeper underlying differences. Because essentialist thinking among adults leads to exaggerating perceived differences between groups (Rothbart & Taylor, 1992; Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001) and attributing explanations for behavior to stable internal causes rather than external situational causes (Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998), essentialism is proposed to be one cognitive mechanism that underlies stereotyping and prejudice. Developmental work on psychological essentialism has demonstrated that children exhibit essentialist thinking about animal species (Gelman, 2003) as well as social categories such as race and gender (Hirschfeld, 1995; Rhodes & Gelman, 2009) as early as 4 years of age. Such essentialist thinking can help children learn how to distinguish between and identify the properties associated with different natural kinds (e.g., “this is a lion”; “that is a tiger”). However, this essentialist thinking can become problematic when applied to social categories. Research with adults (see Prentice & Miller, 2007, for a review) has demonstrated the myriad of ways in which essentialist thinking more broadly, and about race specifically, can lead to racial prejudice (e.g., Keller, 2005; Leyens et al., 2003) and stereotyping (e.g., Levy et  al., 1998; Yzerbyt et  al., 2001). For example, Levy and colleagues (1998) measured the extent to which individuals thought that human traits were fixed versus malleable. Participants who essentialized human traits (i.e., thought of

228  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele them as fixed and immutable) endorsed racial stereotypes to a greater degree, compared to those who did not essentialize human traits, despite the fact that both groups were equally aware of the stereotypes. In a subsequent study, Levy and colleagues manipulated the extent to which individuals essentialized human traits and found that essentialist thinking causally influenced stereotype endorsement. With regard to essentialist thinking about race specifically, M. J. Williams and Eberhardt (2008) manipulated the extent to which adults viewed race as biologically based (one component of essentialism) or as a social construct. Those exposed to a biological, essentialized view of race were less concerned and upset by racial inequities, and also less willing to interact with a racial out‐group compared to an in‐group member. Given the role that essentialist thinking plays in adult intergroup processes, uncovering when children start to essentialize race—a key factor proposed to guide stereotyping and prejudice acquisition (Bigler & Liben, 2006, 2007)—can provide insight into when racial categorization moves beyond simply a method for organizing the social world to the acquisition of beliefs that readily support stereotyping and prejudice. In pioneering research on the development of social essentialism, Hirschfeld (1995) argued that children have a biologically grounded, adult‐like theory of race as early as preschool. However, recent research presents a more complicated picture. The emergence of race essentialism varies with the task (e.g., Giménez & Harris, 2002; Kinzler & Dautel, 2012), the component of essentialism assessed (e.g., immutability), and the cultural context (Diesendruck, Goldfein‐Elbaz, Rhodes, Gelman, & Neumark, 2013; Rhodes & Gelman, 2009). This raises the question of how to best determine when the majority of children essentialize race. On tasks that measure the immutability component of race essentialism, the empirical evidence suggests that the majority of children exhibit essentialist thinking around 5 or 6 years of age (Giménez & Harris, 2002; Pauker et  al., 2010). However, even this conclusion is qualified. When White American 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds were asked to identify which of two adults a child would grow up to be, they more often chose an adult who spoke the same language (but differed in race) rather than an adult who was the same race (but spoke a different language). On the other hand, 5‐ to 6‐year‐old Black American children picked race stability over language stability (Kinzler & Dautel, 2012). This suggests that judgments about the stability or immutability of race, even among children 5 to 6 years of age, are somewhat fragile and can depend on what other attributes are psychologically salient, or on differences in how individuals construe their own group membership (i.e., race is a more central and important identity for Black than White American children). When examining the inductive potential component of essentialism, or the extent to which children use social categories to draw broad inferences about similarities



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  229

in attributes or behaviors to other category members (e.g., “likes the same novel activities”), children are seen to readily do so at 5 years of age based on social categories akin to race, such as ethnicity (Birnbaum, Deeb, Segall, Ben‐Eliyahu, & Diesendruck, 2010; Diesendruck & HaLevi, 2006). Specifically, for 5‐year‐olds ethnicity had greater inductive potential than gender, social status, or other physical appearance traits (e.g., tall vs. short). However, this effect largely depends on the use of category labels. In these studies, when visual markers of the category (i.e., perceptual salience) were removed, but the ethnic categories were still verbally labeled (i.e., explicit use), children continued to draw inferences about category members of the same ethnicity (Diesendruck & HaLevi, 2006). By contrast, when visual markers of ethnicity remained, but the ethnic categories were not labeled, children no longer drew inferences based on ethnicity (Birnbaum et  al., 2010). Thus, consistent with the DIT, explicit labels appear to play a clear role in marking which groupings are psychologically salient to children, and may play a greater role in perpetuating broad inferences about a category (i.e., stereotyping) than perceptual salience alone. As outlined by the DIT, one potential explanation for these findings is that factors including explicit labeling and perceptual salience directly impact a social category’s psychological salience, a precondition to essentialism, rather than having a direct impact on essentialism. Other components of essentialism, such as believing that racial groups are distinct natural kinds, seem to emerge much later and depend heavily on cultural influences. Research that examines the extent to which children view social categories as natural kinds (i.e., racial categories reflect natural divisions marked by discrete features) suggests that younger children (5‐ and 7‐year‐olds) do not construe race as a natural kind, but that older children (10‐ and 17‐year‐olds) in a more racially homogeneous community do (Rhodes & Gelman, 2009). Interestingly, this effect is mitigated in more diverse contexts; older children and teenagers raised in more racially diverse communities did not view race as a natural kind (Rhodes & Gelman, 2009). Finally, the extent to which children prioritize specific social categories as a natural kind varies across cultural contexts and with age. In a cross‐ cultural study comparing children in the United States and Israel, Diesendruck and colleagues (2013) found that American children viewed race (i.e., White and Black) and ethnicity (i.e., Arab and Jewish) as more of a natural kind with age, whereas children in Israel viewed race as less of a natural kind with age but consistently viewed ethnicity as a natural kind starting as young as 5 years of age. Thus, in line with the DIT, the social categories that children tend to essentialize can depend on cultural input. One important implication of this work is that it highlights variability in children’s tendency to essentialize race based on different environmental contexts. Thus, there may be contexts (e.g., more racially diverse contexts) that can successfully mitigate or at least reduce essentialist thinking about race.

230  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele One important question to emerge from these findings is: Does variation in essentialist thinking relate to the acquisition of stereotyping and prejudice in children as predicted by the DIT? While there is substantial evidence for the connection between race essentialism, stereotyping, and prejudice in adults, surprisingly few researchers have examined the social consequences of essentialist thinking in children. Individuals who hold essentialist beliefs view a category as more meaningful, predictive, and indicative of fundamental differences. This view then provides an interpretive framework for all other behaviors and attributes associated with the category. Thus, children who essentialize race should be motivated to seek out and pay attention to attributes and behaviors associated with race (Bigler & Liben, 2006, 2007). Early work with Black children found a positive relationship between essentialist thinking (specifically among measures of immutability) and in‐group bias (Semaj, 1980). More recently, Levy and Dweck (1999) found in an ethnically diverse sample that children who believed in the immutability of human traits were more likely to stereotype novel groups. Similarly, Rutland, Cameron, Bennett and Ferrell (2005) found that White children who believed that race was immutable and stable exhibited more intergroup racial bias. In recent work, we have found that essentialist thinking plays a role in more basic aspects of children’s social cognition, such as how children perceive racial group boundaries (Gaither et al., 2014). Replicating the pattern of findings from White adults (Pauker et al., 2009), we found that White children who used essentialist thinking (i.e., the belief that race is immutable) remembered White faces significantly better than they remembered racially ambiguous and Black faces. However, children who did not use essentialist thinking remembered both White and racially ambiguous faces significantly better than they remembered Black faces. Thus, race essentialism appeared to support perceptions of other groups as fundamentally distinct from the in‐group. It is important to note that essentialist thinking about race is distinct from both the psychological salience of race and racial categorization. Two individuals could find race equally psychologically salient but differ in the extent to which they essentialize race. Even though these individuals may categorize others based on race to an equal extent, their cognitive representation of race may differ: one may think about race as fixed, natural, and thus highly predictive, while the other may think about race as malleable, context‐dependent, and thus not as predictive. As a result, individuals with these differing representations of race will view racial groups and information associated with those racial groups very differently. In our own work, we have found that psychological salience of race and essentialist thinking (i.e., the belief that race is immutable) independently predict children’s out‐group stereotyping when controlling for gender, race, age, and classification skills (Pauker et al., 2010). We also have initial evidence that, even in



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  231

contexts where race may be highly psychologically salient due to differences in proportional group size and explicit labeling of race, the extent of stereotyping still depends on essentialist beliefs. In research with an ethnically diverse sample in Hawaii, older children in this racially integrated context simultaneously exhibited high psychological race salience but lower race essentialism as compared to children from a less diverse context. Whereas the psychological salience of race is typically linked to increased stereotyping, here we found that essentialism was the key ingredient—older children in Hawaii exhibited less race essentialism, and the less children essentialized race, the less they stereotyped racial out‐group members (Pauker, Xu, Williams, & Biddle, in press). This research provides further evidence that children’s immediate context may direct the extent to which race is essentialized, and that conditions shown to decrease intergroup bias (e.g., racially diverse and integrated environments) may potentially operate through the reduction of race essentialism (in addition to other more commonly explored mechanisms, such as reductions in anxiety). This work also highlights the importance of distinguishing psychological salience from essentializing race. Even if race is psychologically salient, in environments that foster racial integration and intergroup contact, race may be essentialized less and thus subsequent negative intergroup outcomes may be reduced (see Deeb, Segall, Birnbaum, Ben‐Eliyahu, & Diesendruck, 2011).

Social norms Another factor that can affect racial stereotyping and prejudice in childhood is social norms. Social norms are sets of expectations or rules about beliefs, attitudes, and behavior that a group views as acceptable. Social norms may affect both the acquisition and expression of racial stereotyping and prejudice. For example, in an environment where prejudice toward a certain social out‐group is acceptable (e.g., in situations with high intergroup conflict), a number of factors outlined by DIT will likely be met (e.g., psychological salience and an environment filled with explicit attributions, such as “group X is bad”) and children are likely to acquire and express prejudice toward that group (see also Nesdale, 2004). However, in many situations, social norms actively denounce the expression of stereotypes or prejudice. Children may still hold biases due to a confluence of factors that support bias acquisition (e.g., psychological salience, essentialism, in‐group bias, implicit group/attribute covariation), despite the lack of explicit attributions available in the environment, but they may be unwilling to express these biases. In these cases, children’s expression of stereotypes or prejudice may depend on (1) their awareness of the social norm, (2) their acquisition of cognitive skills that allow them to control their behavior (Fitzroy & Rutland, 2010), and (3) their

232  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele external (self‐presentational) and/or internal (genuine acceptance of norms, moral development) motivations (Rutland, Cameron, Milne & McGeorge, 2005; Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010). At the level of societal norms, many countries, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, espouse strong anti‐prejudice, egalitarian norms and older children seem to pick up on these norms and regulate their intergroup attitudes and behavior accordingly. For example, research has shown that White children regulate their expressed attitudes in line with social norms discouraging prejudice (Rutland, Cameron, Milne et al., 2005), typically by 10 years of age (see also Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). While this research has provided striking consistency in findings regarding intergroup evaluations, we wondered whether societal social norms would also direct behavior in a race‐relevant situation. Although there are many different social norms that potentially lead children to regulate their race‐related behavior, such as egalitarianism, moral norms proscribing exclusion, or norms that support group functioning, in this chapter we focus on the literature examining how colorblind social norms influence children’s intergroup behavior and judgments. Prevailing societal norms of colorblindness discourage using race as a factor in decision making or even acknowledging it is perceived at all (Apfelbaum, Pauker, Sommers, & Ambady, 2010). Thus, my colleagues and I (Pauker) examined when White children begin to respond to pervasive social norms to avoid talk of race and autonomously self‐regulate their behavior (Apfelbaum, Pauker, Ambady, Sommers, & Norton, 2008). We investigated how primarily White children performed on a photo‐ identification task (similar to the game Guess Who) where optimal performance did or did not require acknowledgment of racial difference. Eighty‐six percent of the sample was White and the main goal was to ask yes/no questions to figure out which photo the experimenter had selected from a set of 40 photos. Although older children (10‐ and 11‐year‐olds) outperformed younger children (8‐ and 9‐year‐olds) on a race‐neutral version of the task, older children’s tendency to avoid acknowledging race led them to compromise their performance when race was a relevant consideration. In fact, in race‐dependent trials the younger children actually outperformed their older counterparts, who seemingly got snagged in trying to avoid mentioning race at the expense of objective task success. Although children’s awareness of colorblind norms was not measured, older children’s behavior was clearly consistent with such norms. While the evidence points to children controlling their behavior in line with perceived social norms by late childhood, the majority of work on social norms (both colorblind and other social norms) has focused on White, majority‐group children. Thus it is unclear whether the influence of social norms operates similarly for minority children. In contrast to our results with White majority‐group children, Deeb et al. (2011) found that older minority (i.e., Arab) children in Israel mentioned



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  233

ethnicity more often in a similar photo‐identification task. The authors offered two possible explanations: differences between minority and majority children or differences in American and Israeli cultural norms, which may also be tied to differences in the categories studied (i.e., race vs. ethnicity). Corroborating the cultural norm explanation, we have recently found that, consistent with White American children, minority children aged 10 to 12 years in the United States also avoid mentioning race on a photo‐identification task. This avoidance was related to less positive nonverbal behavior and was predicted by their perceptions of colorblind social norms set by their parents and teachers and their concerns about appearing prejudiced (Pauker, Apfelbaum, & Spitzer, 2015). Thus broad societal‐level social norms appear surprisingly influential in propagating race‐related behavior in line with these norms (i.e., trying to appear egalitarian). This raises the question of whether following such social norms in the name of egalitarianism actually helps to support the goal of racial equality. In other words, could the effect of certain social norms perhaps be counterproductive to achieving racial equality and decreasing prejudice? Even though racial categorization serves as a precondition to the development of stereotypes and prejudice, as outlined in the DIT, the act of minimizing explicit use of race when it is readily used in implicit ways in the environment could perhaps contribute to increased subtle biases or a lack of recognition of bias where it does exist. Intuitively, colorblindness should reduce stereotyping and prejudice; reducing the explicit use of racial categories should mitigate the psychological salience of race. The problem is that race can still become psychologically salient to children because other key factors that lead to psychological salience, including perceptual salience, implicit use (e.g., segregation), and differences in proportional group sizes, are still present. Further, eliminating racial categorization may not be beneficial for racial minority group members if it strips acknowledgement of a valuable and positive social identity (Park & Judd, 2005). Building on this notion, we examined whether explicitly adopting a colorblind strategy, whereby intergroup differentiation and explicit labeling of race is purposely minimized, helped or hindered progress towards more positive intergroup relations. We found that children exposed to a colorblind mindset, as opposed to a ­valuing‐of‐diversity mindset, were actually less likely to detect and report instances of obvious discrimination and were similarly less likely to describe such events in a manner that would prompt intervention by teachers (Apfelbaum et  al., 2010). Thus, at least some of the strategies that we adopt in the name of egalitarianism may be counterproductive. In sum, while examining social norms helps to explain heterogeneity in prejudice expression in middle and late childhood, more research should aim to understand the types of strategies that children adopt to comply with such social norms and whether these strategies actually promote positive intergroup relations or

234  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele merely create an atmosphere that obscures prejudice and fosters counterproductive behavior. Moreover, research examining social norms within the context of the development of stereotyping and prejudice has primarily focused on White children. It will be important for future research to examine these processes in a broader sample of children.

Conclusions and Future Directions We would like to conclude by describing some of the limitations to our current understanding of the implications that racial categorization has for stereotyping and prejudice in childhood, and by suggesting important new avenues for future research. First, we believe that it will be important in future research to give full consideration not only to how the psychological salience of categories, such as race, impact the formation of prejudice (Bigler & Liben, 2007), but also how race salience can affect the expression of prejudice. In many studies designed to assess racial biases, researchers rely heavily on measures that are likely to make race psychologically salient (see Cameron et al., 2001, for a review). As one example, in the study of implicit racial attitudes the primary measure that has been used to assess bias, the ch‐IAT, requires that children categorize targets by race. As a point of caution, even measures of explicit or implicit racial attitudes that do not require racial categorization might draw children’s attention to race if the representation of members of specific racial groups within the task is not comparable to what is found in children’s typical social environment. Such measures might therefore allow us to gain a solid understanding of children’s racial biases under conditions where race has been made psychologically salient, but might fail to capture the extent to which children spontaneously categorize by race in their everyday interactions. We are not suggesting that such measures should not be used, but rather want to highlight that researchers should be conscious of how their method could artificially heighten the psychological salience of race. Overreliance on such measures might lead to an overestimation of children’s racial prejudice, particularly given the tendency for findings of racial bias (as opposed to a lack of bias) to be more readily published. Therefore, we encourage the use of multiple measurement methods that can ideally provide convergent evidence for the acquisition and/or expression of racial stereotypes and prejudice. For this, and other theoretical and practical reasons, we believe that it will be important for future research to go beyond the study of racial attitudes and focus to a much greater extent on behavior. Across the research that we have reviewed, findings based on attitudes often indicated bias, whereas findings based on behavior showed greater contextual variability and sometimes directly conflicted



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  235

with the attitude findings. Thus, understanding the factors that influence children’s intergroup behavior, including the increasing tendency to self‐segregate by race from late childhood into adolescence, will be critical for improving intergroup relations. Ideally, these research endeavors would strive to measure actual behavior rather than relying on hypothetical scenarios asking children to predict what they would do. Prejudiced behavior can emerge in subtle forms; for example, we have found that adults’ beliefs about whether prejudice can change predict subtle prejudiced behavior (e.g., anxious nonverbal behavior in or avoidance of interracial interactions), above and beyond racial attitudes (Carr, Dweck, & Pauker, 2012). Examining children’s intergroup behavior and how we may unintentionally create contexts that perpetuate biased behavior is ripe for future research. In recent work, for example, we have found initial evidence that just the way a teacher frames a lesson about the civil rights movement—simple changes in the way that she talks—can affect children’s beliefs about prejudice and how children approach future interracial interactions (Pauker, Apfelbaum, Dweck, & Eberhardt, 2015). We feel that it is important to build on research with adults and examine the subtle routes through which bias may spread. In line with Bigler and Liben’s (2006, 2007) DIT model, research suggests that adults (Weisbuch, Pauker, & Ambady, 2009) and preschoolers (Castelli, De Dea, & Nesdale, 2008) pick up on and are influenced by implicit group‐attribute variations in their environment, specifically patterns of nonverbal bias displayed by others. These patterns of nonverbal bias, which are also prevalent in children’s environments, are one avenue through which bias can be spread in ways that fly under the radar if not studied systematically. In conclusion, we continue to make great progress toward better understanding racial categorization in childhood and the consequences of this categorization for children’s racial attitudes and intergroup behavior. In this chapter we have highlighted some of the main findings from this l­ iterature, including recent research examining (1) essentialism, and (2) the impact that social norms can have on children’s explicit use of race. Through continued research, we will develop a richer and more nuanced understanding of social categorization that we believe can ultimately be used to reduce the pernicious consequences of childhood stereotyping and prejudice.

References Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39, 48–60. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.39.1.48

236  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele Aboud, F. E., Mendelson, M. J., & Purdy, K. T. (2003). Cross‐race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173. doi: 10.1080/01650250244000164 Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Sommers, S. R., & Ambady, N. (2010). In blind pursuit of racial equality? Psychological Science, 21, 1587–1592. doi: 10.1177/0956797610384741 Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Learning (not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1513–1518. doi: 10.1037/a0012835 Bar‐Haim, Y., Ziv T., Lamy D., & Hodes, R. M. (2006). Nature and nurture in own‐race face processing. Psychological Science, 17, 159–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐280.2006.01679.x Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 34, pp. 39–89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8721.2007.00496.x Birnbaum, D., Deeb, I., Segall, G., Ben‐Eliyahu, A., & Diesendruck, G. (2010). The development of social essentialism: The case of Israeli children’s inferences about Jews and Arabs. Child Development, 81, 757–777. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01432.x Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 118–128. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspbr0502_3 Carr, P. B., Dweck, C. S., & Pauker, K. (2012). “Prejudiced” behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 452–471. doi: 10.1037/a0028849 Castelli, L., De Dea, C., & Nesdale, D. (2008). Learning social attitudes: Children’s sensitivity to the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of adult models during interracial interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 223–237. doi: 10.1177/0146167208322769 Deeb, I., Segall, G., Birnbaum, D., Ben‐Eliyahu, A., & Diesendruck, G. (2011). Seeing isn’t believing: The effect of intergroup exposure on children’s essentialist beliefs about ethnic categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1139–1156. doi:10.1037/ a0026107 Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2010). Automatic prejudice in childhood and early a­ dolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 356–374. doi: 10.1037/a0017993 Diesendruck, G., Goldfein‐Elbaz, R., Rhodes, M., Gelman, S. A., & Neumark, N. (2013). Cross‐cultural differences in children’s beliefs about the objectivity of social categories. Child Development, 84, 1906–1917. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12108 Diesendruck, G., & HaLevi, H. (2006). The role of language, appearance, and culture in children’s social category based induction. Child Development, 77, 539–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00889.x Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 248–253. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006 Fitzroy, S., & Rutland, A. (2010). Learning to control ethnic intergroup bias in childhood. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 679–693. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.746



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  237

Gaither, S. E., Pauker, K., & Johnson, S. (2012). Biracial and monoracial infant own‐race face perception: An eye‐tracking study. Developmental Science, 15, 775–782. doi: 10.1037/a0033493 Gaither, S. E., Schultz, J. R., Pauker, K., Sommers, S. R., Maddox, K. B., & Ambady, N. (2014). Essentialist thinking predicts decrements in children’s memory for racially‐ ambiguous faces. Developmental Psychology, 50, 482–488. doi: 10.1037/a0033493. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press Giménez, M., & Harris, P. L. (2002). Understanding constraints on inheritance: Evidence for biological thinking in early childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 307–324. doi: 10.1348/026151002320620262 Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). Do children have a theory of race? Cognition, 54, 209–252. doi: 10.1016/0010‐0277(95)91425‐r Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2013). Children’s cross‐ethnic friendships: Why are they less stable than same‐ethnic friendships? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 649–662. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.734136 Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.88.4.686 Kelly, D. J., Liu, S., Ge, L., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., … Pascalis, O. (2007). Cross‐race preferences for same‐race faces extend beyond the African versus Caucasian contrast in 3‐month‐old infants. Infancy, 11, 87–95. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in1101_4 Kelly, D. J., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., Ge, L., & Pascalis, O. (2007). The other‐ race effect develops during infancy: Evidence of perceptual narrowing. Psychological Science, 18, 1084–1089. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2007.02029.x Kinzler, K. D., & Dautel, J. (2012). Children’s essentialist reasoning about language and race. Developmental Science, 15, 131–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2011.01101.x Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., & Correll, J. (2010). Priorities in social categories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 581–592. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.739 Kinzler, K. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2011). Do infants show social preferences for people differing in race? Cognition, 119, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.019 Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). The impact of children’s static versus dynamic conceptions of people on stereotype formation. Child Development, 70, 1163–1180. doi: 10.1111/1467‐8624.00085 Levy, S. R., & Killen, M. (2008). Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436. doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.74.6.1421 Leyens, J. P., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T., Gaunt, R. … Vaes, J. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism: The 2002 Tajfel lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 703–717. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.170 Lipman, C., Steele, J. R., & Williams, A. (2013, April). The effect of person construal on children’s implicit racial attitudes. Paper presented at the fourth Implicit Bias, Philosophy and

238  Kristin Pauker, Amanda Williams, and Jennifer R. Steele Psychology Conference in conjunction with the Leverhulme‐Funded Implicit Bias and Philosophy Project, Sheffield, UK. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In. M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–246). Hove: Psychology Press. doi: 10.4324/9780203391099_chapter_8 Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 108–130. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_2 Pauker, K., Ambady, N., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2010). Race salience and essentialist thinking in racial stereotype development. Child Development, 81, 1799–1813. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01511.x Pauker, K., Apfelbuam, E. P., Dweck, C., & Eberhardt, J. (2015). (2015, March). Believing prejudice can change: Upsides and downsides for intergroup interactions. In M. Renno (Chair), Improving intergroup interventions by understanding factors that impede and facilitate change. Symposium conducted at the Biennial Meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia, PA. Pauker, K., Apfelbaum, E. P., & Spitzer, B. (2015). The race talk dilemma for racial minority children. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 887–895. doi: 10.1177/1948550615598379 Pauker, K., Weisbuch, M., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., Adams, R. B., & Ivcevic, Z. (2009). Not so Black and White: Memory for ambiguous group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 795–810. doi: 10.1037/a0013265 Pauker, K., Williams, A., & Steele, J. (2016). Children’s racial categorization in context. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 33–38. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12155 Pauker, K., Xu, Y., Williams, A., & Biddle, A. M. (in press). Race essentialism and social contextual differences in children’s racial stereotyping. Child Development. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 202–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8721.2007.00504.x Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national ­prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta‐analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82, 1715–1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2011.01668.x Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Five‐year‐olds’ beliefs about the discreteness of category boundaries for animals and artifacts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 920–924. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.920 Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 11–36). London: Sage. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Bennett, L., & Ferrell, J. (2005). Interracial contact and racial constancy: A multi‐site study of racial intergroup bias in 3–5‐year‐old Anglo‐British children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 699–713. doi: 10.1016/j. appdev.2005.08.005 Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2005.00856.x



The Development of Racial Categorization in Childhood  239

Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social‐cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 279–291. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369468 Semaj, L. (1980). The development of racial evaluation and preference: A cognitive approach. Journal of Black Psychology, 6, 59–79. doi: 10.1177/009579848000600201 Shrum, W., Cheek, N. H., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61, 227–239. doi: 10.2307/2112441 Shutts, K., Banaji, M. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Social categories guide young children’s preferences for novel objects. Developmental Science, 13, 599–610. doi: 10.1111/ j.1467‐7687.2009.00913.x Shutts, K., Roben, C. K. P., & Spelke, E. S. (2013) Children’s use of social categories in thinking about people and social relationships. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 35–62. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2011.638686 Weisbuch, M., Pauker, K., & Ambady, N. (2009). The subtle transmission of race bias via televised nonverbal behavior. Science, 326, 1711–1714. doi: 10.1126/science.1178358 Williams, A., Steele, J. R., & Durante, S. (2012, January). Examining the role of ­categorization in children’s implicit racial bias. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, San Diego, CA. Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047. doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.94.6.1033 Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of naive theories and ­entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_5

PART IV Socialization and Intergroup Discrimination

12 Racial Socialization and Racial Discrimination as Intra‐ and Intergroup Processes Diane Hughes, Jessica Harding, Erika Y. Niwa, Juan Del Toro, and Niobe Way

During middle childhood and early adolescence, children gain an increased understanding of the social groups to which they belong and of the meanings and likely experiences attached to their group membership. Racial groups are among the most salient for those growing up in the United States, because our society is one in which race is omnipresent, as numerous scholars have noted. In Omi and Winant’s (1994) articulation of the concept of racial formation, the authors describe the ubiquity of race, as follows: Our ways of walking, talking, eating, and dreaming become racially coded. This ­happens in ways too comprehensive to monitor consciously. Everybody learns some combination, some version, of the rules of racial classification and of their own racial identity often without obvious teaching or conscious inculcation. Race becomes “common sense”—a way of comprehending, explaining, and acting in the world.

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

244  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way Thus, whereas children rarely receive messages about eye color or toe length, they receive messages about race from multiple sources and in m ­ ultiple ways throughout their development. Racial messages are transmitted through explicit verbal exchange with socializing agents, observations of behaviors and conversations, interpersonal experiences, and attention to social regularities and patterns of resource distribution across contexts (Seidman, 1988). The salience of race as a social category is rooted, of course, in both historical and contemporary forces. These forces shape what and how children learn about race. In the era of slavery and Jim Crow, the “problem of the color line” was primarily a Black–White problem. Widely acknowledged and legally sanctioned racial hierarchies, characterized by systematic subjugation of, and discrimination against, Blacks, guided the nature of cross‐racial interactions. Children learned this hierarchy through experience and observation, but socializing agents also taught it explicitly. In a fascinating analysis of historical records (letters, newspaper accounts, diaries), Ritterhouse (2006) described how White and Black parents instructed children in the proper protocols for cross‐race interactions through ongoing directives and through corrections when breaches of etiquette occurred. Today’s racial landscape is quite different than it has been in prior decades, both demographically and ideologically, adding layers of complexity to the process of racial learning. Demographically, the “race problem” is no longer constituted by a White majority and a Black minority: Latinos, Blacks, and Asians now comprise more than half of the population in the largest cities of the United States. By 2042, they will become the new American majority (Roberts, 2008). Ideologically, many believe that we live in a post‐racial society. The blueprint for how race is lived in the United States includes Latino, Asian, and Black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (e.g., McDonalds, Microsoft, American Express, and Pepsi), Barack Obama as President, and Supreme Court justices of color. These larger blueprints are reflected in children’s attitudes as well. In a 2009 segment on ABC, broadcast journalist Diane Sawyer asked 4–6‐year‐old White children to name someone who was rich. They named Oprah Winfrey. Someone who was beautiful? Michelle Obama (Ahuja, 2009). Still, despite indisputable progress, the ideal of a post‐racial colorblind society is contradicted by systematic racial inequalities in income, education, health, and mobility and by the persistence of racially tainted micro‐aggressions (Sue, 2010) that shape individuals’ daily experiences. In school contexts, where youth spend a majority of their time, Black and Latino adolescents are overrepresented in lower academic tracks, are less frequently identified as gifted, and experience more frequent disciplinary referrals compared to White and Asian students (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). The media is rife with racial stories—from the killing of unarmed Black teens Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, to the racial



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  245

epithets that Chinese American NBA player Jeremy Lin endured on the court— replete with messages about extant racial hierarchies in the United States. Thousands of racial discrimination complaints are filed on behalf of children every year—seven thousand in 2010 alone (Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 2000). In our view, contrasts between the dominant national narrative regarding the value of racial pluralism versus the realities of how race is lived in the United States complicate what and how children learn about race as a social category in contemporary contexts. In this chapter, we focus on two important mechanisms through which such learning occurs: (1) children’s experiences of discrimination across multiple settings and (2) messages that children receive from parents, termed racial socialization. Notably, these two mechanisms are dynamically interdependent and deeply intertwined. Youth’s discrimination experiences reflect both objective and potentially verifiable racial dynamics as well as their pre‐existing expectations about, or predispositions toward, intergroup relations, the latter being partly shaped by p ­ arents’ racial socialization. Parents’ racial socialization likewise emanates from, and is embedded in, systems of racial stratification and as well as in their anticipation of, or reaction to, youth’s experience with these systems, including their own children’s experiences of discrimination. Although the two mechanisms mutually define one another, the former is best characterized as an intergroup process, the latter an intragroup one. Our overarching goal in this chapter is to give a bird’s eye overview of the literature concerning discrimination and racial socialization, introducing scholars from multiple disciplines to the ways in which each is conceived and studied within developmental psychology. Because there has been limited cross‐ fertilization between these literatures, we first consider them separately.1 We outline definitional and conceptual issues, describe the state of empirical knowledge, and highlight what we have learned from our work. Next, we consider ways in which considering these literatures can illuminate the complex interplay between inter‐ and intragroup dynamics. Finally, we examine conceptual and methodological challenges in studying discrimination and racial socialization and consider directions for future research. In our empirical examples, we draw largely from our work over the past decade through the Early Adolescent Cohort (EAC) Studies of the Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education (CRCDE) at New York University. An important focus of the EAC Studies has been to understand how ethnically and racially diverse early adolescents experienced their ethnicity and race across settings, from their own and their primary caregivers’ perspectives. We utilized a longitudinal, highly saturated assessment of racial and ethnic phenomena, which included survey based measures of racial socialization, identity, discrimination experiences, and

246  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way beliefs about stereotypes from adolescents when they were in 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th grade. For a subsample (n = 240), we conducted in‐depth interviews with adolescents and their mothers in the spring of adolescents’ 6th, 8th, and 11th grade years. In moving iteratively between quantitative and qualitative data, and between adolescents’ and mothers’ reports, we have become acutely aware of the extent to which racial teaching and learning are tied to contemporary racial dynamics, including the operative stereotypes implicit in individuals’ racial understanding.

Discrimination In Soul of a Butterfly, Mohammed Ali reflected on sets of interactions that shaped the meaning he attached to being African American while growing up in the 1940s in Louisville, Kentucky (Ali & Ali, 2004, p. 10). In his words: Holding onto my innocence as I grew up was difficult. I began to recognize the injustice of segregation around me. There were restaurants with signs that read “Whites Only” and “No Coloreds Allowed.” Blacks could only drink from water fountains and use restrooms that were labeled “Colored.” My brother and I didn’t run into any real trouble with the white kids, but there were times when we were called “nigger” and asked to leave certain neighborhoods … It was strange going out into a world that looked at Blacks as second class citizens while being raised with pride and self‐awareness.

Fifty years later, ethnic and racial discrimination across multiple levels and settings are still pervasive experiences in the everyday lives of many adolescents (e.g., Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000; Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). In some cases, the discrimination that youth observe or experience is overt and explicit. In other cases, it is subtle. For instance, in the following excerpts from the c­oding summary of an 11‐year‐old Dominican girl’s transcript, race is not overtly named: the racial nature of the interactions is ambiguous and subtle. June speaks quite eloquently about her awareness of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination at the individual and societal level. She says that she appreciates attending school with other Dominicans in the predominantly Black and Latino honors program at MS 5020 but that “sometimes people at school think that Dominicans are not smart.” In particular, she feels that students in her class assume that she gets bad grades and will not know the answers or how to do things because she is Dominican. She also notes that some of the neighborhoods Dominicans live in



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  247 are dirty and unsafe, which she believes is “bad for the culture because when other people see it they think that every Dominican is like that.” She has witnessed “people yelling at a group of Dominicans for no reason” and “the police watching a group of Dominicans outside of the building because they think they are going to do something wrong.

In this section, we first consider the ways in which racial discrimination has been defined and studied within developmental science. We then briefly review what is known about the extent to which ethnic minority youth experience discrimination and its correlates Then, turning to our own work, we describe ethnic differences in the types of discrimination youth in our sample experienced (both source and type) and the ways in which these intersected with their awareness of stereotypes about different ethnic groups.

Defining and conceptualizing discrimination Across multiple disciplines, scholars have made efforts to define and capture the complexity of discrimination experiences. In 2004, the National Research Council (2004) issued a report entitled Measuring Racial Discrimination, summarizing the conclusions of the commissioned Committee on National Statistics regarding the definition and assessment of racial discrimination. The committee’s two‐part definition included (1) differential treatment on the basis of race that disadvantages a racial group and (2) treatment on the basis of inadequately justified factors other than race that disadvantage a racial group. They further distinguish four types of discrimination that can meet either definitional requirement: intentional explicit discrimination, subtle or unconscious discrimination, statistical discrimination or profiling, and discriminatory organizational processes. Others have distinguished between institutional (programs and policies that differentially impact and target particular groups) and interpersonal (experiences of discriminatory interactions) discrimination (Krieger, 1999). More recent research on daily micro‐aggressions— brief, everyday encounters that promote subtle discriminatory messages—has also distinguished between unintentional (e.g., micro‐insult) and deliberate (micro‐ assault) forms of discrimination (e.g., Sue, 2010). Within our discipline, developmental psychology, scholars who study discrimination typically utilize self‐report survey‐ or interview‐based measures, most often tapping youth’s perceived discrimination experiences in interpersonal contexts. The overarching goal has been to document the prevalence and frequency with which youth believe they experience racial/ethnic discrimination and, indeed, to highlight discrimination as integral to the developmental context of minority youth

248  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way (Garcia Coll, 1996). Although there are large literatures covering issues closely related to discrimination—such as those concerning race differentials in teacher support, expectations, or disciplinary practices—few studies, to our knowledge, have incorporated objective measures of adolescents’ discrimination experiences (e.g., as in employment or housing audit studies with adults). The use of self‐report survey data permits researchers to assess adolescents’ phenomenological experiences. The focus on interpersonal contexts reflects scholars’ recognition that it is largely in the context of social interaction that children and adolescents develop knowledge about themselves in relation to their social worlds. Although studies within developmental science most often assess discrimination as a unidimensional construct, researchers have increasingly distinguished different types and sources of discrimination. These distinctions have enabled a more nuanced perspective on the nature of these experiences and how they vary across social identities than unidimensional assessments can provide. Among the most informative distinctions thus far is that between discrimination from adults versus peers. For example, Fisher et al. (2000) found that African American and Latino adolescents reported experiencing more discrimination distress in stores and from the police, whereas Asian youth reported more frequent discrimination distress from peers. Other studies have reported similar results (Greene et al., 2006; Rivas‐ Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2008). Benner and Graham (2013) found that discrimination from adults versus peers differentially predicted academic and non‐ academic outcomes, a pattern we shall discuss in more detail later.

The Frequency and Correlates of Perceived Discrimination In light of growing public perception among some segments of the U.S. population that extant stereotypes about youth of color place them at risk for discrimination treatment, an important goal within developmental science has been to document the prevalence and frequency of young people’s discrimination experiences as well as the consequences for social, academic, and behavioral outcomes. Findings from studies of youths’ discrimination experiences are quite informative. Studies that seek to uncover the prevalence of exposure to discrimination in a specified time period report that the majority of ethnic minority adolescents experience discrimination. In a daily diary study, Seaton and Douglass (2014) found that 97% of African American and immigrant Black youth reported at least one experience of discrimination over a two‐week period. The two‐week average was 26 discriminatory events, or 2.5 events per day. Huyhn and Fuligni (2010) reported that just under two‐thirds of Latino, Asian American, and European American high‐school‐aged adolescents reported having



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  249

frequency of such experienced discrimination from adults or peers, but the ­ discrimination was low. In addition, only about 12% of this sample reported any discrimination within a 14‐day period. Still, such discrimination predicted a range of academic and psychosocial outcomes among youth, suggesting that even low levels of discrimination can be impactful. The later observation has been supported in a relatively large and growing literature indicating that discrimination experiences are associated with a host of negative outcomes among youth, albeit through varied mechanisms. For example, discrimination is theorized to impact psychological adjustment (e.g., self‐esteem, depression, anxiety) because it is deeply emotional (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and requires youth to manage negative stereotypes and messages so that they are not internalized (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In our work, adolescents described feeling sad, alone, hurt, confused, and angry in their narratives of discrimination (Niwa, 2012), and their more frequent exposure to racial discrimination from both adults and peers was associated with lower self‐esteem over time (Niwa, Way, & Hughes, 2014). Discrimination also disrupts the process of achieving positive, respectful, and caring relationships with others (Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). Thus, it has been associated empirically with a range of social adjustment indicators, including the quality of relationships with peers, adults, and the school community (Liang, Grossman, & Deguchi, 2007; Osterman, 2000). In our data, youth who perceived more peer and adult discrimination described feeling less connected to their best friends, teachers, and their school community in 8th grade, after accounting for their levels of relationship quality in 6th grade (Niwa et al., 2014). Finally, adolescents’ perceptions of discrimination have been associated with an array of academic outcomes, including less favorable academic motivation, engagement, and performance (e.g., Benner & Kim, 2009; Huynh & Fuligni, 2010). Practices such as tracking (Mickelson & Everett, 2008), differential discipline (Noguera, 2003), and marked differences in teachers’ expectations for youth (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007) can convey negative stereotypes to youth about the expected achievement of their group. Perceptions of discrimination may also lead to disidentification with school (Schmader, Major, & Gramzow, 2001) or pressure from peers to view academic achievement as “acting white” (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). Despite growth in the number and sophistication of studies concerning discrimination among adolescents, our view has been that a deep and nuanced understanding of the types of discrimination they experience is still missing from the literature. In particular, because most studies have focused on a single ethnic or racial group, scholars lack detail about how discrimination experiences differ for youth of different ethnic backgrounds and for boys versus girls. Moreover, as we have articulated elsewhere (Way, Hernandez, Rogers, & Hughes, 2013), scholars

250  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way have paid insufficient attention to understanding the extent to which different types of discrimination are deeply embedded in extant stereotypes regarding youth from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. In the paragraphs below, we describe the types of discrimination youth experience from adults and peers, and the ways in which these intersect with youths’ awareness of stereotypes about their own and other groups. To facilitate the discussion, Table 12.1 shows means and standard deviations for measures of discrimination from adults and peers taken in the spring of each academic year when youth were in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades.

Discrimination from school and nonschool adults We have included separate measures of discrimination from school and nonschool adults, recognizing that adolescents spend the majority of their waking hours in school contexts and that schools are common sites of youths’ perceived discrimination experiences (Cogburn, Chavous, & Griffin, 2011). Although scholars have discussed schools as a locus of differential treatment for ethnic minority youth, to our knowledge studies have not compared adolescents’ experiences with school adults with their experiences with other nonfamiliar adults outside school. In our qualitative data, experiences with unfamiliar (nonschool) adults loomed large in Black and Latino boys’ narratives about discrimination, because it is in these contexts that African American and Latino boys are especially likely to be treated according to extant stereotypes. In the words of an African American 6th‐grader “I notice that when people see me, especially if I’m with my friends, they give me looks or cross the streets. It’s like I’m going to rob them or something.” The first panel in Table 12.1 shows descriptive statistics regarding adolescents’ perceptions of discrimination from school and nonschool adults. Several patterns in the table are notable. First, examining the means for school versus nonschool adults, it is evident that all youth, regardless of gender or ethnicity, report less frequent discrimination from school adults as compared to nonschool adults. This is true at all grade levels. Indeed, the mean values for the measure of discrimination from school adults were especially low. Moreover, perceived discrimination from nonschool adults increased most dramatically over time, especially among certain subgroups. Related to this, there were notable ethnic group and gender differences in levels and patterns of change in discrimination from school and nonschool adults. Each year, African American boys reported more discrimination from school adults and nonschool adults compared to any other gender/ethnic group. Although

0.37 (0.12) 0.41 (0.09)

0.46 (0.07) 0.24 (0.08)

0.31 (0.06) 0.20 (0.06)

0.24 (0.06) 0.10 (0.05)

0.32 (0.10) 0.43 (0.09)

0.23 (0.07) 0.27 (0.08)

0.42 (0.07) 0.23 (0.07)

0.17 (0.06) 0.06 (0.05)

White

Chinese

Dominican

Puerto Rican

0.61 (0.07) 0.33 (0.06)

0.53 (0.08) 0.33 (0.06)

African American

Girl

Boy

Girl

Boy

Girl

Boy

Girl

Boy

Girl

Boy

Gender 7th grade 8th grade

Race/Ethnicity

Adults in school

0.19 (0.05) 0.15 (0.13)

0.55 (0.07) 0.40 (0.07)

0.37 (0.08) 0.19 (0.07)

0.23 (0.09) 0.33 (0.09)

0.61 (0.07) 0.52 (0.06)

0.33 (0.06) 0.17 (0.06)

0.54 (0.09) 0.38 (0.09)

0.41 (0.09) 0.25 (0.09)

0.48 (0.12) 0.75 (0.11)

0.83 (0.09) 0.62 (0.07)

0.37 (0.06) 0.18 (0.06)

0.48 (0.07) 0.48 (0.08)

0.57 (0.08) 0.38 (0.09)

0.61 (0.12) 0.55 (0.10)

0.83 (0.08) 0.58 (0.07)

6th grade 7th grade 8th grade

Adults outside of school

Peer covert

0.13 (0.05) 0.06 (0.04)

0.59 (0.06) 0.31 (0.06)

0.22 (0.06) 0.17 (0.06)

0.31 (0.08) 0.16 (0.08)

0.37 (0.05) 0.34 (0.05)

0.20 (0.06) 0.13 (0.06)

0.52 (0.08) 0.21 (0.08)

0.37 (0.08) 0.26 (0.08)

0.47 (0.11) 0.49 (0.10)

0.92 (0.08) 0.41 (0.07)

0.28 (0.06) 0.13 (0.06)

0.35 (0.07) 0.34 (0.07)

0.53 (0.08) 0.34 (0.09)

0.60 (0.12) 0.40 (0.10)

0.80 (0.08) 0.46 (0.07)

6th grade 7th grade 8th grade

Table 12.1  Means (Standard Deviations) for Discrimination by Race/Ethnicity and Gender

0.29 (0.07) 0.29 (0.06)

0.94 (0.09) 0.63 (0.09)

0.33 (0.10) 0.17 (0.10)

0.28 (0.12) 0.23 (0.12)

0.36 (0.08) 0.47 (0.08)

0.54 (0.07) 0.41 (0.06)

0.73 (0.09) 0.47 (0.09)

0.34 (0.10) 0.21 (0.10)

0.40 (0.12) 0.52 (0.12)

0.78 (0.09) 0.40 (0.08)

0.68 (0.07) 0.39 (0.07)

0.47 (0.08) 0.57 (0.08)

0.47 (0.09) 0.33 (0.10)

0.44 (0.13) 0.60 (0.11)

0.66 (0.09) 0.35 (0.08)

6th grade 7th grade 8th grade

Peer overt

252  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way Chinese and African American boys reported roughly equivalent discrimination from school and nonschool adults in 6th grade, by 8th grade, Chinese boys reported less frequent perceived discrimination than they had reported in 6th grade, and less frequent discrimination from adults compared to that reported by African American, Puerto Rican, or Dominican boys. In contrast, mean values among all other groups of boys (including White boys) were higher in 8th grade than in 6th grade. Finally, Table 12.1 shows an overwhelming tendency for boys to report more discrimination from adults than girls, with a few exceptions (primarily among Dominican and Puerto Ricans in earlier grades). Although higher rates of risk taking, physical aggression, ADHD, and antisocial behavior amongst boys as compared to girls have been empirically documented and may contribute to this pattern, pervasive stereotypes about the characteristics of girls versus boys may also plausibly contribute to adults treating boys with more suspicion and trepidation than girls within each ethnic group. In Deep Secrets, Way (2011) describes the abundance of stereotypes that pervade boys’ notions of masculinity—including physical and emotional toughness, and aggressiveness. The patterns of relationships in Table 12.1 are reflected in the interview findings as well, both in terms of the discrimination youth experienced and the stereotypes upon which they were based. African American boys described how—because they are often perceived as “ghetto,” aggressive, and “not good at school”—they experience more frequent discrimination from adults outside of school, such as being approached by police officers (Niwa, 2012). Adolescents in our sample were aware of the stereotypes underlying these expectations. As a 6th‐grade girl described it, “I think that people always related like Spanish and Black people to people in gangs and people that do drugs and people that are going to beat you up if you get mad at them.” Conversely, Chinese Americans were described in terms of the “model minority” stereotype (Greene et  al., 2006). In the words of another 6th‐grader: “Nerdy Chinese … are weird. They know everything. All of them have glasses … like math questions, they will always know it. [They dress] not that great … They’re smart … um, nerds and chinks.” Increasingly, research suggests that not only do adolescents from different ethnic/racial groups experience varying levels of discrimination based on the type and source of the behavior, but that different types of discrimination may be linked with specific outcomes. In a study reported by Benner and Graham (2013), only school‐based discrimination was associated with academic outcomes. In our work, discrimination from school adults in 7th grade significantly predicted lower academic outcomes in 8th grade and overt peer discrimination predicted lower psychosocial wellbeing. In contrast, nonschool adult discrimination and covert peer discrimination were not significantly uniquely related to these outcomes (Harding et al., under review).



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  253

Overt and covert discrimination from peers In our assessment of discrimination experiences, we also believed it important to conceptually distinguish covert forms of discrimination from overt forms of discrimination. As noted earlier, covert discrimination references perceptions that one is the target of unconscious attitudes or stereotypes about one’s ethnic group (e.g., others acting as if they are afraid of you) whereas overt discrimination references concrete visible behaviors (e.g., racial slurs). This conceptual distinction was not evident empirically in our measures for school and nonschool adults. However, factor analysis supported the existence of these constructs as separate factors within the set of items assessing perceived discrimination from peers. The second panel of Table  12.1 shows means and standard deviations for measures of overt versus implicit discrimination from peers. As with discrimination from adults, we found that ethnicity and gender were both associated with the amounts and types of peer discrimination. In 6th grade, Chinese boys reported significantly more implicit and overt discrimination from peers compared to any other gender/ethnic group. In 6th‐grade interviews, Asian American adolescents often describe discrimination from peers (e.g., physical harassment) as the direct manifestation of stereotypes of being “nerdy” and weak (Niwa, 2012; Niwa, Way, Qin‐Hilliard, & Okazaki, 2011; Rivas‐Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2008). One 6th‐grader noted that, “[Chinese people] get dissed all the time, and people don’t like them … they don’t [even] like to share things with them.” Importantly, whereas overt and covert peer discrimination declined among Chinese Americans boys between 6th and 8th grade, such discrimination increased for African American, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and White boys. Again, this may be a function of different stereotypes held about Chinese versus Black and Latino boys. It may be that, as Chinese boys progress through middle school, they more frequently encounter favorable stereotypes regarding their academic interests and abilities. Thus, the higher levels of discrimination they perceive relative to other groups upon entry to middle school may be countered by these more positive experiences. A second notable pattern in Table 12.1 concerns ethnic differences in the mean values for measures of different types of discrimination from peers. African American boys reported a similar frequency of covert and overt discrimination in 6th grade, but the former increased more steeply than the later. Chinese and White boys, on the other hand, reported more frequent overt discrimination from peers in 6th grade. Among Chinese boys, there was a decline in both types of peer discrimination, although overt peer discrimina­tion continued to be more frequent. Among White boys, there was an increase in the frequency of both types of peer discrimination as well, but overt discrimination increased at a steeper rate compared to covert discrimination. As with discrimination from adults, girls reported less frequent overt discrimination from peers overall. By 7th grade, this was the case among African American, Dominican,

254  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way and White youth for both covert and overt peer discrimination. Chinese girls reported less covert and overt discrimination from peers compared to their male counterparts in 6th and 7th grade, but this gender difference was not apparent in 8th grade. Notably, adolescents who reported higher levels of overt peer discrimination were less likely to feel connected to their school, but this was not true for youth who experienced overt discrimination from nonschool adults (Niwa, 2012). In summary, youth experienced different patterns of discrimination which reflected stereotypes of which they were acutely aware. While the form of such experiences (racial slurs) may appear the same, the meaning and social consequences of that experience appear to vary based on the stereotypes upon which they are based. Both Chinese American and African American students described how adults and peers use racial slurs, slurs that were tied to different histories. For Chinese students, “chink” codifies their place at the bottom of the social totem pole, where they are seen as weak social outcasts by their peers and nonthreatening to adults. Comparatively, for Black students, “nigger” bears the weight of the history of slavery, leaving them vulnerable to being feared by adults, while giving them social power through the fear this word invokes in their non‐Black peers.

Racial Socialization Universally, parents socialize children to a particular cultural context in which the knowledge, skills, and attributes parents view as facilitating success in adult roles drive their goals and practices. The socialization process—whether implicit or explicit—is ongoing and takes place in every community and in all settings in which children participate. An important component of this process is helping children to construct the meaning of their racial group membership both from the inside (the history and values associated with being “us”) and from the outside (how others view and treat “us”). Educators, journalists, and practitioners have written extensively about how parents teach and children learn race, with the goal of promoting self‐pride alongside tolerance, understanding, and appreciation of diversity. Scholars have also written extensively about these processes under the rubric of the terms “ethnic socialization” or “racial socialization” For simplicity, we use the later term throughout the chapter.

Defining and conceptualizing racial socialization The term “racial socialization” was first introduced into the research literature in the 1980s to capture the range of practices African American and (less often) Mexican American parents engaged in to promote children’s self‐esteem, positive



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  255

identities, and future success in the context of societal prejudice and discrimination (Spencer, 1983). In the 15 years following, through the early 1990s, a handful of seminal articles, chapters, and books considered racial socialization as a central component of parenting, especially in ethnic minority families (e.g., Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota, & Ocampo, 1993; Peters, 1985; Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, & Allen, 1990). Since then, the literature on racial socialization has grown rapidly, with a twentyfold increase in the number of published studies, as well as a more nuanced inquiry regarding how such socialization unfolds within families and across diverse contexts. Studies have examined multiple ethnic groups (including African American, Dominican, Mexican, White, Puerto Rican, Chinese, multiracial, and Korean families); examined socialization from parents’ and children’s perspectives; and used a variety of methods to capture it (see Hughes et al., 2008). In addition, although studies overwhelmingly focus on families (primarily parents) as agents of racial socialization, there is increasing recognition that race is socialized in other settings as well, including peer groups and schools (Byrd & Chavous, 2011; Hughes, McGill, Ford, & Tubbs, 2011). Although scholars have offered many definitions of racial socialization, the one we currently prefer is broad: “behaviors, practices, and social regularities that communicate information and worldviews about race and ethnicity to children.” We find this broad definition to be useful for many reasons. For one, despite scholars’ primary focus on parents as agents of socialization, this definition allows that children learn about race from a variety of sources, ­settings, and structural arrangements (Hughes, et al., 2011). Second, the definition does not assume intentionality on the part of socializing agents. Although parents, teachers, curriculum committees, and the like may have goals in mind as to what they hope to communicate to children about race, many of the racial messages children receive are inadvertent and unintended. In our interview sample, many parents avoid mentioning the concept of race, or use code words in referring to racial groups, inadvertently communicating to their adolescent that race is a taboo topic. Correspondingly, their adolescent children often hold tightly to a colorblind worldview (e.g., “It really doesn’t matter what race you are”) and show discomfort in, and resistance to, discussing race when asked about it directly (e.g., “I really don’t know how to answer these questions”), despite indicators elsewhere in their interviews that they see and experience race. Third, a broad definition of racial socialization permits researchers to include a wide range of interrelated phenomena under the rubric of a single construct. Even from a single source, such as parents, racial socialization can take many forms, including direct explicit instruction (e.g., “It is important to know your history”), inadvertent side comments and retractions, management of children’s peer relationships (e.g., encouraging youth to associate with or stay away from certain groups) or exposure to different kinds of settings (e.g., Chinese schools, Black churches). In essence, racial socialization is a multi‐layered and dynamic process: It changes across time,

256  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way for example, in accordance with parents’ beliefs about children’s readiness to understand race, and across settings, as children move in and out of different social spaces. Not only do socializers send (and children receive) messages about race in many forms, but they send different kinds of messages as well. In our work, we utilize a fourfold conceptualization of racial socialization that distinguishes (1) messages emphasizing diversity and racial equality (termed Egalitarianism); (2) messages that promote ethnic pride and transmit knowledge about cultural history and heritage (termed Cultural Socialization); (3) messages intended to prepare children to adapt to and operate in a racialized world that can include painful experiences of prejudice and discrimination (termed Preparation for Bias); and (4) cautions and warning to children about other ethnic groups (termed Promotion of Mistrust). Although each of these are part of a larger socialization process, we have suggested that scholars move away from studying “racial socialization” per se towards studying specific types of messages. Currently, the literature suggests that different messages occur with varying frequency, occur differentially across groups, and have different correlates (see Hughes et al., 2006). Most importantly, different messages appear to have unique consequences for youth’s well‐being and adjustment. In the paragraphs below, we review current empirical findings regarding the extent to which parents send or adolescents receive varied messages about race and the consequences of such messages for youth.

The Frequency and Correlates of Racial Socialization Honoring the sneetches but holding on to the “We” In Dr. Seuss’s classic tale (Geisel, 1961), individuals within the community of Sneetches battle for inclusiveness and status based on the presence or absence of the one thing that distinguishes social groups—the presence or absence of a belly star. Eventually, chaos ensues as the community experiences more and more difficulty tracking who is an authentic member of the original high‐status group, due to the introduction of a “star‐on, star‐off machine” that enables Sneetches to obtain or remove belly stars at will. When maintaining group distinctions becomes too costly and exhausting, the community of Sneetches has an epiphany: It really doesn’t matter whether a Sneetch has a belly star or not. That is, “No kind of Sneetch is the best on the beach.” Empirical findings consistently suggest that parents transmit similar messages to their children regarding the insignificance of race and the value of diversity. In multiple studies using diverse samples (e.g., urban or suburban; Midwest or Northeast;



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  257

parent or adolescent; White, African American, Chinese, Dominican, or Puerto Rican), 80–90% of parents endorse one or more survey‐based items reflecting the transmission of egalitarian messages to their children (Hughes, Rodriguez et  al., 2006). These high levels of endorsement are mirrored in qualitative data as well. When asked directly what they hope their children will learn about being a particular ethnicity/race, the large majority of parents begin with premises akin to “We’re all human.” Importantly, parents’ and adolescents’ reports of egalitarianism are highly correlated with their reports of cultural socialization, which is also reported by a majority of parents. As with egalitarianism, 80–90% of parents (or adolescents) across multiple samples have reported saying or doing things to promote ethnic pride or to expose children to their cultural history and heritage (Hughes, Rodriguez et  al., 2006; Hughes et al., 2008). Moreover, the conceptual distinction between egalitarianism and cultural socialization has not been evident empirically using factor analytic methods (Hughes, 2003). Thus, in our work we have combined items intended to assess egalitarianism and cultural socialization into a single measure. For simplicity, we refer to the measure as “cultural socialization” from here in. The predominant perspective on cultural socialization is that it plays a protective function in youth development, especially for minority youth. This perspective is consistent with the tenets of social identity theory, in which positive evaluations of the groups to which one belongs are viewed as an important source of self‐esteem and a sense of belonging to the social world (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Empirical evidence for the relationship ­between cultural socialization and more positive developmental outcomes is fairly robust. Studies have consistently found significant relationships ­between more frequent cultural socialization and a range of favorable outcomes including higher self‐esteem, ethnic affirmation and centrality (Hughes, Witherspoon et al., 2009; Rivas‐Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009), as well as more favorable academic outcomes (Oyserman, Harrison, & Bybee, 2001). To date, however, there is insufficient evidence that such relationships are causal. In a longitudinal analysis of cultural socialization, we found reciprocal relationships between such socialization and identity exploration but not identity affirmation. Adolescents reporting more cultural socialization in 6th and 7th reported more identity exploration in 7th and 8th grade, respectively. Those reporting greater identity exploration in 6th and 7th grade reported greater cultural socialization in 7th and 8th grade, respectively. However, we found no evidence of a reciprocal relationship between cultural socialization and ethnic affirmation. Whereas higher ethnic affirmation ­predicted later reports of more frequent cultural socialization, such socialization did not predict higher affirmation later on (Hughes, Hagelskamp, Shrout, & Way, under review). Taken together, these findings highlight the dynamic and interrelated nature of identity development and ethnic socialization over time.

258  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way

Neither too much honey nor too big a stick The question of whether parents should intentionally socialize children about racial discrimination is hotly contested among parents, teachers, principals, social workers, lawyers, and other professionals (Dell’Antonia, 2012; Harvey, 2013; Moyer, 2014). Critics contend that “teaching race” to ­children in this way calls attention to differences that are unimportant, undermining our ideal of an inclusive, colorblind society. It can also lead, they argue, to racial antagonism and divisiveness. It positions youth to expect discrimination; and undermines young people’s positive feelings about themselves and their group. In contrast, proponents argue that responsible parenting of ethnic minority youth includes explicitly and intentionally ­preparing them to navigate existing racial realities rather than aspirational colorblind experiences. That is, because children of color inevitably encounter discrimination and stereotyping, parents who avoid discussions of race leave children ill‐equipped to navigate the external world. The uncertainty about whether discussions about discrimination benefit or hurt youth is reflected in the relatively low levels of preparation for bias documented in the literature, to date. Across multiple samples, we have found that the prevalence and frequency of preparation for bias is significantly lower than that for cultural socialization messages. This finding is evident for boys and for girls, across multiple ethnic groups, and regardless of whether racial socialization dimensions are assessed via parent or adolescent report (Hughes et al., 2006). Unlike cultural socialization, there are significant ethnic group differences in preparation for bias. African American parents report more preparation for bias than do other parents, including ethnic minority parents from other stigmatized groups such as Mexicans or Dominicans (Hughes, Rodriguez et al., 2006; Hughes et al., 2008). In our view, the coexistence of national narratives regarding the value of inclusion and diversity alongside painful reminders of the continuing significance of race (e.g., educational, income, and health disparities; events in the media) leaves many parents unsure of whether and how to talk about discrimination and intergroup relations with their children. To date, empirical research on the consequences of preparation for bias on youths’ outcomes has been uneven and has produced mixed results. Some studies have found that preparation for bias is associated with more favorable self‐beliefs, behavioral, and academic outcomes (e.g., Bowman & Howard, 1985; Stevenson, 1997), whereas other studies have found that it is associated with less favorable self‐beliefs and behavioral and academic outcomes (Hughes, Witherspoon et al., 2009; McHale et  al., 2006; Stevenson, 1997). Substantial methodological and conceptual differences across these studies render it difficult to integrate these differential findings. Thus, the main effects of preparation for bias on youth outcomes are unclear.



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  259

Recently, we have pursued a potentially promising explanation for contradictory findings, first evident in Harris‐Britt et al.’s (2007) discovery that preparation for bias was only protective against discrimination at moderate (as opposed to high or low) levels of frequency. Using bivariate latent growth models, we found that moderate levels of preparation for bias attenuated relationships between youths’ discrimination experiences and their psychological functioning (Hughes, Sengal, and Way, 2014). More specifically, among youth in the highest and lowest tertiles on the measure of preparation for bias, more frequent discrimination was associated with lower self‐esteem and higher symptoms in 6th grade. Over time, increases in discrimination were associated with increases in symptoms and decreases in self‐ esteem. However, for youth in the “middle” preparation for bias tertile, there was no significant relationship between the average levels or rates of change for perceived discrimination and self‐esteem or symptoms. It seems likely that ethnic minority parents who avoid discussions of discrimination leave their children unprepared to cope with discrimination experiences they believe they have. By the same token, those who overemphasize the high likelihood of discrimination may predispose children to experience it, or to experience distress and negative self‐beliefs in the face of discrimination. Discussions about discrimination, in moderation, may help children better navigate the experience while protecting their positive views of themselves.

Lost in translation Due to the fact that many parents experience tremendous uncertainty about how to talk about race with their children, it is not hard to imagine that some communications about race are difficult, tentative, and unclear. Numerous indicators in our data suggest that parents send messages to ­children that they do not intend, and that children can miss and misinterpret the messages parents believe they send. For instance, in an early paper with elementary school youth, we demonstrated that parents’ reports of particular cultural socialization messages were associated with youths’ reports of particular preparation for bias messages (Hughes, Bachman, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2006). In the EAC study, correlations between parent and adolescent reports of dimensions of racial socialization were quite low and non‐ significant, with a few exceptions (Hughes, Witherspoon et  al., 2009). In interviews, we have documented miscommunications and misunderstandings as well. For instance, mothers have described extensive racial teaching and conversations about ethnic pride and heritage, whereas their adolescents report that nothing is taught or that they learned what they know in school. In other instances, mothers have reported with certainty that their adolescent is too young to understand issues concerning race, whereas adolescent children of these parents have reported an in‐ depth understanding of racial stereotypes as well as exposure to discrimination at

260  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way school or in the neighborhood. In yet other instances, mothers have reported that their goal is to emphasize egalitarianism whereas adolescents have reported being taught about discrimination and group difference. It seems likely that parents’ uncertainty can make conversations with children about race awkward, resulting in unclear, messages that differ from what parents intend.

Discrimination and Racial Socialization as Intra‐ and Intergroup Processes Traditionally, the field of psychology has acknowledged intragroup and intergroup dynamics as both contributing in critical ways to the development of social identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Thus far, we have argued that discrimination and racial socialization are important mechanisms through which racial learning occurs among contemporary youth in the United States. Inherently, discrimination reflects an intergroup process embedded in stigma and stereotypes that are shared among individuals within a group and are directed toward another group. Racial socialization messages from parents regarding how to perceive and interact with their own and other racial/ethnic groups are an intragroup process. In a recent paper, John Dovidio (2013) critiqued the segmentation of the research literatures on intra‐ and intergroup processes, highlighting that they are most commonly examined as separate and isolated, despite acknowledgment that intragroup constructions of beliefs and attitudes influence intergroup dynamics of ­stereotypes and prejudice. A more complete articulation of the relationship between discrimination and racial socialization can serve as one example of addressing the fragmentation in these literatures. As with the larger ­intragroup/intergroup literature, although discrimination and racial socialization are interdependent and systematically intertwined—both conceptually and “in real time”—only a handful of researchers have examined both constructs in a single study. Below, we consider this small literature in light of how it might inform the dynamic interplay between intragroup and intergroup phenomena. One form in which intergroup and intragroup processes could be interconnected is that an intergroup process might prompt or call forth an intragroup one. For instance, several studies have suggested that parents’ cultural socialization and preparation for bias practices are rooted in their and their children’s own experiences of discrimination. In an early set of studies, we found that parents who had experienced interpersonal and institutional forms of discrimination in the workplace or in the community were more likely to report socialization about discrimination and distance from other groups with their children (Hughes, 2003; Hughes &



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  261

Chen, 1997). In a study of early adolescents, we found that parents of adolescents who reported more unfair treatment at school were also more likely to report preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust with their children (Hughes & Johnson, 2001). Although these are each instances in which the intergroup dynamic (discrimination) prompts the intragroup process (socialization), the reverse seems plausible as well. In the analysis of EAC data we alluded to earlier, we found that more frequent racial socialization from parents predicted perceptions of more frequent discrimination experiences at later assessment periods. In this instance, the intragroup process (racial socialization) presumably predisposes youth to perceive more aversive intergroup relations (discrimination). As we illustrated with our own work earlier, the interdependence of intragroup and intergroup processes can also take a conditional form in which the consequences of one for social identity depends on, or is conditioned upon, the level or frequency of the other. In the discrimination/racial socialization literatures, several studies have examined aspects of racial s­ ocialization—especially cultural socialization and preparation for bias—as moderators of the relationship between youth’s discrimination experiences and varied developmental outcomes. For example, higher levels of cultural socialization have been found to attenuate the negative effects of discrimination on varied outcomes, including academic outcomes (Harris‐Britt et al., 2007; Wang & Huguley, 2013). In this case, processes emphasizing an affirmative in‐group orientation buffer the potentially harmful effects of stressful intergroup processes. Burt, Simons, and Gibbons (2012) reported that preparation for bias reduced the effects of discrimination on criminal offending behavior, and others have found that racial socialization, assessed unidimensionally, is associated with reduced distress from discrimination (Leslie, Smith, & Hrapczynski, 2013) and strategies for coping with discrimination (Scott, 2003). These are examples in which an intragroup process can bolster skills for coping with an intergroup process. In future work, scholars must continue investigating the mutual relationship between intra‐ and intergroup processes as well as the dynamic relationship between racial discrimination and socialization.

Methodological and Conceptual Issues Over the past 15 years, scholars have gained important insights regarding the level of exposure youth report to racial socialization and discrimination processes and regarding the consequences of these processes for social, psychological, and academic outcomes. As in any relatively new area of inquiry, however, there are both methodological and conceptual challenges that need to be addressed in studying

262  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way their developmental importance. These challenges merit brief discussion as simple reminders of future work that is needed. At the most basic level, the literatures on racial/ethnic socialization and racial/ ethnic discrimination are both weakened by the fact that studies overwhelmingly utilize single informant, self‐report, cross‐sectional, and survey methods. Thus, there are plausible threats to the validity of inferences including respondent bias, inaccurate recall, and shared method error variance. Of particular note is that participants may be unable or unwilling to accurately report discrimination or racial socialization, albeit for multiply determined and varied reasons. Prior studies have shown, for example, that individuals can be reluctant to report discrimination based on self‐presentational concerns (Kaiser & Miller, 2003) and because admitting discrimination can threaten individuals’ need to belong and feel connected to other people (Carvallo & Pelham, 2006). Regarding racial socialization, parents are often reluctant to acknowledge instances in which they provide messages about race that deviate from the dominant national narrative regarding diversity and egalitarian views. Moreover, they are often unaware of subtle messages they transmit to their children about ethnicity and race, including those occurring in the context of snide remarks or statements that are quickly retracted. Thus, although self‐report methods certainly capture some components of discrimination and racial socialization, and may ultimately be the most efficient means of assessing these complex concepts, researchers need to remain mindful of the limitations of self‐report and make efforts to supplement knowledge gained from this approach with different kinds of knowledge that can be gleaned from interview, observational, and experimental methods. Although there are an increasing number of studies that have used repeated assessments of discrimination and racial socialization, including our own, most of our current knowledge about these processes is based on concurrent data, limiting researchers’ ability to draw causal inferences about these processes. It will be important to utilize designs that allow for stronger causal inferences than current methods permit. That is, does perceiving discrimination predict increases in depression or vice versa? Although emerging longitudinal studies provide stronger evidence of temporal ordering, it does not completely omit threats to causal inferences. Reports of discrimination show strong consistency across time, so exploring the effects of prior discrimination on later outcomes may reflect the effects of more recent discrimination, or vice versa. A related consideration is that controlling for earlier outcomes may reduce estimates of the real effects of discrimina­tion, as these earlier outcomes may also have been influenced by earlier discrimination experiences. In addition, researchers do not yet have an adequate handle on the length or interval of time that would be needed to study “real‐time” consequences of discrimination or racial socialization. A  few existing studies have used daily diary approaches



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  263

(Huyhn & Fuligni, 2010; Seaton & Douglas, 2014) while others have used time lags of a year or more (Burt et al., 2012; Rivas‐Drake et al., 2009). Increasing our knowledge about the temporal nature of these processes, and the extent to which effects accumulate or dissipate over time, will be critical for advancing knowledge. Finally, as literatures that compare these processes across gender, ethnic/racial groups, and age cohorts continue to grow, researchers need to know more about whether measures of racial socialization and discrimination reflect the same construct across groups. Statistical tests of measurement invariance can establish the extent to which group differences on observed scales are due to “real” differences in the construct versus differences in rating; however, little research has explored whether measures of discrimination are invariant across groups. In our work, establishing measurement invariance for racial socialization and discrimination measures has required that we omit large numbers of items, trading scale reliability and coverage for equivalence (Hughes et  al., under review). In sum, because diverse adolescents’ experiences of discrimination and racial socialization are so distinct, how they perceive and report these processes may also be different.

Summary Our goal in this chapter has been to provide an overview of research concerning perceived discrimination and racial socialization as they influence youth’s developmental trajectories. We have argued that both are important intra‐ and intergroup processes that shape young people’s understanding of their membership in salient social categories. What and how children learn about race through these processes are shaped by larger macro‐structural forces, in particular incongruencies between the accepted narratives about race and the persistent racial hierarchies in the United States. An important illustration of this is found in the difficulties parents express in discussing race with their children, and the embeddedness of children’s understanding of their racial experiences in extant stereotypes. Finally, we have highlighted pressing methodological and conceptual issues that researchers must address in order for both literatures to move forward. Note 1 In a search of PSYCHINFO for key concepts within the literature on children and adolescents, 161 papers contained the concepts discrimination or racism, 82 concerned racial or ethnic socialization, but only seven concerned both—a small fraction of the literature.

264  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way References Ahuja, G. (2009, March 31). Black and white now. Kids talk race. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7234585&page=1 Ali, M., & Ali, H. Y. (2004). The soul of a butterfly: Reflections on life’s journey. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of racial/ethnic discrimination during adolescence: Does the source of discrimination matter? Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1602–1613. doi: 10.1037/a0030557 Benner, A. D., & Kim, S. Y. (2009). Experiences of discrimination among Chinese American adolescents and the consequences for socioemotional and academic development. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1682–1694. doi: 10.1037/a0016119 Bowman, P. J., & Howard, C. (1985). Race‐related socialization, motivation, and academic achievement: A study of Black youths in three‐generation families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 134–141. Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Gibbons, F. X. (2012). Racial discrimination, ethnic‐racial socialization, and crime: A micro‐sociological model of risk and resilience. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 677–748. Byrd, C. M., & Chavous, T. (2011). Racial identity, school racial climate, and school intrinsic motivation among African American youth: The importance of person–context congruence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 849–860. Carvallo, M., & Pelham, B. W. (2006). When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 94–108. doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.90.1.94 Cogburn, C. D, Chavous, T. M., & Griffin, T. M. (2011). School‐based racial and gender discrimination among African American adolescents: Exploring gender variation in frequency and implications for adjustment. Race and Social Problems, 3, 25–37. Dell’Antonia, K. J. (2012, April). The danger of not talking to your children about race. Motherlode. Retrieved from http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/the‐danger‐of‐ not‐talking‐to‐your‐children‐about‐race/?_r=0 Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Bridging intragroup processes and intergroup relations: Needing the twain to meet. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(1), 1–24. doi:10.1111/bjso.12026 Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 679–695. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting White’.” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206. Garcia Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Vaquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. Geisel, T. (1961). The Sneetches and other stories. New York, NY: Random House. Greene, M. L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and psychological correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 218–236. doi: 10.1037/ 0012‐1649.42.2.218.



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  265

Harding, J. F., Hughes, D. L., & Way, N. (under review). Adolescents’ perceptions of racial/ ethnic discrimination: Source, types and relationships with academic engagement. Harris‐Britt, A., Valrie, C. R., Kurtz‐Costes, B., & Rowley, S. J. (2007). Perceived racial discrimination and self‐esteem in African‐American youth: Racial socialization as a protective factor. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 669–682. Harvey, J. (2014, April 21). For Whites (like me): On white kids. Huffpost Black Voices. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer‐harvey/dear‐parents‐of‐white‐ children_b_3719818.html Hughes, D. (2003). Correlates of African American and Latino parents’ messages to children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1–2), 15–33. Hughes, D., Bachman, M., Ruble, D., & Fuligni, A. (2006). Tuned in or tuned out: Children’s interpretations of parents’ racial socialization messages. In C. Tamis‐Lemonda & L. Balter (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 591–610). New York, NY: New York University Press. Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An ­examination of race‐related socialization among African American families. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 200–214. Hughes, D., Hagelskamp, C., Shrout, P., & Way, N. (under review). Inter‐relationships between received ethnic‐racial socialization messages, ethnic identity, and perceived discrimination among early adolescents: A consideration of reciprocity and change. Hughes, D., Hagelskamp, C., Way, N., & Foust, M. (2009). The role of mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of ethnic‐racial socialization in shaping ethnic‐racial identity among early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(5), 605–626. Hughes, D., & Johnson, D. (2001). Correlates in children’s experiences of parents’ racial socialization behaviour. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 981–995. Hughes, D., McGill, R., Ford, K., & Tubbs, C. (2011). Parents, peers, and schools as age of racial socialization for African‐American youth. In N. Hill, T. Mann & H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), African‐American children’s mental health: Development and context (pp. 95–124). Westport, CT; Greenwood Press. Hughes, D., Rivas, D., Foust, M., Hagelskamp, C., Gersick, S., & Way, N. (2008). How to catch a moonbeam: A mixed‐methods approach to understanding ethnic socialization processes in ethnically diverse families. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 226–277). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic‐racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. Hughes, D., Sengal, A., & Way, N. (2014). Relationships between perceived discrimination, self esteem, and symptomatology in early adolescence: Does preparation for bias make a difference. Manuscript in preparation. New York University. Hughes, D., Witherspoon, D., Rivas‐Drake, D., & West‐Bey, N. (2009). Received ethnic– racial socialization messages and youths’ academic and behavioral outcomes: Examining the mediating role of ethnic identity and self‐esteem. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 112–124.

266  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Discrimination hurts: The academic, psychological, and physical well‐being of adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 916–941. doi: 10.1111/j.1532‐7795.2010.00670.x Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 227–237. Knight, G. P., Bernal, M. E., Garza, C. A., Cota, M. K., & Ocampo, K. A. (1993). Family socialization and the ethnic identity of Mexican‐American children. Journal of Cross‐ cultural Psychology, 24, 99–114. Krieger, N. (1999). Embodying inequality: A review of concepts, measures, and methods for studying health consequences of discrimination. International Journal of Health Services, 29(2), 295–352. Leslie, L. A., Smith, J. R., Hrapczynski, K. M., & Riley, D. (2013). Racial socialization in transracial adoptive families: Does it help adolescents deal with discrimination stress? Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 62, 72–81. Liang, B., Grossman, J. M., Deguchi, M. (2007). Chinese American middle school youths’ experiences of discrimination and stereotyping. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4, 187–205. McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., Kim, J., Burton, L. M., Davis, K. D., Dotterer, A. M., & Swanson, D. P. (2006). Mothers’ and fathers’ racial socialization in African American families: Implications for youth. Child Development, 77(5), 1387–1402. Mickelson, R. A., & Everett, B. J. (2008). Neotracking in North Carolina: How high school courses of study reproduce race and class‐based stratification. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 535–570. Moyer, M. W. (2014). Teaching tolerance: How White parents should talk to their young kids about race. Slate.com. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/ 2014/03/teaching_tolerance_how_white_parents_should_talk_to_their_kids_about_race.html National Research Council. (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Niwa, E. Y. (2012). The impact of ethnic and racial discrimination on the social and psychological adjustment of early adolescents: A mixed‐method, longitudinal study. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/35/11/3511454.html Niwa, E. Y., Way, N., & Hughes, D. L. (2014). Trajectories of ethnic‐racial discrimination among ethnically diverse early adolescents: Associations with psychological and social adjustment. Child Development, 85(6), 2339–2354. Niwa, E. Y., Way, N., Qin‐Hilliard, D. B., & Okazaki, S. (2011). Hostile hallways. Asian American adolescents’ experience of peer discrimination in schools. In F. T. L. Leong, L. Juang, D. B. Qin‐Hilliard, & H. E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Asian American and Pacific Islander children and mental health (Vol. 1, pp. 193–217). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of e­ nvironmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 431–459. Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Elementary and secondary school civil rights compliances report. Washington, DC: Department of Education.



Racial Socialization and Discrimination  267

Omi, H., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routlege. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research 70(3), 323–367. Oyserman, D., Harrison, K., & Bybee, D. (2001). Can racial identity be promotive of academic efficacy? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 379–385. Peters, M. F. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H. P. McAdoo and J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments (pp. 159–173). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Ritterhouse, J. (2006). Growing up Jim Crow: How Black and White children learned race. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Rivas‐Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2008). A closer look at ethnic discrimination, ethnic identity, and psychological well‐being among urban Chinese American sixth graders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 12–21. Rivas‐Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2009). Public ethnic regard and perceived socioeconomic stratification: Associations with well‐being among Dominican and Black American youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 122–141. Roberts, S. (2008, August 13). In a generation, minorities may be the U.S. majority. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/ washington/14census.html?_r=0 Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35(4), 420–451. doi: 10.1177/0044118x03261479 Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (2001). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 93–111. doi:10.1111/0022‐4537.00203 Scott, L. D. (2003). The relation of racial identity and racial socialization to coping with discrimination among African American adolescents. Journal of Black Studies, 33, 520–538. Seaton, E. K., & Douglass, S. (2014). School diversity and racial discrimination among African‐American adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 156–165. doi:10.1037/a0035322 Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(1), 3–21. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317–42. Spencer, M. B. (1983). Children’s cultural values and parental child rearing strategies. Developmental Review, 3(4), 351–370. Stevenson, H. C. (1997). “Missed, dissed, and pissed”: Making meaning of neighbourhood risk. Fear and anger management in urban black youth. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 3(1), 37–52. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

268  Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, and Way Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter‐group relations (pp.7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall. Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teacher expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253–273. Thornton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. C., & Allen, W. R. (1990). Sociodemographic and environmental correlates of racial socialization by Black parents. Child Development, 61, 401–409. Wang, M. T., & Huguley, J. P. (2012). Parental racial socialization as a moderator of the effects of racial discrimination on educational success among African American adolescents. Child Development, 83(5), 1716–1731. Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets: Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Way, N., Hernández, M. G., Rogers, L. O., & Hughes, D. L. (2013). “I’m not going to become no rapper”: Stereotypes as a context of ethnic and racial identity development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(4), 407–430. Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 194–213. White‐Johnson , R. L., Ford , K. R., & Sellers , R. M. (2010). Parental racial socialization profiles: Association with demographic factors, racial discrimination, childhood socialization and racial identity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(2), 237–247. Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–1232. Yip, T. (2009). Simultaneously salient Chinese and American identities: An experience sampling study of self‐complexity, context and positive mood among Chinese young adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(3), 285–294.

13 Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination Christia Spears Brown

Discrimination is remarkably complex. At its most simple definition, discrimination involves harmful actions toward others because of their membership in a particular group. Discriminatory behaviors can include a wide range of acts, ranging from social exclusion, being graded unfairly, verbal insults, and physical assault; and can occur in multiple domains, by peers, teachers, people in the community, and institutions (Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000). Further, individuals may experience discrimination as a result of their membership in a large number of social groups. Discrimination may be based on one’s gender, race, ethnicity, physical or mental abilities, sexual orientation, weight, religion, country of birth or immigration status, or socioeconomic status—or more precisely, based on the intersection of these multiple groups within an individual (e.g., Brown, Alabi, Huynh, & Masten, 2011). For example, racial/ethnic discrimination directed toward Black girls differs from that toward Black boys (Chavous, Rivas‐Drake, Smalls, Griffin, & Cogburn, 2008). Because of space constraints, and because these are the most common foci of research, this chapter will focus on research on discrimination on the basis of ethnicity (including race), gender, immigration status, and sexual orientation that is perceived by both children and adolescents.

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

270  Christia Spears Brown Although considerable research has looked at prejudice and factors that cause people to engage in discriminatory actions, research from the perspective of the targets of discrimination—particularly when those targets are children and adolescents—has only appeared since the late 1990s and early 2000s. Researching perceptions of discrimination is more challenging in children and adolescents than with adults. Primarily, there are serious ethical concerns relating to research with children because of the negativity of the construct. As a result, unlike studies with adult samples, most research with youth examines perceptions of naturally occurring discrimination using ­correlational or longitudinal research rather than experimental designs (in which discrimination is experimentally manipulated). The result is that most research focuses on the context and correlates of perceptions of discrimination, instead of whether children are “accurate” in their perceptions. In other words, there may be some instances when a child or adolescent is the target of discrimination but is unaware of it. For example, a girl can hear a discouraging comment about her math abilities, but she may attribute it to her individual poor performance rather than a gender‐based stereotype. Although discrimination is clearly impacting the child in this example, these instances of discrimination would not be captured by the typical self‐report, retrospective research that only captures perceived discrimination. In 2005, I, along with Rebecca Bigler, proposed a developmental model for predicting when children would perceive a particular situation to be discrimination (Brown & Bigler, 2005). First, we proposed that the child must have certain basic cognitive abilities to ever perceive discrimination directed at themselves or others. We predicted that, once the necessary cognitive skills were in place, continuing cognitive development across middle childhood would influence the type of discrimination children would perceive, such that children would perceive more direct, concrete forms of discrimination (such as name‐calling) developmentally earlier than more abstract, structural forms of discrimination (such as income inequality). Second, once children have the requisite cognitive skills to perceive discrimination, we predicted that the cues present in the situation would influence whether a child attributed the particular behaviors of others to discriminatory versus nonbiased motives. Finally, over and above the situational context, we predicted that certain individual differences among children would make some individuals more prone to perceive discrimination than other children. Since this model was proposed, a significant amount of research has been conducted on children’s perceptions of discrimination, largely supporting the propositions of the model. As a result, the chapter will describe the extant research examining the distinct types of discrimination perceived by children and adolescents. Second, in line with our developmental model (Brown & Bigler, 2005), the chapter will describe predictors of perceptions of discrimination, including the



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  271

cognitive developmental prerequisites, facilitating situational cues, and individual difference predictors. In the second half of the chapter, I will describe the psychological, academic, and social correlates/outcomes associated with perceptions of discrimination, followed by a discussion of how group identities and the school context moderate the outcomes associated with perceptions of discrimination. Finally, the chapter will explore and recommend some future directions for research on perceptions of discrimination in children and adolescents.

Perceptions of Discrimination: General Trends When children and adolescents perceive discrimination, they most commonly perceive direct, concrete peer discrimination occurring at school (Coker et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2000; Szalacha et al., 2003). For example, by early adolescence, the majority of children report that the most common form of ethnic discrimination is hearing or being called a verbal insult or racial slur by a peer (Brown et al., 2011; Simons, et  al., 2002). Many children also report being excluded from activities because of their ethnicity, and a small number of children report being threatened with physical harm (Simons et al., 2002; Verkuyten, Kinket, & van der Weilen, 1997). Similar perceptions of peer ethnic discrimination have been found with, to name a few, samples of Latino children (Brown & Chu, 2013); Latino, African American, South Asian, East Asian, and European American adolescents (Fisher et al., 2000); minority ethnic group adolescents in Northern Ireland (Connolly & Keenan, 2002); minority ethnic group children in the Nertherlands (Verkuyten, 1998); Muslim boys and girls in American schools (Aroian, 2012); and Chinese American adolescents who speak with an accent, which is associated with being a “perpetual foreigner” (Kim, Wang, Deng, Alvarez, & Li, 2010). Peer discrimination is perhaps most frequent and extreme for gender‐­ nonconforming and sexual minority adolescents (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered [LGBT]). At the mildest, early adolescents who consider themselves to be gender‐atypical, particularly boys, report experiencing more peer discrimination (such as homophobic teasing) than their more gender‐typical peers (Jewell & Brown, 2013). Among LGBT adolescents, more than half report experiencing severe peer discrimination because of their sexual orientation, including verbal, physical, and sexual harassment, as well as assault (D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Gruber & Fineran, 2008; Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008). LGBT adolescents perceive peer discrimination to occur frequently, with the more severe forms of harassment occurring less frequently; specifically, they report “often” hearing biased remarks by peers (such as being

272  Christia Spears Brown called a homophobic name), “sometimes” being verbally harassed, and “rarely” being physically harassed (Kosciw et al., 2008). In addition to peer discrimination, children and adolescents also perceive discrimination by teachers in educational settings (Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). By 8 years of age, Latino children perceive at least some ethnic discrimination by their teachers (Brown & Chu, 2013). These numbers increase as children become adolescents. For example, half of African American and Latino adolescents reported that they had been graded unfairly, and a quarter felt they had been discouraged from joining advanced‐level classes and disciplined unfairly by teachers because of their ethnicity (Fisher et al., 2000). On average, adolescents perceive ethnic discrimination by teachers to occur approximately a couple of times a year (Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Similar findings are found regarding gender discrimination with about half the girls across a range of ethnic groups reporting hearing discouraging comments from teachers/coaches regarding their academic or athletic abilities (Leaper & Brown, 2008). When asked to describe examples of gender discrimination, girls mention instances in which boys receive preferential treatment in athletics (e.g., “The P.E. teacher always thinks boys will be faster”) and boys mention times when girls are given preferential treatment within the classroom (e.g., “When a girl does something wrong, the teacher never gets her in trouble; a boy does the same thing, and he always gets in trouble”; Brown et al., 2011). Children and adolescents also perceive discrimination within institutions and in public settings. More than half of African American and Latino adolescents perceive themselves to have been hassled by store clerks and to have received poor service at restaurants because of their ethnicity (Fisher et al., 2000). Many children and adolescents also report being suspected of wrongdoing or being hassled by the police (Fisher et  al., 2000; Simons et  al., 2002). Muslim boys and girls report hearing negative comments about their religion from both teachers and strangers (Aroian, 2012). Although perceptions of peer‐based discrimination remain stable across adolescence, perceptions of adult‐based discrimination (which can include educational and institutional discrimination) increase with age (Green, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Fisher et al., 2000; Szalacha et al., 2003). Finally, research indicates that children use discrimination as an explanation for certain broad social inequalities. For example, between one quarter and one half of American children assume that discrimination has prevented women, African‐ Americans, and Latinos from being President (e.g., “People like voting for boys more than girls,” “White people don’t want a Black person to be president”; Bigler, Arthur, Hughes, & Patterson, 2008). One quarter of children agree with the statement that it was currently against the law (in 2007) for a woman to be President (a  form of institutional gender discrimination) and half believed that individual voters would be discriminatory (Bigler et al., 2008).



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  273

Although children and adolescents are capable of perceiving discrimination at the peer, educational, and societal level, they perceive themselves to be the target of discrimination rather infrequently (see Brown & Bigler, 2005). For example, although approximately 50% of adolescent girls reported that they had experienced gender discrimination within academic or athletic domains, most girls reported it happening only once or twice within the last year (Leaper & Brown, 2008). Similar patterns are typical in studies of perceptions of ethnic discrimination as well, with a majority of children perceiving discrimination, but reporting it happening only once or twice a year (e.g., Benner & Graham, 2011; Brody et al., 2006; Greene, et al., 2006; Grollman, 2012). In general, children (as do adults) perceive discrimination directed toward their group or to other individuals within their group as occurring more often than discrimination directed toward them personally (e.g., Verkuyten, 1998). The adoption of conservative standards for labeling negative treatment as discrimination may be due to the psychological costs associated with perceiving oneself to be the target of discrimination, as will be described later in the chapter (Quinn, Roese, Pennington, & Olson, 1999).

Perceptions of Discrimination: Cognitive Developmental Abilities, Situational Cues, and Individual Differences Beyond children’s and adolescents’ overall tendencies to perceive certain types of discrimination, perceiving a particular instance of negative feedback, social exclusion, or unfair treatment as discrimination is influenced by ­several factors. These include: the child’s cognitive developmental abilities to detect the discrimination; the specific situational cues present that suggest discrimination is likely; and the characteristics of the individuals that affect their knowledge of and salience of discrimination (such as their social group membership and group attitudes; Brown & Bigler, 2005). Cognitive development.  For a child to perceive a particular situation to be discriminatory or to attribute a particular outcome to discrimination, that child must have certain social‐cognitive abilities. Social‐cognitive abilities that are likely important in perceiving discrimination are the ability to use social comparisons, to use moral reasoning; to understand multiple and hierarchical classification; and to understand others’ cognitions (see Brown & Bigler, 2005 for a more detailed description). Although there is little research on these issues, it seems likely that children with more advanced social cognitive skills are better able to understand discrimination.

274  Christia Spears Brown For example, research has previously shown that social p ­ erspective‐taking is positively correlated with children’s explanations of ethnic prejudice, in that children who better understand others’ perspectives give slightly more advanced explanations of prejudice than children with less advanced perspective‐taking abilities (Quintana, Castañeda‐English, & Ybarra, 1999). Further, McKown and Weinstein (2003) noted, based on similarities in their developmental trajectories, that children’s ability to infer others’ stereotypes (a necessary prerequisite to perceiving discrimination) is largely dependent on children’s ability to understand others’ cognitions (i.e., their understanding of theory of mind). Children’s social cognitive abilities may have a more complex relationship, however, with their perceptions of actual discrimination. For example, my research (Brown, 2006) found that children’s understanding of others’ cognitions (i.e., theory of mind) had a curvilinear relationship with their perceptions of teacher discrimination. Specifically, children who had very little understanding of others’ cognitions seemed to focus on the external attributes of skin color when making attributions, and thus often perceived teacher discrimination. Children who had an advanced understanding of others’ cognitions also perceived teacher discrimination, seemingly recognizing that a teacher’s biased opinions about one child’s ethnic group affected her treatment of that child. In contrast, children with only a modest understanding of others’ cognitions seemed to ignore the external attributes of the teacher and student and focus largely on individuals’ internal attributes, and subsequently made attributions primarily to inferior ability or effort (a tendency common among children in this developmental period; McGlothin, Killen, & Edmonds, 2005). In other words, it appears that only children with a well‐developed understanding of others’ cognitions are able to attend to both the internal and external characteristics of the teacher and student—an ability which is necessary for an adult‐like perception of discrimination (Brown, 2006). Situational cues.  Beyond having the necessary cognitive development to perceive discrimination, certain situations will likely be more conducive to perceiving discrimination than others. To date, however, most research on children’s perceptions of discrimination involve retrospective self‐reports of their past experiences with discrimination. Although such studies are important, they provide little information about when and why some but not other individuals perceive themselves to be targets of discrimination. Furthermore, it begs the question of whether children are actually only infrequently subject to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their social group membership or whether individual and developmental factors reduce children’s tendency to perceive experiences as discriminatory. Robust evidence within the social psychological literature indicates that even adults typically perceive discrimination directed at themselves only when it is situationally



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  275

unambiguous—in other words, when the situational information suggests that discrimination is highly likely (see Stanger et al., 2003). To examine what situations are more likely to be labeled discrimination by an individual child or adolescent, experimental studies are required in which the situation and the context are tightly controlled. Few studies have experimentally examined children’s perceptions of discrimination. Existing evidence, however, suggests that children attend to the past behavior of the potential discriminating person, the “prototypicality” of the discrimination, and the availability of comparison persons when making attributions to discrimination. Prototypical discrimination, for example, would involve discrimination being perpetrated by a high‐status, ethnic‐majority individual against a lower status, ethnic‐minority individual (Inman & Baron, 1996). When we read stories to elementary school children in which a teacher treated a boy and girl differently, the children were more likely to attribute the teacher’s behavior to discrimination if they were told that the teacher had a history of favoring one gender over the other (Brown & Bigler, 2004). When we gave the children no information about the teacher’s past choices, or told them that the teacher had a history of fairness, they were more likely to blame the child’s lack of effort or ability for the negative treatment. This is similar to the findings of a separate experimental study on ethnic discrimination (Brown, 2006). When children saw a teacher give a same‐ethnicity student a more positive outcome than a different‐ethnicity student (regardless of the teacher and students’ ethnicity), and they knew the teacher had done something similar in the past, they were more likely to perceive discrimination than when the teacher showed preference to a different‐ethnicity student. A slightly different pattern emerged in our experimental study in which children were given negative feedback about their own performance in a presumed art contest (i.e., they were told they had lost an art contest; Brown, Bigler, & Chu, 2010). Of the very few children who perceived personal discrimination (8 out of 108 children), they only perceived their own negative feedback to be due to gender discrimination when they were told (1) the gender of the contest judges differed from their own, (2) the contest judges had picked other‐gender winners in previous years, and (3) the contest judges picked other‐gender winners this year. This suggests that discrimination must be both prototypical and unambiguous for children to perceive themselves to the target of discrimination in any given situation. Individual differences.  Once children can cognitively understand and perceive discrimination, and the situation is relatively unambiguous, some individuals will simply perceive more discrimination than others. Research has shown that an individual child or adolescent’s social group membership (e.g., ethnic group or

276  Christia Spears Brown gender group) and group attitudes can impact on the frequency and overall amount of perceived discrimination. First, children’s own social group membership influences their perceptions of discrimination. Typically, children who belong to lower status social groups perceive more discrimination than children who belong to higher status social groups. In general, African American and Latino children perceive more ethnic discrimination than White/European American children (Bogart et  al., 2013; Brown et al., 2011; Grollman, 2012; Romero & Roberts, 1998; Ruck & Wortley, 2002; Wayman, 2002). Similarly, girls perceive more gender discrimination than boys during middle childhood and adolescence (Brown & Bigler, 2004; Brown et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2011; DuBois, Burk‐Braxton, Swenson, Tevendale, & Hardesty, 2002). Research also suggests that adolescents who belong to multiple lower status groups (e.g., a combination of ethnic minority, gender, sexual orientation, and welfare‐status‐based groups) perceive more discrimination than adolescents who belong to only one lower status group (Grollman, 2012). These group differences are likely due to the greater salience of ethnicity for ethnic minority group members (Akiba, Szalacha, & Garcia Coll, 2004) and greater salience of gender for girls (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2001); greater parental socialization about discri­mination (see Hughes & Johnson, 2001; Rivas‐Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009); and more frequent objective experiences with discrimination relative to higher status group members. Second, group attitudes have been linked to perceptions of discrimi­nation. Specifically, it seems that group attitudes predict perceptions of discrimination when the negative treatment in question either confirms or contradicts an individual’s beliefs. For example, our research with adolescent girls found that they were more likely to perceive gender discrimination when they held gender‐egalitarian attitudes (Brown & Bigler, 2004; Leaper & Brown, 2008) or reported having learned about feminism (Leaper & Brown, 2008). In other words, if youth believe both groups should be treated equally and notice that they aren’t, they are more likely to perceive discrimination. Not just egalitarian attitudes, but biased group attitudes, also predict p ­ erceptions of discrimination. This can include positive biases toward the in‐group or negative biases toward the out‐group. Romero and Roberts (1998) found that European American, African American, Mexican American, and Vietnamese American middle‐school children’s negative attitudes toward other ethnic groups predicted increased perceptions of ethnic discrimination directed toward their own group. Brown (2006) found that children who endorsed a pro‐European American bias were slightly more likely to perceive a European American child to be the target of discrimination than did children with no bias. Taken together, it seems that ­children are more likely to perceive discrimination directed toward members of in‐groups they favor by members of out‐groups they dislike.



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  277

Perceptions of Discrimination: Correlates, Consequences, and Moderators Just as perceiving discrimination is complex, the consequences of discrimination are also complex. Among children who do perceive individual‐level discrimination, there are numerous associated negative psychological outcomes, such as greater stress, more depressive symptoms, and greater anxiety (Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014). Simultaneously, there can also be positive consequences of perceiving individual discrimination. After receiving personal negative feedback, individuals can attribute the feedback to bias as opposed to their own competency, thus maintaining a positive sense of performance‐based self‐efficacy (Brown et al., 2010). At the group level, knowledge of discrimination can help members of a group attribute underrepresentation to bias instead of innate group traits. Girls, for example, can attribute a history of no female U.S. Presidents to institutional discrimination instead of to women being incompetent leaders (Bigler et al., 2008). Knowledge of historical discrimination regarding math and science careers has been shown to motivate girls to combat future discrimination (Pahlke, Bigler, & Green, 2010). Knowledge of discrimination can also help individuals be more accepting of gender‐nonconforming peers, to challenge sexist comments by their peers, and to view media (and all other environmental inputs) through a “sexism” filter that prevents such messages from reinforcing personal gender stereotyping and prejudice (Pahlke, Bigler, & Martin, 2014). Psychological outcomes.  Of all the research on perceptions of discrimi­nation, one of the most frequently researched topics concerns the concur­rent or longitudinal effects of discrimination on psychological outcomes. Perceiving ethnic discrimination, for example, has been associated with lower self‐esteem (Fisher et  al., 2000; Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, & Jackson, 2008), more depression and depressive symptoms (Brody et al., 2006; Greene et al., 2006; Simons et al., 2002; Umaña‐Taylor & Updegraff, 2007; Wong et  al., 2003), lower life satisfaction (Seaton et  al., 2008), greater worry (Szalacha et  al., 2003), more externalizing behaviors and hopelessness (Nyborg & Curry, 2003), and more delinquency and aggression (Bogart et al., 2013). A recent meta‐analysis (Schmitt et al., 2014) found that the links between perceived discrimination and negative outcomes (e.g., depression) are stronger than the links with positive outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction). Although much of this research on the effects of discrimination has been conducted with Latino and African American/Black adolescents in America and Canada, similar findings have been found with unique and diverse samples: Russian‐ speaking immigrant children living in Finland (Jasinskaja‐Lahti & Liebkind, 2001),

278  Christia Spears Brown Somali refugees in America (Ellis et  al., 2010), Puerto Ricans adolescents in New York (Rivera et al., 2011; Szalacha et al., 2003), Chinese American adolescents (Kim et  al. 2010), dark‐skinned adolescents in Brazil (Santana, Almeida‐Filho, Roberts, & Cooper, 2007), and older Caribbean female adolescents in the United States. (Seaton et al., 2008). Beyond ethnic discrimination, studies show that perceiving discrimination is typically linked with negative psychological outcomes, regardless of the reason for the discrimination (Schmitt et al., 2014). For example, among LGBT adolescents, perceptions of discrimination are associated with depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation and self‐harm (e.g., Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar, & Azrael, 2009). Indeed, perceptions of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are even more strongly linked with negative outcomes than perceptions of ethnic discrimination (Schmitt et al., 2014). Research on peer sexual harassment (a form of gender discrimination) has shown that adolescents who perceive sexual harassment experience greater emotional distress, embarrassment, depression, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and externalizing behaviors than adolescents who don’t (Chiodo, Wolfe, Crooks, Hughes, & Jaffe, 2009; Goldstein, Malanchuk, Davis‐Kean, & Eccles, 2007). Importantly, some recent work has also focused on how perceptions of multiple forms of discrimination (e.g., on the basis of e­ thnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and welfare status) impact depressive symptoms, and found that discrimination based on multiple lower status groups is more strongly associated with depressive symptoms than perceived discrimination on the basis of only one social group (Grollman, 2012). Not all forms of discrimination, however, are associated with all negative psychological outcomes. For example, perceived discrimination directed at the in‐ group has been linked with lower ethnic self‐esteem, whereas perceived discrimination directed toward the self has been linked with lower personal self‐ esteem (Verkuyten, 1998). In addition, discrimination from peers seems to have more personal effects, whereas discrimination from teachers seems to have more academic effects. As such, perceived discrimination from peers, but not the discrimination from teachers or society, is associated with greater anxiety, depressive symptoms, loneliness, and lower self‐worth (Benner & Graham, 2013). Perceived discrimination also impacts different types of self‐esteem differently. For example, perceiving discrimination can negatively affect social‐state self‐esteem, but can actually enhance performance‐state self‐esteem (because one can attribute negative feedback to discrimination instead of poor abilities; Brown et al., 2010). Academic outcomes.  In addition to psychological outcomes, perceived discrimination is also associated with academic outcomes. Academic outcomes have been conceptualized in several ways, such as grades or academic achievement, risk for dropping out, academic self‐concepts, perceived self‐efficacy, academic motivation, and interest



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  279

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Research ­typically finds that perceptions of ethnic discrimination are associated with negative academic outcomes. For example, children and adolescents who perceive ethnic discrimination by teachers and peers are particularly likely to have negative attitudes about school and lower academic performance (Stone & Han, 2005); lower academic motivation and more academic disengagement (Verkuyten & Brug, 2003; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2004); lower grades, academic self‐concepts, and academic values (Eccles, Wong, & Peck, 2006); lower perceived academic competence (Oxman‐Martinez et al, 2012); increased risk for dropping out of high school (Wayman, 2002). Perceiving ethnic discrimination is also associated with greater stress symptoms which, in turn, are related to more negative school adjustment (Liebkind, Jasinskaja‐Lahti, & Solheim 2004). Further, Faircloth and Hamm (2005) found that perceiving peer and teacher discrimination contributed to Latino students’ reduced sense of belonging at school, and this was in turn associated with reduced academic performance. Some research has shown teacher discrimina­tion specifically, but not peer discrimination, is associated with more negative academic performance (Benner & Graham, 2013). The limited work that has examined perceived gender discrimination shows parallel findings to that of perceived ethnic discrimination, such that perceptions of gender discrimination in the academic domain (e.g., hearing negative comments about one’s math or science abilities) predicted girls feeling less competent and valuing math and science less than girls who don’t perceive academic sexism (Brown & Leaper, 2010). Perceptions of sexual harassment are also linked with negative academic outcomes (largely because harassment happens at school), such that targets of sexual harassment report greater levels of school disengagement and school absenteeism than nontargets (Harris Interactive, 2001; Larkin & Popaleni, 1994). There are instances, however, in which discrimination—either knowledge of past discrimination or anticipation of future discrimination—can have positive academic outcomes. For example, Weisgram and Bigler (2007) took an experimental approach to the topic of discrimination and academics, and taught children about past gender discrimination. The goal was to assess whether girls would be more interested in science if they had an explanation for why more women had not been involved in science previously. They found that girls felt more efficacious about their science abilities after learning about past discrimination. Similarly, anticipating future discrimination has been associated with increased academic motivation among African American adolescents, perhaps because of a drive to “prove them wrong” (Eccles et al., 2006). Social outcomes.  To a lesser degree, research has examined the negative social outcomes associated with perceptions of discrimination. For example, perceptions of discrimination have been associated with risky behaviors and deviant peer

280  Christia Spears Brown affiliations (Delgado, Delgado, Updegraff, Roosa, & Umaña‐Taylor, 2011) and lower social competence in peer relationships (Oxman‐Martinez et  al., 2012). Further, the negative social interactions that are inherently part of a discrimination experience seem to beget more negative social interactions in the future. Specifically, if an adolescent expects discrimination from an out‐group member during an intergroup interaction, and expects the out‐group person to be anxious, the individual’s self‐anxiety increases and he or she wants to avoid future intergroup contact (Andrighetto, Durante, Lugani, Volpato, & Mirisola, 2013). This reduces the chance that future positive intergroup contact could become more salient than the negative intergroup contact. The role of group identity.  Children and adolescent’s group identity can broadly be thought of as the “thinking, perceptions, feelings, and behavior” that are shaped by membership in a social group, and with it comes a sense of belonging to a group (Rotheram & Phinney, 1987, p. 13). Group identity can be a complex and multidimensional component of the self‐concept, and includes dimensions of centrality (i.e., whether the group membership is an important and central part of the self‐ concept), private regard (i.e., how the individual personally feels toward his or her group), and public regard (i.e., how the individual feels others perceive his or her group; see Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin‐Volpe, 2004; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). In terms of gender, group identity can also incorporate dimensions of typicality (i.e., how typical the individual feels as a member of his or her gender group) and perceived pressure to conform to gender norms (Egan & Perry, 2001). Group identity, therefore, has an extremely important, albeit complex, influence on children and adolescents’ perceptions of discrimination. It appears to play three specific roles. First, group identity can facilitate p ­ erceptions of discrimination. Research on gender identity and gender discrimination, for example, has shown that adolescent girls with a strong feminist identity perceive more gender discrimination than girls with a less developed feminist identity (Leaper & Brown, 2008). Similarly, it has been argued that the more salient one’s ethnic identity is, the more accessible it is as an explanation for differential treatment (Operario & Fiske, 2001). Second, group identity can serve as a buffer against the negative effects of discrimination. Specifically, having an ethnic identity that is central to one’s self‐ concept and/or positively regarded can buffer the negative effects of teacher and peer discrimination on well‐being, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, academic self‐concepts, and academic achievement (Brown & Chu, 2012; Chavous et  al., 2008; Greene et al., 2006; Rivas‐Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2008; Verkuyten et al., 2011; Wong, et al., 2003).



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  281

Finally, research has shown that group identity can be affected by the perception of discrimination, although the particular direction remains unclear. Early on, Phinney (1992) suggested that experiencing discrimination is the pivotal moment that starts children thinking about their ethnicity. Evidence has supported this assertion, finding that peer‐driven discrimination (more so than adult‐ driven discrimination) facilitates the development of ethnic identity (Pahl & Way, 2006). Indeed, Rejection–Identification Theory (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002) argues that experiencing rejection by the majority group leads individuals to increase their identification with the minority group as a means of maintaining positive self‐esteem. Other work, however, finds that perceptions of discrimination are related to decreases in ethnic identity, perhaps as a way of dissociating from the stigmatizing group (Liebkind et al., 2004; Pahl & Way, 2006; Romero & Roberts, 2003). Further, Turner and Brown (2007) found that children decreased the importance of their gender identity after reading about a child being excluded because of gender, but increased the importance of their gender identity after reading about a child being included because of gender. For immigrants, who can hold multiple group identifications (e.g., an ethnic identity and a new national identity), perceptions of discrimination in the host country have been shown not to impact ethnic identification, but to decrease identification with the new country (Jasinskaja‐Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim, 2009). All of these studies suggest, regardless of the specific findings, that individuals’ group identity can respond to perceptions of discrimination in ways that are most adaptive for the individual in any given situation.

The Context of Youth’s Discrimination: School When evaluating perceptions of discrimination among children and adolescents, it is critical to examine the context in which children spend so much of their time. The school context—including the ethnic and gender composition of schools, as well as the explicit and implicit ways in which schools and teachers value diversity, promote multiculturalism, and enforce anti‐harassment policies—plays a critical role in children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of discrimination. First, the composition of the school is important. For example, ethnic minority children who are in the racial or ethnic minority at their school are more frequently the target of peer victimization and more likely to report feeling unsafe than ethnic minority children who attend racially/ethnically heterogeneous schools (Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Kistner, Metzler, Gatlin, & Risi, 1993). Verkuyten and Thijs (2002) report similar findings in the Netherlands—as classes become more

282  Christia Spears Brown heterogeneous, ethnic minority ­children report fewer instances of racial victimization. It is argued that h ­ eterogeneous, diverse schools have a more equal balance of power across racial/ethnic groups than schools in which there is a predominant racial/ ethnic group, and this greater equality leads to fewer experiences of discrimination (Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006). However, as the ethnic minority population approaches 50% and ethnic groups are evenly mixed, perceptions of cultural, group‐based racism have been shown to peak (Seaton, Yip, & Sellers, 2009; cf. Juvonen, et al., 2006). Gender composition of the school—whether the school is single‐sex or mixed‐ sex—may also be related to perceptions of gender discrimination, although little research has examined this possibility. Over the past decade, many schools in the United States that were originally mixed‐sex have been segregated into single‐sex “academies” housed within the same school building (Goodkind, Schelbe, Joseph, Beers, & Pinsky, 2013). A common justification for this segregation is that boys and girls sexually harass one another and distract students from academic work. This type of segregation is based on a hetero‐normative assumption that all students are only interested in the other sex, and this is perceived as sexist by some students (Goodkind et  al., 2013). Beyond this broad perception of bias, elementary‐school‐aged girls in Columbia reported feeling more pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, although less peer victimization, in same‐sex schools compared to mixed‐sex schools (Drury, Bukowski, Velásquez, & Stella‐Lopez, 2013). Research has further shown that attending a single‐sex school, as opposed to a mixed‐sex school, led to an increase in gender stereotyping over the course of a school year (Fabes, Pahlke, Martin, & Hanish, 2013). Because there is an increase in the endorsement of gender stereotypes and increased pressure to conform to gender norms in single‐sex schools, it is likely that there is more discrimination directed toward gender‐atypical or LGBT youth in single‐sex schools compared to mixed‐sex schools (Woody, 2003). Second, the climate of the school can impact children’s perceptions of discrimination. Our research indicated that Latino immigrant students ­perceived less peer discrimination and had more positive ethnic identities when their teachers valued diverse classrooms and considered diversity an opportunity for enrichment rather than a burden (Brown & Chu, 2013). It appears that teachers who value diversity, in contrast to teachers who ignore cultural differences, create environments in which cultural backgrounds can be freely discussed and establish classroom norms in which teasing and exclusion on the basis of ethnicity are not acceptable. Further, when Latino immigrant children attended schools that valued multiculturalism and diversity, they perceived less community‐based discrimination than when they attended schools that ignored cultural diversity (Brown & Chu, 2013). Thus, school climate seems not only to establish norms about what is



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  283

acceptable behavior at school, it also informs children about the attitudes of the broader community. In addition to ethnic minority children, school climate is particularly important for the discrimination experiences of LGBT youth. Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, and Greytak (2013) found that adolescents who attended schools that had formal safe school policies, supportive school personnel, and offered gay‐straight alliance (GSA) clubs, perceived less discrimination and had better academic outcomes compared to youth at schools with more hostile climates.

Conclusions, Suggestions for Future Research, and Emerging Areas of Study Taken together, it is clear that children perceive peer and teacher discri­mination by middle childhood, and institutional or societal discrimination by adolescence. The ways in which we measure perceptions of discrimination must continue to evolve, however. Self‐report retrospective data, in which students are asked to think about their experiences over the past year or past week, are likely missing many of the micro‐aggressions that occur on a daily basis. Future research should pursue measurement techniques used in other fields, such as experience sampling (i.e., where each experience is recorded as it occurs as part of a two‐week or month‐long testing window) or momentary sampling (i.e., where participants are contacted several times throughout the day or week by phone and asked to report on their recent experiences; see Reid et al., 2009). As described, perceptions of discrimination are associated with numerous negative psychological, academic, and social outcomes; although there are some positive consequences associated with attributing negative feedback to discrimination rather than low ability. To date, most research has focused on perceptions of discrimination within adolescence, and more research should focus on the earliest perceptions of discrimination. Because ethnic identity has been shown to be an important buffer against the negative impacts of discrimination, and younger children have only burgeoning ethnic identities, they may be particularly vulnerable to the pernicious effects of discrimination. Future research should also use more experimental methods to tease apart whether the specific outcomes that are associated with perceptions of discrimination are true consequences of discrimination or correlates of those factors that lead some individuals to perceive themselves to be targets. The context of discrimination should also be more fully addressed by future research and represents an emerging topic of study. Most perceived discrimination occurs at schools, which differ in their composition and their insistence on

284  Christia Spears Brown tolerance. These contextual variables both predict and moderate perceptions of discrimination. For example, children in diverse schools are less susceptible to the negative effects of discrimination than children in the minority in their school (Brown & Chu, 2013). This new direction of research on context is well captured by one recent study that focused on how the neighborhood context impacts discrimination, showing that high neighborhood cohesion attenuated the associations between neighborhood perceptions of discrimination and externalizing behavior (Riina, Martin, Gardner, & Brooks‐Gunn, 2013). Finally, emerging research is also examining individuals’ physiological responses to discrimination and the biological markers associated with perceptions of discrimination. For example, recent research suggests that some individuals may show a genetic sensitivity to discrimination, in that Brody and colleagues (2011) found a stronger link between perceptions of discrimination and conduct problems for African American youth with a specific genotype. This type of research, however, is rife with ethical concerns (about genetic predeterminism) that may discourage others from pursuing this line of questioning. More commonly, recent work has been looking at the physiological responses to discrimination. Studies such as this, for example, find that after controlling for other stressors and family variables, daily perceptions of discrimination are associated with greater overall cortisol output (Zeiders, Doane, & Roosa, 2012). Other work finds that ethnic identity moderates the autonomic nervous system responses to discrimination (Neblett & Roberts, 2013). Thus, based on an individual’s ethnic identity, discrimination may be more or less harmful to the body’s response systems. As the methods for collecting physiological, neurological, and biological data continue to become more common, it is likely that this area, including developmental neuroscience, will continue to be fruitful. Based on the explosion of research in the last two decades on children’s and adolescent’s perceptions of discrimination, it is likely that the next two decades will bring a more refined and focused look at the predictors, moderators, and specific responses to discrimination that will better guide our knowledge of stigmatized children.

References Akiba, D., Szalacha, L. A., & Garcia Coll, C. T. (2004). Multiplicity of ethnic identification during middle childhood: Conceptual and methodological considerations. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 104, 45–60. Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 1001–1014.



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  285

Andrighetto, L., Durante, F., Lugani, F., Volpato, C., & Mirisola, A. (2013). Obstacles to intergroup contact: When outgroup partner’s anxiety meets perceived ethnic discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 781–792. Aroian, K. J. (2012). Discrimination against Muslim American adolescents. The Journal of School Nursing, 28(3), 206–213. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin‐Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114. Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2011). Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on educational outcomes. Child Development, 82(2), 508–519. Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of racial/ethnic discrimination during adolescence: Does the source of discrimination matter? Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1602–1613. Bigler, R. S., Arthur, A. E., Hughes, J. M., & Patterson, M. M. (2008). The politics of race and gender: Children’s perceptions of discrimination and the U.S. presidency. Analyses of Social Issue and Public Policy (@sap), 8(1), 83–112. Bogart, L. M., Elliott, M. N., Kanouse, D. E., Klein, D. J., Davies, S. L., Cuccaro, P. M., & Schuster, M. A. (2013). Association between perceived discrimination and racial/ ethnic disparities in problem behaviors among preadolescent youths. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1074–1081. Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R. H., Chen, Y.‐F., Obasi, E., Philibert, R. A., Kogan, S. M., & Simons, R. L. (2011). Perceived discrimination, serotonin transporter linked polymorphic region status, and the development of conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 617–627. Brody, G. H., Chen, Y.‐F., Murry, V. M., Ge, X., Simons, R. L., Gibbons, F. X., & Cutrona, C. E. (2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American Youths: A five‐year longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77(5), 1170–1189. Brown, C. S. (2006). Bias at school: Perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination among Latino and European American children. Cognitive Development, 21(4), 401–419. Brown, C. S., Alabi, B. O., Huynh, V. W., & Masten, C. L. (2011). Ethnicity and gender in late childhood and early adolescence: Group identity and awareness of bias. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 463–471. Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2004). Children’s perceptions of gender discrimination. Developmental Psychology, 40, 714–726. Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2005). Children’s perception of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Development, 76, 533–553. Brown, C. S., Bigler, R. S., & Chu, H. (2010). An experimental study of the correlates and consequences of perceiving oneself to be the target of gender discrimination. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(2), 100–117. Brown, C. S., & Chu, H. (2012). Discrimination, ethnic identity, and academic outcomes of Mexican immigrant children: The importance of school context. Child Development, 83(5), 1477–1485.

286  Christia Spears Brown Brown, C. S., & Leaper, C. (2010). Latina and European American girls’ experiences with academic sexism and their self‐concepts in mathematics and science during adolescence. Sex Roles, 63(11–12), 860–870. Chavous, T. M., Rivas‐Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. (2008). Gender matters, too: The influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on academic engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 637–654. Chiodo, D., Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. (2009). Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 246–252. Coker, T. R., Elliott, M. N., Kanouse, D. E., Grunbaum, J. A., Schwebel, D. C., Gilliland, M. J., & Schuster, M. A. (2009). Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination among fifth‐ grade students & its association with mental health. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 878–884. Connolly, P., & Keenan, M. (2002). Racist harassment in the White hinterlands: Minority ethnic children and parents’ experiences of schooling in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 341–355. D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148–167. Delgado, M. Y., Updegraff, K. A., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña‐Taylor, A. J. (2011). Discrimination and Mexican‐origin adolescents’ adjustment: The moderating roles of adolescents’, mothers’, and fathers’ cultural orientations and values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(2), 125–139. Drury, K., Bukowski, W. M., Velásquez, A. M., & Stella‐Lopez, L. (2013). Victimization and gender identity in single‐sex and mixed‐sex schools: Examining contextual variations in pressure to conform to gender norms. Sex Roles, 69(7–8), 442–454. DuBois, D. L., Burk‐Braxton, C., Swenson, L. P., Tevendale, H. D., & Hardesty, J. L. (2002). Race and gender influences on adjustment in early adolescence: Investigation of an integrative model. Child Development, 73, 1573–1592. Eccles, J. S., Wong, C. A., & Peck, S. C. (2006). Ethnicity as a social context for the development of African‐American adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 407–426. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451–463. Ellis, B. H., MacDonald, H. Z., Klunk‐Gillis, J., Lincoln, A., Strunin, L., & Cabral, H. J. (2010). Discrimination and mental health among Somali refugee adolescents: The role of acculturation and gender. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(4), 564–575. Faircloth, B. S., & Hamm, J. V. (2005). Sense of belonging among high school s­tudents representing four ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 293–309. Fabes, R. A., Pahlke, E., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2013). Gender‐segregated schooling and gender stereotyping. Educational Studies, 39(3), 315–319. Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(6), 679–695.



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  287

Goldstein, S. E., Malanchuk, O., Davis‐Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). Risk factors of sexual harassment by peers: A longitudinal investigation of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(2), 285–300. Goodkind, S., Schelbe, L., Joseph, A. A., Beers, D. E., & Pinsky, S. L. (2013). Providing new opportunities or reinforcing old stereotypes? Perceptions and experiences of single‐ sex public education. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(8), 1174–1181. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 173–199. Greene, M. L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and psychological correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42, 218–238. Grollman, E. A. (2012). Multiple forms of perceived discrimination and health among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(2), 199–214. Gruber, J. E., & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of adolescents. Sex Roles, 59(1–2), 1–13. Harris Interactive. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Hughes, D., & Johnson, D. (2001). Correlates of children’s experiences of parents’ racial socialization behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 981–995. Inman, M., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 727–739. Jasinskaja‐Lahti, I., & Liebkind, K. (2001). Perceived discrimination and psychological adjustment among Russian‐speaking immigrant adolescents in Finland. International Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 174–185. Jasinskaja‐Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(1), 105–128. Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. (2013). Sexting, catcalls, and butt slaps: How gender stereotypes and perceived group norms predict sexualized behavior. Sex Roles, 69, 594–604. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17, 393–400. Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Deng, S., Alvarez, R., & Li, J. (2011). Accent, perpetual foreigner stereotype, and perceived discrimination as indirect links between English proficiency and depressive symptoms in Chinese American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 289–301. Kistner, J., Metzler, A., Gatlin, D., & Risi, S. (1993). Classroom racial proportions and children’s peer relations: Race and gender effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 446–452. Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). The 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s school. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

288  Christia Spears Brown Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in‐school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 45–63. Larkin, J., & Popaleni, K. (1994). Heterosexual courtship violence and sexual harassment: The private and public control of young women. Feminism & Psychology, 4(2), 213–227. Leaper, C., & Brown, C. S. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79(3), 685–704. Liebkind, K., Jasinskaja‐Lahti, I., & Solheim, E. (2004). Cultural identity, perceived discrimination, and parental support as determinants of immigrants’ school adjustments: Vietnamese youth in Finland. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 635–656. McGlothin, H., Killen, M., & Edmonds, C. (2005). European‐American children’s intergroup attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 227–249. McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotypes consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74, 498–515. Neblett, E. W., Jr., & Roberts, S. O. (2013). Racial identity and autonomic responses to racial discrimination. Psychophysiology, 50(10), 943–953. Nyborg, V. M., & Curry, J. F. (2003). The impact of perceived racism: Psychological symptoms among African American boys. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 258–266. Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 550–561. Oxman‐Martinez, J., Rummens, A. J., Moreau, J., Choi, Y. R., Beiser, M., Ogilvie, L., & Armstrong, R. (2012). Perceived ethnic discrimination and social exclusion: Newcomer immigrant children in Canada. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(3), 376–388. Pahl, K., & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77(5), 1403–1415. Pahlke, E., Bigler, R. S., & Green, V. A. (2010). Effects of learning about historical gender discrimination on early adolescents’ occupational judgments and aspirations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(6), 854–894. Pahlke, E., Bigler, R. S., & Martin, C. (2014). Can fostering children’s ability to challenge sexism improve critical analysis, internalization, and enactment of inclusive, egalitarian peer relationships?. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 115–133. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure a new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. Quintana, S. M., Castañeda‐English, P., & Ybarra, V. C. (1999). Role of perspective‐ taking ability and ethnic socialization in the development of adolescent ethnic identity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 161–184. Quinn, K. A., Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., & Olson, J. M. (1999). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: The role of informational complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1430–1440.



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  289

Reid, S. C., Kauer, S. D., Dudgeon, P., Sanci, L. A., Shrier, L. A., & Patton, G. C. (2009). A mobile phone program to track young people’s experiences of mood, stress and coping: Development and testing of the mobiletype program. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(6), 501–507. Riina, E. M., Martin, A., Gardner, M., & Brooks‐Gunn, J. (2013). Context matters: Links between neighborhood discrimination, neighborhood cohesion and African American adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 136–146. Rivas‐Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2008). A closer look at peer discrimination, ethnic identity, and psychological well‐being among urban Chinese American sixth graders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(1), 12–21. Rivas‐Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2009). A preliminary analysis of associations among ethnic racial socialization, ethnic discrimination, and ethnic identity among urban sixth graders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 558–584. Rivera, F., López, I., Guarnaccia, P., Ramirez, R., Canino, G., & Bird, H. (2011). Perceived discrimination and antisocial behaviors in Puerto Rican children. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 13(3), 453–461. Romero, A. J., & Roberts, R. E. (1998). Perception of discrimination and ethnocultural variables in a diverse group of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 641–656. Romero, A. J., & Roberts, R. E. (2003). The impact of multiple dimensions of ethnic identity on discrimination & adolescents’ self‐esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2288–2305. Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African American, Asian American, & Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35, 420–451. Rotheram, M. J., & Phinney, J. S. (1987). Introduction: Definitions and perspectives in the study of children’s ethnic socialization. In M. J. Rotheram & J. S. Phinney (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization (pp. 10–28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Ruck, M. D., & Wortley, S. (2002). Racial and ethnic minority high school students’ perceptions of school disciplinary practices: A look at some Canadian findings. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 31, 185–195. Santana, V., Almeida‐Filho, N., Roberts, R., & Cooper, S. P. (2007). Skin colour, perception of racism and depression among adolescents in urban Brazil. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(3), 125–131. Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 167–199. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The Consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well‐being: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 921–948. Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S. (2008). The prevalence of perceived discrimination among African American and Caribbean Black youth. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1288–1297.

290  Christia Spears Brown Seaton, E. K., Yip, T., & Sellers, R. M. (2009). A longitudinal examination of racial identity and racial discrimination among African American adolescents. Child Development, 80(2), 406–417. Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J., Rowley, S. J., & Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. Simons, R. L., Murry, V., McLoyd, V., Lin, K., Cutrona, C., & Conger, R. D. (2002). Discrimination, crime, ethnic identity, and parenting as correlates of depressive symptoms among African American children: A multi‐level analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 371–393. Stanger, C., Swim, J. K., Sechrist, G. B., DeCoster, J., Van Allen, K. L., & Ottenbreit, A. (2003). Ask, answer, and announce: Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 277–311. Stone, S., & Han, M. (2005). Perceived school environments, perceived discrimination, and school performance among children of Mexican immigrants. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(1), 51–66. Szalacha, L. A., Erkut, S., Coll, C. G., Alarcón, O., Fields, J. P., & Ceder, I. (2003). Discrimination and Puerto Rican children’s and adolescents’ mental health. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(2), 141–155. Turner, K. L., & Brown, C. (2007). The centrality of gender and ethnic identities across individuals and contexts. Social Development, 16(4), 700–719. Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., & Updegraff, K. A. (2007). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self‐esteem, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 30(4), 549–567. Verkuyten, M. (1998). Perceived discrimination and self‐esteem among ethnic minority adolescents. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 479–493. Verkuyten, M., & Brug, P. (2003). Educational performance and psychological disengagement among ethnic‐minority and Dutch adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 189– 200. Verkuyten, M., Kinket, B., & van der Weilen, C. (1997). Preadolescents’ understanding of ethnic discrimination. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 97–112. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2001). Ethnic and gender bias among Dutch and Turkish children in late childhood: The role of social context. Infant and Child Development, 10(4), 203–217. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 310–331. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2004). Psychological disidentification with the academic domain among ethnic minority adolescents in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 109–125. Wayman, J. C. (2002). Student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias: A comparison of Mexican American and Non‐Latino White dropouts and students. The High School Journal, 27–37.



Perceptions of Intergroup Discrimination  291

Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2007). Effects of learning about gender discrimination on adolescent girls’ attitudes toward and interest in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3), 262–269. Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–1232. Woody, E. L. (2003). Homophobia and heterosexism in public school reform: Constructions of gender and sexuality in California’s single gender academies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(2), 148–160. Zeiders, K. H., Doane, L. D., & Roosa, M. W. (2012). Perceived discrimination and diurnal cortisol: Examining relations among Mexican American adolescents. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 541–548.

14 Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett

Introduction Most believe that children learn what they have been taught about race either through explicit conversations or through more implicit socializations (e.g., see Hughes et al. 2008; Hughes, Harding, Niwa, Del Toro, & Way, Chapter 12, this volume). Theories that attribute development of racial awareness and consciousness to socialization processes have considerable intuitive appeal, particularly because race is generally considered to be an artificial social construction. However, these socialization theories characterizing how children learn about race are based in part on tabula rasa assumptions of child development, namely that children reiterate what they have been taught. Social‐cognitive theorists qualify socialization theories by suggesting children’s understanding is limited by their cognitive and social‐cognitive capacities (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Recent research on children’s implicit processing of racial differences has challenged these traditional notions of child development. In important ways children

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  293

show they know more about race than they have been taught. They show inherent abilities to process information about animate objects that populate their world, which they can apply to social categories, including gender and race (Gelman & Legare, 2011). That is, rather than an accumulation of facts and filtering of messages, young children’s conceptions of race can reflect intuitive, theory‐like understandings (Hirschfeld, 1996). Specifically, children intuit essences as underlying the nature of organisms, including social groups based on race and gender (Gelman, 2004). By inferring essences, that is, by making essentialist inferences, young children generalize characteristics across members of categories which are thought to share the same essence and infer that the essences are responsible for within‐group similarities and between‐group differences. Recent research (see summary by Hirschfeld, 2008) has supported the application of essentialist theory to account for how young children develop notions about race and has suggested that socialization and social‐ cognitive theories (e.g., Aboud & Doyle, 1993) may underestimate children’s abilities. The purpose of this chapter, however, is to extend the notions of essentialism through childhood and into adolescence, illustrating how theories of essentialism can add to extant predictions based on socialization and social‐cognitive theories of development. Below we define essentialism, describe how essentialism is applied to the social categories of race as well as ethnicity, chart the developmental trajectory of essentialist reasoning, illustrate the implications of essentialism for the development of racial cognitions, and make connections comparing fixed, or entity‐ based, reasoning to fluid, or incremental, views of others’ abilities and character. Before proceeding further, we note that we have taken a pragmatic or empirical approach to whether race and ethnicity are interchangeable. Specifically, Quintana’s (1998) model describes how children’s reasoning about both of these social categories follows a similar developmental trajectory and timing, with the exception of early childhood where children seem more responsive to race and racial phenotypes than to ethnicity or ethnic features. From middle childhood on, the reasoning about ethnic categories hews closely to their reasoning about racial categories. Consequently, even if race and ethnicity are distinct, for much of childhood and throughout adolescence, the distinction is without a difference in the developmental implications for how children reason about sociocultural categories.

Essentialism Defined According to Aristotle, use of reason is the function of humanity (Aristotle, 1889). Indeed, one of our most commonly used reasoning heuristics, known as “essentialism,” is reflected in the writings of Aristotle and Plato. Essentialism as conceived by the

294  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett ancient Greek philosophers is that every object has an underlying, unchanging form that makes it categorically different from other objects (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). This reasoning heuristic is now considered “psychological essentialism” and is defined as the belief that “certain categories have an underlying reality or true nature that one cannot observe directly but that gives an object its identity, and is responsible for other similarities that category members share” (Gelman, 2004, p. 404). Psychological essentialism is one of the primary ways children attempt to make sense of the world around them, positing categories for everything from biological phenomena to socially constructed status and including gender, ethnicity, and race. Essentialism resembles theory‐like conceptions because the essences underlying category membership are believed to be causally related to the appearance, behavior, and/or functioning of members of the categories. Essentialist reasoning was probably evolutionarily adaptive for our ancestors as cognitive scaffolding beginning early in childhood. For example, it would have been important for the children of our distant ancestors to quickly recognize whether the large approaching animal was a carnivore or herbivore. Initially, our categories would have been based on observable characteristics, like the animal’s form, gait, and tooth shape. From surface elements, humans could infer the meat‐eating or plant‐eating nature of the animal. By developing a theory‐like understanding of carnivores, early humans could infer the eating habits of new animal species they encountered without having to directly witness them. Analogously, there is adaptive benefit for young children to develop theory‐like understanding of the animate world around them by inferring categories with which they could generalize characteristics learned about one species (e.g., tigers) to other species (e.g., lions) within that category (carnivores) as opposed to naïvely approaching each and every new species encountered. Inferring an underlying essence to category membership provides a powerful heuristic to organize membership within each category as well as to generalize characteristics learned about one category member to other members of the category. Often we are unable to articulate what exactly the nature of an underlying essence of, for example, meat‐eating animals is, but we still act as if the essence exists (Waxman, Medin, & Ross, 2007). This basic heuristic could be used to form human categories of enemies and allies and to infer either shared or ­nonshared characteristics even for socially constructed categories (Sperber & Hirschfeld, 2004). However, in addition to the adaptive benefit, there are notable deleterious consequences of psychological essentialism for how children and adults conceive of their world. For example, essentialist beliefs consist of viewing categories as natural kinds (Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000), leading to the view that differences between categories are immutable. Essentialist beliefs that are entitative in nature assume that members in a category are homogenous and therefore classification into a natural



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  295

category allows inductive inferences about general characteristics across members in the category (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998; Haslam et al., 2000). In essential beliefs, categories are seen as discrete such that being a member of a particular category precludes membership in a second category because members of each category are believed to share an essence not shared by other categories (Haslam, 1998). Although children may be naturally disposed to categorize their world using essentialist reasoning, the particular categories they use are informed by their environment. As suggested by Hirschfeld (2008), children show sensitivity to the social categories important in the larger society and can impose essentialist beliefs onto the salient social categories. Experimental research has demonstrated that essentialist notions can be encouraged unwittingly through socialization processes. Namely, the use of generic noun phrases seems to encourage children to develop essentialist beliefs about a particular category (Gelman, 2004). For example, using the words “a sloth” or “sloths” rather than using particularistic language such as “the sloth” or “this sloth” alerts children to assumed similarities among sloths in general (Howell & Woolgar, 2013; Rhodes, Leslie, & Tworek, 2012;). According to Bakhtin (1981) language can be used to reify dominant worldviews and thwart the expression of alternative worldviews or perspectives. In the case of essentialism, it would appear that use of generic noun phrases and noun‐labels may be doing just that. Whether young children rely on essentialism to form nascent impressions of racial differences is more than an academic question. Essentialist beliefs can have a profound effect on attitudes toward the world around us, especially the social world. The cognitive bias to perceive fundamental differences between social groups as being inherent may cause us to overlook the ways in which categories are socially constructed. Essentialist forms of cognitive bias can be exploited in ways that maintain systems of oppression, power, and privilege (Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2002; Hirschfeld, 1997). In general, essentialist belief systems have been found (1) to reinforce prejudice and stereotypes about out‐group members (Morton & Postmes, 2009) and (2) to encourage people to see themselves as more similar to other in‐group members and more different from those who are in the out‐group (Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001). A series of experimental studies indicated that when essentialist beliefs were cued, there were increases in levels of prejudice against out‐groups as well as bias favoring in‐groups (Keller, 2005). Heretofore, bias was thought to result from stereotypes or the content of our beliefs about social categories (e.g., stupid, lazy), but it is now apparent that how we think about social categories, for example, in entitative terms, influences the strength of bias and prejudice. More specifically, essentialist beliefs about racial and ethnic groups are associated with prejudice and discrimination (Jayaratne et al., 2006; Zagefka, Nigbur,

296  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett Gonzalez, & Tip, 2013). There is a long history of viewing race as reflecting an essential nature, with racial groups being perceived as having different, immutable, and inherent natures. The term Caucasian to refer to a subgroup of humans who were fair‐complexioned and from mostly northern regions of Europe was coined in order to differentiate what were presumed to be essential differences between racial groups. The enslavement of African peoples, Jim Crowe segregation, and anti‐miscegenation laws were justified by appealing to essentialist reasoning about racial differences. Notably, when White participants were cued to think about pictures of Whites and Blacks in a categorical manner, they were more likely to associate stereotypical words with Black persons and to have greater amygdala activation when viewing their photos, suggesting the perception of threat (Wheeler & Fiske, 2005). Essentialism, like social‐cognitive theories, suggests that the way children conceive of race influences what experiences are interpreted and filtered and how the interpretation and filtering is done. An important difference between essentialist and social‐cognitive theories is the emphasis given to automatic versus conscious processing of race, and the extent to which reasoning involves implicit or explicit processes. In essentialism, racial identity is inferential in the sense that it is based on the inference of a unique racial essence shared by a group but not possessed by members of other groups and the belief that racial differences manifest from different underlying essences. In contrast, in socialization theories, racial identity is thought to be the product and internalization of socialization messages communicated about racial group membership. According to social‐cognitive theories, the form of racial identity is determined by social‐cognitive abilities, with development involving the increasing appropriation of adult‐like understanding of group membership and belonging (Lam, Guerrero, Damree, & Enesco, 2011). Integrating essentialism into our theoretical conceptions of childhood broadens our understanding of how children develop notions of race.

Essentialism vs. Social‐cognitive and Socialization Theories Different predictions about child development are made by theories of essentialism, compared to the traditional social‐cognitive and socialization theories. Within social‐cognitive theories, children were traditionally thought to be able to conceive of race only when they could explicitly differentiate racial categories (Alejandro‐Wright, 1985). Similarly, traditional theories about how children learn about race focus on explicit references related to race, such as being able to label accurately the racial groups and appropriate racial terms used by adults (e.g., Semaj, 1980). This preoccupation with explicit processing of race has led to theories



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  297

assuming that infants are oblivious to race, that the ability to classify explicitly according to race predates racial attitudes, that racial cognitions are socialized, and that racial cognitions reflect experiences, socialization, and social‐cognitive limitations (see Hirschfeld, 2008, for further elaboration). In Table  14.1, important differences are identified between essentialism and ­traditional theories to account for child development related to race. There are Table 14.1  Alternative Epistemological Theories of Children’s Racial Notions Essentialist Theory Origin of notions about race Apply implicit theories about animate categories to race Infer essences of racial status Structure of racial status Racial categories reflect: Underlying essences Mutually exclusive categories Status is immutable

Permanence/fixed nature of racial groups Inherent, immutable differences Nature and ontology of group differences Racial groups reflect natural or inherent differences due to different underlying essences

Nature of racial bias Social intuitionism: racial prejudice and discrimination reflect intuitive feeling about the different groups Formation of racial identity Inductive identity: Meaning attributed to racial differences reflect inferences of underlying essences from external markers uniquely shared by group members

Social‐cognitive and Socialization Theories Infants are racially naïve Learn by exposure and socialization

Racial Groups reflect: Socially constructed classifications Marked by physical (or “skin deep”) differences Racial differences are superficial, compared to similarities across race Superficial differences, arbitrarily fixed Racial groups reflect differences on various dimensions (e.g., intelligence, low SES) Racial group differences result from differences in socialization across race Rationalist beliefs/actions: prejudice and discrimination reflect rational internalization of messages communicated by socialization agents Deductive identity: Ethnic/racial identity reflects internalization of experiences shared by other group members

298  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett significant developmental consequences that result from whether young children are making essentialist inferences about racial categories or are learning arbitrary and socially constructed categories. If using essentialism, children perceive the differences between two racial groups as mutually exclusive and categorical or discontinuous in nature and that d ­ifferences in racial groups—including behavior, characteristics, as well as physical appearances—reflect different inherent traits that are fixed and immutable. Enactment of racial bias, drawing from social intuitionism (Haidt, 2001), suggests that racial prejudice and discrimination often result, not from a recitation of previous teachings or messages received, but “occur quickly, effortlessly, and automatically, such that the outcome but not the process is accessible to consciousness” (p. 818). In contrast, socialization theories focus on explicitly expressed racial bias and discrimination and the messages that have been consciously taught or socialized. It is important to differentiate psychological essentialism, which involves a cognitive or psychological bias, from sociological essentialism in which the bias reflects sociological processes (Mahalingam, 2007). That is, psychological essentialism is a consequence of psychological processes and reflects children’s epistemological understanding or knowledge about their animate and social world (e.g., understanding that race is associated with racial phenotype). In contrast, sociological essentialism reflects sociological influences on children such that they may privilege or value, for example, light‐ over dark‐complexioned skin coloration. Sociological forms of essentialism may take advantage of patterns associated with psychological essentialism to establish social dominance and privilege (Mahalingam, 2007). The two domains of essentialism require integration, given that cognitive processes associated with psychological essentialism reasoning support the way in which sociological essentialism serves to maintain and reify hegemony over some racial groups. As Mahalingam (2007, p. 301) stated: “A life span developmental account of how essentialist beliefs about categories are shaped by power and privilege social status is sorely needed.” The purpose of the present chapter is to chart the progression of psychological essentialism in early childhood to sociological essentialism in late childhood and adolescence.

Essentialism and race: Implicit processing beginning in infancy Recent research on infancy has challenged the traditional focus of developmental theories on explicitly articulated notions of race. This research finds that young infants begin processing race long before they are able to make explicit references. Despite adults’ and children’s attempts to hold colorblind attitudes, racial categories remain a foundational component of social interactions. By six to nine



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  299

months of age, infants demonstrate acute sensitivity to race (Balas, Westerlund, Hung, & Nelson, 2011; Freeman, Schiller, Rule, & Ambady, 2010). Infants react differently, neurologically and perceptually, to faces from racial groups with which they are unfamiliar (termed the Other Race Effect or ORE) compared to their own race (Freeman et al., 2010). Different facial features (e.g., eyes, nose and mouth) differentiate racial groups. When scanning faces from their own racial group, children focus on those facial regions that differentiate individuals within the race. This helps infants recognize familiar own‐racial group faces (Anzures et  al., 2013). Conversely, infants scan other‐race faces in ways that accentuate racial differences, which seems to undermine their ability to recognize other‐race individual faces even when they have been previously seen. In short, for same‐race faces, infants see and respond to individuals; when confronted with other‐race faces, they see and respond to racial differences (Balas et al., 2011). Cross‐racially adopted children see and respond to individual faces that match their adopted family’s race as though it was a same‐race face, suggesting that children are responding to the race of their families, not themselves, in developing biases in how to process face (Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & Schonen, 2005). Nonetheless, assuming consistency in the environment, these early patterns formed in infancy persist through adulthood (Anzures et al., 2013). This nascent awareness of race in infancy sets the stage for the development of notions about race in early childhood. Hirschfeld (1996) demonstrated that 4‐ and 5‐year‐old children understand that racial status is inherited from parents and is more permanent than other superficial aspects of appearance, such as weight and height. Hirschfeld’s (1995, 1996) work demonstrates the efficiency with which children acquire complex beliefs about racial status, which challenges the notion that children learn about race from direct experiences or through socialization. Instead, Hirschfeld (1995) suggested that young children have a naïve theory of race that allows them to anticipate that an offspring’s racial phenotype will be similar to the parental phenotype. Several additional strands of research converge to challenge the notions that children learn about race through interracial experiences and socialization processes. First, Hirschfeld, Bartmess, White, and Frith (2007) demonstrated that children with autism, a condition marked by impairment in social functioning, develop racial attitudes that match the societal attitudes. Awareness of race in populations that were believed to be immune to societal bias, children with autism and young infants, seems inconsistent with traditional socialization theory emphasizing explicit messages. Second, other researchers have found that children’s racially biased attitudes are stronger in the absence of interracial contact than in its presence (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008). Presumably racial socialization and experiences with race would be more active in the context of interracial exposure and less pronounced in the

300  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett absence of interracial exposure. Specifically, researchers have demonstrated that children raised in racially homogenous environments, such as rural Japan, develop bias against racial out‐groups by 6 years of age, even though they have had no personal contact with racial out‐groups (Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006). Again, these findings seem inconsistent with socialization and social‐cognitive theories, which require exposure to socializing experiences and familiarity with race to develop racial cognitions. Indeed, the precociousness and prevalence of children’s understanding of race despite limited inter‐racial exposure or impaired ability to process social stimuli led Hirschfeld (2008) to propose that children may have a learning acquisition device with which to acquire a sense of race, analogous to Chomsky’s language acquisition device, in order to account for the efficiency with which children learn about race. This pattern of findings, emphasizing implicit processing of race, is not restricted to early childhood. Research on person perception finds that humans process racial stimuli (e.g., physical appearance) automatically and nearly instantaneously upon meeting a person (Uleman, Saribay, & Gonzalez, 2008). They detect and respond differently based on racial status even though they may be consciously unaware of noticing racial status. The focus over the last 15 years on implicit racial attitudes, described as a third wave of the field by Dovidio (2001), challenges traditional theories that have focused on explicit and conscious processing of race. These findings remind us of Huxley’s (1874) steam whistle hypothesis, drawing parallels between the whistle on a steam locomotive, that calls attention but does not cause the train to move, and conscious thoughts, which may also focus our attention but do not drive behavior. Could children’s conscious processing of race be like the steam whistle, more of a consequence of implicit processing than causally related to behavior? The challenge to researchers is how to access children’s intuitive processing of race. We believe that much of what children explicitly reference about race may reflect what they have been taught about how they should respond rather than being an authentic expression of their psychological processing of race, particularly the implicit components. There is considerable discordance between explicit and implicit processing of race (Banaji, Baron, Durham & Olson, 2008 ; Gawronski, Peters, Brochu, & Strack, 2008). To illustrate, research finds that, on explicit measures of racial attitudes, both stigmatized and nonstigmatized groups view their in‐ groups favorably. On measures of implicit attitudes, there is a clear implicit bias against stigmatized racial groups, such that when the in‐group is racially stigmatized, there is in‐group derogation (Olson, Dweck, Spelke, & Banaji, 2011). As another example of the power of implicit racial attitudes to drive overt behaviors, the stereotype threat paradigm demonstrates that activating racial identification can be sufficient to activate implicit racial stereotypes in such a way that behavior, such as test performance, conforms to those stereotypes (Schmader, Hall, & Croft, 2015).



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  301

Clearly, contemporary developmental models of how children acquire a sense of race need to incorporate implicit notions. Much of the extant research has investigated only children’s explicit reasoning about race in which the children repeat what they have been socialized to say. However, Hirschfeld’s (1996) research with young children was innovative because it solicited behavioral responses that were reflective of their implicit understanding about race, such as pointing to different colored figures. Using this methodology, Hirschfeld was able to show that young children were able to indicate that parents pass on racial phenotypes to their children, even though, based on their age, they had been presumed to be unable to conceive of race as a permanent status. Quintana and his colleagues (Quintana, 1998; Quintana, Herrera, & Nelson, 2010; Quintana & Smith, 2012) have investigated children’s acquisition of racial notions by prompting them with open‐ended questions, often novel queries that the children had not considered previously, as a way of providing a window into the intuitive logic that underlies their racial cognitions. While many of the children’s responses in Quintana and colleagues’ interviews conform to the way they have been explicitly socialized, children’s responses also suggest they are drawing on essentialist notions. Below, we focus on a set of questions from Quintana’s research that attempts to identify what children consider to be the essential or defining feature of ethnicity and race, the necessary and sufficient features required to be considered a bona fide member of an ethnic or racial group. To avoid confusion between essential and essentialist terms, we wish to point out that some features that children identify as essential to or defining of category membership may reflect essentialist thinking (some inherent characteristic) and other essential features may not reflect essentialist reasoning. We are explicit below when defining features of children’s responses appeal to essentialist logic. Additionally, we are not suggesting that the racial notions manifest in middle to late childhood and adolescence are only compatible with theories of essentialism. In contrast, we are arguing that essentialist notions, alongside explicitly socialized notions, continue to play a role in how children conceive of race and ethnicity, particularly during adolescence. We view youth’s racial notions, attitudes, and identity as reflecting an integration or amalgamation of essentialist and socialized notions.

Essentialism and race: Reasoning in early childhood Importantly, much of the research on children’s essentialist reasoning about race has focused on early childhood, but has not charted the progression to adolescent or adult forms of essentialism. Quintana (1998) has proposed a model of ethnic perspective‐taking ability (EPTA) across childhood and adolescence using interview

302  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett questions (e.g., Quintana, 1998; Quintana & Smith, 2012; Quintana, Chavez, & Ramirez Stege, 2014) that can be used to track the children’s sense of the essential, necessary, and sufficient characteristics associated with racial group membership across developmental levels. Below we draw from interview responses, as well as others’ research, to highlight the developmental progression of essentialism in children’s responding. Quintana’s (1998) model of ethnic perspective taking indicates that in early childhood children’s explicit reasoning focuses on the physical manifestations of racial phenotypes, especially skin color and facial features (see also early work by Aboud & Doyle, 1993; Semaj, 1980). Consistent with this early research, many young children in Quintana’s interviews initially responded to “Can you change your race?” in the affirmative. However, when probed, they often revised their initial response by indicating that race was not just skin deep, but that there was an underlying essence to race, which seems to also support Hirschfeld’s (1995) research. To illustrate, when asked if she could stop being Native Hawaiian, a young child responded: “No, you are what you are at birth, you can’t just stop, you’re always Hawaiian, it’s in your blood.” Another child responded: “No, ’cause I’m Black, I can never get rid of it, it’s in me forever. It’s stuck on me.” Another child answered the question, “If your skin color changed to white, would you stop being Black and become White?” with: “No, I’ll still have a Black person’s soul.” In response to a similar question about a peer, another child suggested: “No, deep down he’ll still be Black, but on the outside he’ll be White. He’s still Black, but like another coat, just covered.” Finally, another child indicated that he would not change race even if his skin color were changed: “’cause that’s your skin color, Black is the inside, the meat and heart.” At this age, children often viewed an underlying essence in biological terms that was associated with racial status.

Essentialism and race: Development across middle childhood In short, there is a general reduction in reliance on essentialist reasoning to define ethnic and racial status membership in middle childhood (although there will be an increase in late childhood and re‐emergence, albeit in different terms, in adolescence). While young children focused on the more observable markers of racial status, in middle childhood children defined racial or ethnic status based on family heritage. Indeed, the racial label children used was particularly relevant to children’s explanations and reasoning: “to be Black, means you are black, but to be African American means you were born in America but your parents or their parents or way back was from Africa.” Another child suggested: “I’m Mexican American because I



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  303

was born in Mexico and moved to America.” A mixed‐heritage child indicated she was Mexican American because one parent is Mexican and the other American [White non‐Hispanic]. For White children, they often identified, not by their racial heritage, but by the heritage country of their parents: “My dad is from Germany, so I’m German American.” During middle childhood, most children seemed to reject the forms of racial essentialism reflective of younger children. Instead, in middle childhood, most children suggested that racial and ethnic status are mere artifacts of the child’s heritage, that race was skin deep, and that “on the inside” children were all the same. Additionally, at this level, most children were confident that racial status was permanent, assigned at birth: “You can’t change your race,” or “The [cross‐racially] adopted child would still be Black because that’s what his real parents were,” and “[if a cross‐racially adopted child was raised by White family] she might act kinda White but would still be Black.” In summary, the forms of biological essentialism implied by younger children seem to have been replaced by a more familial perspective of race, defined strictly (and permanently) by racial heritage. That is, the biological essentialism in early childhood is reflective of children only being able to reason about surface appearances; in middle childhood, children can infer mental states that may be reflected, or not, by external appearances.

Essentialism and race: late childhood During late childhood, children become more aware of the social nature of their world (Quintana, 1998). The form of essentialism that emerges is more nuanced than in early childhood. For example, when asked to define what it means to be Mexican American, children would often say “to be ­different,” sometimes elaborating on the forms of differences such as “speak a different language,” “have a different culture,” or “your skin is a different color.” Some fixated on this sense of “differentness” or “otherness” as an inherent feature of their ethnic status without elaborating on cultural differences. Even when they referenced the cultural differences, the children’s use of “different” reflected the nonnormativeness of the ethnic status, rather than using “different than” as a point of comparison with another group. Rarely did children provide the comparison group from which their ethnic group was different. In short, to have an ethnic or racial minority status is to be inherently different in U.S. society. A second interesting feature of children’s responses is the emphasis given to the experience of discrimination, as if being the target of bias was a defining feature of being a member of their ethnic group. It is worth noting that this sense of difference

304  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett and of being stigmatized were spontaneously mentioned when the children were defining what their ethnicity meant to them, which is different than those in middle childhood who restricted their spontaneous references to more literal definitions (e.g., biological heritage). Many of the children in late childhood describe in‐group loyalty and favoritism as an inherent feature of ethnic or racial status, where in‐group members would be expected to act in ways that favor their in‐group as well as in ways that distance them from out‐group members. To illustrate: “[I like being Korean when] … [t]raining in martial arts …. The Korean masters actually favor Korean students … I think I get more attention, in a way, from being Korean.” One child who was biracial suggested that there may be an essential nature for biracial children to be able to bridge racial groups as she compared herself to the monoracial members of her extended family, suggesting that because “both of my parents being two races … then I can get along with other races.” When discussing cross‐ racially adopted children, another youth indicated that adopted children would “have, not obligations, but [they’d] need to know what it is [their] heritage does and what other heritages do.” Awareness of stigma and racial hierarchies are also evident in children’s responses in late childhood. When asked how someone becomes prejudiced, some children responded: “they get it [racism] from their parents” or “they get it from their [White] friends.” A Black child describes why Whites may not like being around Blacks: “Most White people, they don’t like Blacks because they feel if they’re around Blacks they’re catching some kind of bad influence.” In these last few examples, an essence associated with race was not passed down at birth, but was inherent in the differences in social experiences to which members of racial groups are exposed. In short, spontaneous references to stigma and difference emerged between middle and late childhood, but the core defining features of ethnicity and race were similar and reflective of dictionary or more literal definitions of ethnic or racial groups. During middle childhood, there was less of the biological essentialism that was characteristic of early childhood. As children move through late childhood and into adolescence, the biological foundation of essentialism is replaced by sociological forms of essentialism in which youth’s notions of race reflect the sociological ­context—the ethnic or racial hierarchy and hegemony that reifies the relative racial privilege and stigma experienced by different racial groups. This later form of essentialism is not based on inherent characteristics handed down at birth and, instead, is a product of the sociological context of race in the youth’s social context, reflective of the racially‐specific experiences persons have because of their race. This trend toward reasoning about racially specific experiences continues into adolescence, a period that is more clearly reflective of essentialism.



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  305

Essentialism and race: Adolescence In the transition to adolescence, we see children’s understanding of race and ethnicity reflect essentialism that is sociological, rather than biological, in form. In other words, during adolescence, the essentialism is different from the biological essentialism of early childhood because youth refer to social context—social identity and social connections—whereas young children made judgments about individual character and did not consider social relations or social attitudes. For example, some White youth revealed essentialist reasoning when asked to consider a biracial youth, appealing to principles of hypodescent, in which “one drop” of, for example, African heritage makes the person Black. One White youth suggested that “if there’s one Black parent, they would be comfortable with both but closer to maybe the Black parent because that person’s the same color and stuff.” It is important to note that this youth equated a biracial youth’s complexion as the “same color” as a monoracial parent, confounding biracial and monoracial individuals. Hirschfeld’s (1995) research backs up the increasing tendency for ­adolescents to misperceive biracial as monoracial persons, compared to younger children. Specifically, Hirschfeld asked White and Black children and adolescents about the offspring from a biracial couple, giving three options: (a) White child, (b)  Black child, and (c) child where the shadings from (a) and (b) were mixed. Among the young children, both Black and White children chose the mixed (c) option. Among adolescents, however, only the Black youth tended to choose the mixed (c) option. The White youth who were in segregated neighborhoods surprisingly choose the “Black” (b) option—subscribing to the hypodescent principle— for the biracial child. Importantly, from a developmental perspective, there is a worsening in the youth’s ability to differentiate biracial from monoracial persons. We believe that the adolescents’ misperceptions are influenced more by the sociological context of racial status, privilege, and stigma compared to young children. The above excerpt is also interesting because the youth implied that the biracial child would be closer to his or her Black parent than to the White parent; whereas, during middle childhood, more equality was demonstrated in whether or not a biracial child would be closer to one or the other parent. We believe that the adolescent’s perceptions of social relationship are influenced by the sociological context of race, which assumes that being partially Black is more influential than being partially White in terms of closeness with parents in a mixed‐race family. Another youth in our research indicated that “[biracial youth] would be looked upon as different because they are part White and they could say that they are trying to be a Black person or they could that they are trying to be White, there is no medium, [emphasis added] they are looked on as different.” Again, the sociological context—which is grounded in racial categories—makes it difficult for the adolescents

306  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett to consider someone who is both White and Black. They have a hard time understanding that some midpoint between Black and White is a viable social space to inhabit. A biracial student in Cabinte’s (2013) study indicated that being partially White was seen as delegitimizing her claim to a Black racial identity and vice versa. Hence, during adolescence, biracial youths may not be seen as bona fide members of either racial group: to be White is to undermine any claim to be authentically Black and being Black undermines claims to being White. In short, during adolescence, to be White means the youth is not Black and to be Black means the youth is not White. This is essentialist thinking. Another context in which essentialist thinking is revealed is when adolescents consider another form of racial mixture—specifically, when a youth is monoracial but has the expressions, values, and/or lifestyles reflective of a different racial group. During adolescence, expressing in‐group pride was emphasized, with those who fail to show in‐group loyalty being accused of “selling out,” with each of the major ethnic groups coining their own terms: “Oreo” for African Americans, “Coconut” for Latinos, “Apple” for Native Americans, and “Banana” for Asian Americans. The terms suggest that although those who sell out are nominally a member of the various minority ethnic or racial groups, their inside essence reflects a White racial way of being. An example is: “I know personally somebody that is Black that they talk real proper English and stuff like that and people label that person as being White.” The term “acting White” refers to Blacks accused of assimilating to White norms (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). This kind of essentialist thinking is different than earlier in childhood because, during adolescence, the essence of race could be different than the phenotypic marker of race. During adolescence, the essence of race is not based on a phenotype, as some youth may be “excommunicated” from their racial group for failing to uphold in‐group norms. Instead, the defining feature of being an accepted member of a racial group, among youth of color, was often how someone expressed his or her racial identity. A third way in which adolescents appeal to essentialist notions is their treatment of those who try to cross racial boundaries. Indeed, a study of attitudes toward “Puerto Rican wannabe” adolescents, who appropriated Puerto Rican culture, including manner of dress, appearance, dialect, and dating preferences (i.e., Puerto Rican males), revealed contempt by their White peers as “fallen White girls” who rebelled against their middle‐class White backgrounds (Wilkins, 2004). Additionally, Wilkins found that the Puerto Rican youth who considered themselves racially authentic found the “wannabes” to be embarrassing due to their caricature of Puerto Rican youth culture. As another example of derogatory terms being used to refer to those who cross, and thereby violate, racial boundaries, “wigger” refers to a White person appropriating Black culture (Wilkins, 2004). The coining and use of these terms to differentiate external appearance to some racial essence reflects essentialist



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  307

notions of race and the policing, or sanctions against, violations of racial categories that are considered discrete and non‐overlapping. Quintana (1998) noted ethnic minority youth would, during adolescence, exaggerate the degree of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity and the psychological distance between in‐groups and out‐groups, consistent with racial essentialism. Cokley (2002) described Black essentialism during adolescence and young adulthood as a form of orthodoxy that polices in‐group members’ allegiance to Black cultural norms and expressions. More generally, Nadal, Sriken, Davidoff, Wong, and McLean (2013) describe micro‐aggressions against mixed‐ race persons such that it was assumed that they were either one race or another. The possibility of being mixed was not considered. The nonoverlapping, discrete nature of racial boundaries reflected during adolescence is characteristic of essentialist notions of race.

Conclusions and Implications of Racial Essentialism What are the implications of essentialism for interracial group interactions and racial group identification for children and youth? The above review has focused on how essentialism is reflected in children’s and adolescents’ views of boundaries between racial groups, essential and defining features of ethnic and racial status, as well as the immutable nature of racial status. These forms of essentialism reflect descriptive aspects of reasoning about group status. However, an important component of essentialism is its inductive potential, generalizing, or stereotyping across members of a social category. That is, essentialist reasoning has important implications for inferring and generalizing psychological characteristics that extend beyond descriptive features and include evaluative components associated with membership in an essential category. Additionally, the above review has also focused on explicit reasoning about racial and ethnic groups, but essentialist beliefs can reflect implicit bias associated with ethnic and racial status. Below we briefly review a few of the important consequences of essentialist thinking associated with implicit attitudes about self and other for ethnic and racial minority children and youth. Specifically we focus on entity beliefs, which are beliefs that human characteristics are fixed and unchangeable, and are the natural and expected consequence of essentialist reasoning. Holding entity beliefs about abilities, which includes the belief that abilities are unaffected by instructional practices, hard work, or student motivation, can have important implications when applied to racial and ethnic groups (for review see Jones, Bryant, Snyder, & Malone, 2012; Rattan, Good, & Dweck, 2011).

308  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett As mentioned above, holding essentialist views of race and ethnicity is associated with higher levels of ethnic and racial bias (Bastian & Haslam, 2006). This is important because both children and adults can show this bias, and this has important consequences for children and adolescents in school settings. For example, teachers who hold entity beliefs as a result of their essentialist thinking (essentialist thinking that was established in adolescence and resistant to change in adulthood) may approach teaching and learning in a manner consistent with the belief that abilities are fixed and unaffected by instruction or motivation. They readily form conclusions about students’ abilities based on minimal information, making fewer attributions to situational factors, such as effort (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). This may lead to biased expectations about the achievement of students in certain racial groups. Indeed, McKown and Weinstein (2008) estimated the total effect of teacher bias on student achievement over the course of an academic year and found that teacher expectations in high‐bias classrooms accounted for one third of the standard deviation of the achievement gap between racial groups. How do teacher expectations translate into student achievement? People act in accordance with their beliefs about ability, and, if teachers hold essentialist beliefs, they may approach racially stigmatized groups in ways that are consistent with the notion of the fundamental difference between racial groups. Finally, research also reveals that essentialist views about race have important implications for implicit attitudes about the self. Dweck and Molden (2005) argue that entity beliefs are associated with low performance on a wide variety of indices of academic performance including motivation, academic grades, learning strategies, as well as the amount of effort expended during learning. For example, entity beliefs were associated with the endorsement of the sense that the harder they study, the less intelligent they feel and when faced with an academic setback, they would spend less time on that subject area. Cury, Da Fonseca, Zahn, and Elliot (2008) also found that while anxiety and worry increased, practice and performance decreased for those scoring high for entity beliefs, even before any setbacks, disappointments, or failures were encountered. Again, this is important when applied to racial and ethnic group, particularly if the assumption is that the reason there is an achievement gap between groups is because of innate or fixed reasons.

Summary We have charted the ebb and flow as well as the changing nature of essentialist beliefs associated with race and ethnicity. Across contexts, the nature of essentialism in children’s development provides a window into the logic of how they think about the social categories. Quintana’s (1998) work and model were used to chart developmental



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  309

progression in essentialist beliefs. Early in childhood, essentialist beliefs are shaped around biological principles associated with physical phenotypic manifestations of race. Through middle and late childhood, racial and ethnic status are less associated with essentialist beliefs and more determined by heritage and historical features associated with the history of the child’s family and of the child’s racial group. This is probably because the older children can infer the mental states of others, rather than relying only on physical appearances. As youth approach adolescence, there is a resurgence of essentialism, but one focused less on an inherent nature at birth and more on essential experiences (such as being stigmatized), being “othered,” or showing an expression of a certain racial identity. Lastly, we discussed the consequences of essentialist reasoning, particularly entity beliefs in educational and learning contexts.

References Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A.‐B. (1993). The early development of ethnic identity and attitudes. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 47–59). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Alejandro‐Wright, M. N. (1985). The child’s conception of racial classification: A socio‐cognitive developmental model. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of black children (pp. 185–200). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anzures, G., Quinn, P. C., Pascalis, O., Slater, A. M., Tanaka, J. W., & Lee, K. (2013). Developmental origins of the other‐race effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 173–178. doi:10.1177/0963721412474459 Aristotle (1889). The Nicomachean ethics. (R. W. Browne, Trans.). London: William Clowes and Sons. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Balas, B., Westerlund, A., Hung, K., & Nelson, C. A. I. (2011). Shape, color and the other‐ race effect in the infant brain. Developmental Science, 14(4), 892–900. doi:10.1111/ j.1467‐7687.2011.01039.x Banaji, M. R., Baron, A. S., Dunham, Y., & Olson, K. (2008). The development of intergroup social cognition: Early emergence, implicit nature, and sensitivity to group status. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 87–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bastian, B., & Halsam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003 Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2007.00995.x

310  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett Cabinte, D. (2013). Mixed heritage college student experiences of race‐oriented s­ tudent services. Unpublished dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison. Cokley, K. (2002). To be or not to be Black: Problematics in racial identity. In R. Birt (Ed.), The quest for community and identity: Critical essays in Africana social philosophy (pp. 29–44). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Cury, F., Da Fonseca, D., Zahn, I., & Elliot, A (2008). Implicit theories and IQ test performance: A sequential mediational analysis, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 783–791. DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10–18. Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 829–849. doi:10.1111/0022‐4537.00244 Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross‐cultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77(5), 1268–1281. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00933.x Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self‐theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), The handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122–140). New York, NY: Guilford. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of acting White.” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206. doi:10.1007/BF01112192 Freeman, J. B., Schiller, D., Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2010). The neural origins of superficial and individuated judgments about ingroup and outgroup members. Human Brain Mapping, 31(1), 150–159. Gawronski, B., Peters, K. R., Brochu, P. M., & Strack, F. (2008). Understanding the relations between different forms of racial prejudice: A cognitive consistency perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 648–665. doi:10.1177/0146167207313729 Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404–409. Gelman, S. A., & Legare, C. H. (2011). Concepts and Folk Theories. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40(1), 379–398. doi:10.1146/annurev‐anthro‐081309‐145822 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033‐295X. 108.4.814 Haslam, N. O. (1998). Natural kinds, human kinds, and essentialism. Social Research, 65(2), 291–314. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100. Hirschfeld, L. (1997). The conceptual politics of race: Lessons from our children. Ethos, 25, 63–92. Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). The inheritability of identity: Children’s understanding of the cultural biology of race. Child Development, 66(5), 1418–1437. doi:10.2307/1131655



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  311

Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hirschfeld, L. A. (2008). Children’s developing conceptions of race. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 37–54). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hirschfeld, L., Bartmess, E., White, S., & Frith, U. (2007). Can autistic­ children predict behavior by social stereotypes? Current Biology, 17(12), R451–R452. Howell, A. J., & Woolgar, S. R. (2013). Essentialism and compassion: Predicting preference for noun labels applied to people with mental disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.013 Huxley T. (1874). On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history. Nature, 10, 362–366 Hughes, D., Rivas, D., Foust, M., Hagelskamp, C., Gersick, S., & Way, N. (2008). How to catch a moonbeam: A mixed‐methods approach to understanding ethnic socialization processes in ethnically diverse families. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 226–277). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Jayaratne, T. E., Ybarra, O., Sheldon, J. P., Brown, T. N., Feldbaum, M., Pfeffer, C. A., & Petty, E. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward Blacks and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94. doi: 10.1177/1368430206059863 Jones, B. D., Bryant, L. H.., Snyder, J. D., & Malone, D. (2012). Preservice and inservice teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 87–101. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.88.4.686 Lam, V., Guerrero, S., Damree, N., & Enesco, I. (2011). Young children’s racial awareness and affect and their perceptions about mothers’ racial affect in a multiracial context. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 842–864. doi:10.1348/2044‐835X.002013 Mahalingam, R. (2007). Culture, power and psychology of marginality. In A. Fuligni (Ed.), Social categories, social identities, and educational participation (pp. 42–65). New York: Russell Sage. McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235–261. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2007.05.001 Morton, T. A., & Postmes, T. (2009). When differences become essential: Minority essentialism in response to majority treatment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 656–668. doi: 10.1177/0146167208331254 Nadal, K. L., Sriken, J., Davidoff, K. C., Wong, Y., & McLean, K. (2013). Microaggressions within families: Experiences of multiracial people. Family Relations, 62(1), 190–201. doi:10.1111/j.1741‐3729.2012.00752.x Olson, K. R., Dweck, C. S., Spelke, E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Children’s responses to group‐based inequalities: Perpetuation and rectification. Social Cognition, 29(3), 270–287. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.270

312  Stephen M. Quintana, Julia Z. Benjamin, and Patrice Leverett Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Quintana, S. M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7(1), 27–45. Quintana, S. M., Chavez, T. C., & Ramirez Stege, A. M. (2014). What does it mean to be Mexican American? Children’s and adolescents’ perspectives. In Y. Caldera & E. Trejos (Eds.), Mexican American children and families: Multi‐disciplinary perspectives (pp. 13–26). New York, NY: Routledge. Quintana, S. M., Herrera, T. A. S., & Nelson, M. L. (2010). Mexican American high school students ethnic self‐concepts and identity. Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 11–28. doi:10.1111/j.1540‐4560.2009.01630.x Quintana, S. M., & Smith, A. V. (2012). African American children’s racial identifications and identity: Development of racial narratives. In J. M. Sullivan & A. M. Esmail (Eds.), African American identity: Racial and cultural dimensions of the Black experience (pp. 289–313). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield. Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). “It’s ok — not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 731–737. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012 Rhodes, M., Leslie, S. J., & Tworek, C. M. (2012). Cultural transmission of social essentialism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109, 13526–13531. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208951109 Sangrigoli, S., Pallier, C., Argenti, A.‐M., Ventureyra, V. A. G., & de Schonen, S. (2005). Reversibility of the other‐race effect in face recognition during childhood. Psychological Science, 16(6), 440–444. doi:10.1111/j.0956‐7976.2005.01554.x Semaj, L. (1980). The development of racial evaluation and preference: A cognitive approach. Journal of Black Psychology, 6(2), 59–79. doi:10.1177/009579848000600201 Schmader, T., Hall, W., & Croft, A. (2015). Stereotype threat in intergroup relations. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 2: Group processes (pp. 447–471). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sperber, D., & Hirschfeld, L. A. (2004). The cognitive foundations of cultural s­ tability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.002 Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. A. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting children’s interethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta‐analytic and field studies. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 236–248). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Uleman, J. S., Saribay, S. A., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329–360. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093707 Waxman, S., Medin, D., & Ross, N. (2007). Folkbiological reasoning from a cross‐cultural developmental perspective: Early essentialist notions are shaped by cultural beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 43, 294–308. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.43.2.294.



Essentialism and Children’s Reasoning about Race and Ethnicity  313

Wheeler, M. E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Controlling racial prejudice: Social‐cognitive goals affect amygdala and stereotype activation. Psychological Science, 16, 56–63. doi: 10.1111/j.0956‐7976.2005.00780.x Wilkins, A. C. (2004). Puerto Rican wannabes sexual spectacle and the marking of race, class, and gender boundaries. Gender & Society, 18(1), 103–121. doi:10.1177/ 0891243203259505 Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155. Zagefka, H. Nigbur, D., Gonzalez, R., & Tip, L. (2013). Why does ingroup essentialism increase prejudice against minority members? International Journal of Psychology, 48, 60–68. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.729841

PART V Groups and Bullying

15 Bullying in School and Online Contexts: Social Dominance, Bystander Compliance, and the Emotional Pain of Victims Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter

Introduction Bullying is a pervasive problem among school‐aged youth, and the topic has generated a large body of empirical research. Most of the research focuses on bullies and/or their targets by examining individual differences (e.g., personality characteristics or social deficits) that can help account for their respective adjustment problems. Less attention has been paid to the larger group context and social functions of bullying. To fill this void, in the current chapter we highlight the group context and the interpersonal dynamics involved in bullying. More specifically, we examine the contextual conditions that give rise to bullying, the motives underlying bullying behaviors, the plight of victims, and the role of bystanders. By focusing on within‐ group dynamics, we examine these issues in groups and collectives that youth have no choice but to belong to (e.g., classrooms, schools). Examination of bullying

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

318  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter in such involuntary groups provides new insights about its social functions and consequences for the victims as well as bystanders (Juvonen & Galván, 2008). Bullying takes many forms, ranging from hitting and kicking to manipulation of social reputations and relationships online. All of these behaviors are designed to intimidate, humiliate or belittle the target (Juvonen & Graham, 2014). Bullies do not aggress against everyone, but rather strategically target specific individuals. Moreover, bullying involves more than a private interaction between the perpetrator (i.e., bully) and the target (i.e., the victim; Salmivalli, 2010). Unlike domestic violence or dating violence that frequently remain hidden from others, bullying typically takes place in front of an audience. For example, Johnny wants to trip and humiliate a classmate in a cafeteria full of students, not in an empty hallway. Finally, bullying involves an imbalance of power (Olweus, 1993) that distinguishes it from conflict situations where two parties have, or are presumed to have, similar levels of power. While many direct forms of bullying (e.g., physical aggression, threats, and name‐calling) specifically involve humiliation in front of an audience, other more indirect forms of bullying explicitly use the peer group as a vehicle of the attack (Xie, Swift, Cairns, & Cairns, 2002). To be able to damage someone’s reputation or social status, a bully relies on the cooperation of peers to spread nasty rumors about someone or exclude the targeted individual from the group (Björkqvist, Österman, & Lagerspetz, 1994). Indeed, different social roles can be identified based on the level of cooperation with the perpetrator (Olweus, 1993; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1998). For example, some youths are eager to assist the perpetrator but do not instigate attacks on their own (Olweus, 1993). Others do not assist or join in the bullying but nevertheless end up reinforcing bullying by watching or helping spread rumors (Salmivalli et al., 1998). These “reinforcers” are the bystanders whose subtle actions (e.g., smiles) in response to witnessed bullying incidents not only reinforce the power imbalance between the perpetrator and the target, but also further encourage bullying (Salmivalli, 2010). The goal of this chapter is to extend the above‐mentioned analyses of group processes involved in bullying by highlighting the social dominance function of the behavior and its effects on the group. Rather than relying on any one theory, we interpret largely descriptive empirical findings in light of relevant theoretical constructs. We start by examining the motives underlying bullying behaviors and the social functions of the latter. In the second section, we account for bystander compliance and explain how the lack of public objection to bullying helps shape misperceptions of social norms that maintain it. We then review, in the third section, whom bullies are most likely to target, and how the distress of the victims varies depending on certain contextual features of schools (e.g., level of victimization). In the fourth section, we turn to electronic or cyberbullying and discuss



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  319

how the features of the online context may promote bullying and intensify the distress of the target. The fifth section concludes the chapter with a brief discussion of lessons learned from the reviewed research on how to prevent and intervene with bullying.

Motives Underlying and Group Functions of Bullying Up until recently, bullying, much like any type of childhood aggression, was ­presumed to reflect lack of social skills and predict antisocial personality of the ­perpetrator (e.g., Olweus, 1978). However, to date, there is substantial evidence suggesting that many forms of bullying demand sophisticated social skills (e.g., Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 2000), and most young people’s engagement in bullying, much as in other antisocial and d ­ isruptive behaviors, is short‐lived (Broidy et al., 2003). In light of this temporal instability, we might ask when and why some youth would want to intimidate and humiliate their peers. Some bullies readily admit that they resort to coercive behaviors in order to feel powerful and in control (Ojanen, Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999). When asked how important it is to be visible, influential, and admired, those who engage in bullying score high (Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, & Peets, 2005; Sitsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). For example, Salmivalli et al. (2005) showed that while valuing power and status were negatively related to social withdrawal and prosocial behaviors, they were positively related to proactive aggression (i.e., bullying). If bullying behaviors reflect a need or desire to be powerful and prominent, then one might expect bullying to peak during times of social uncertainty or change. ­ etworks. One of One such time pertains to school transitions that interrupt peer n the most abrupt educational transitions in the United States is the one from elementary to middle school (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Compared to elementary schools, middle schools tend to be several times larger in both physical size and student population (Juvonen, Le, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004). In middle school, students also have multiple teachers who do not know their students as well as teachers in elementary school do, and even classmates may vary from one class to the next throughout the school day. Thus, the shift from a highly structured and personal setting to a much less structured and more anonymous one may give rise to bullying. Indeed, bullying behaviors increase between elementary and middle school (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Moreover, there is a particularly robust association between bullying and social prominence after the transition to the new school (e.g., Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Galván, Spatizer, & Juvonen,

320  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter 2011). Thus, bullying may come to serve a new function in this less personal and less structured school environment. We propose that the social uncertainties associated with the transition to middle school not only increase the prevalence, but also enhance the utility and value of bullying. Bullying may, therefore, function much like aggression in some nonhuman primate troops: social hierarchies are established and maintained through demonstrations of power (e.g., Savin‐Williams, 1977). Although bullying is not the only way to secure a ­dominant status (e.g., de Waal, 1986; Hawley, 1999), bullying might nevertheless be a particularly effective way to exert control and feel powerful in expanding novel settings. But what can then account for classroom and school differences during nontransition times? There is evidence suggesting that the rates of bullying vary as a function of the salience of social hierarchies. If the social function of bullying is, in part, to gain status and power, then we might expect bullying to be more common in environments where there is competition for social status. Indeed, students in classrooms with stronger hierarchies are at higher risk of victimization (Wolke, Woods, & Samara, 2009), while aggressive students are more popular and better liked (Garandeau, Ahn, & Rodkin, 2011). Longitudinal analyses indicate that status hierarchies precede increases in bullying behaviors (Garandeau, Lee, & Salmivalli, 2014). To better understand the interplay between motives underlying bullying behaviors, social hierarchy formation, and the effects of the hierarchy in further facilitating bullying behaviors, we now turn to analyzing the role of those who ­witness bullying. After all, the social success of bullies depends largely on the reactions of group members who witness the behavior.

Group Norms and Bystander Compliance The means that help aggressive youth gain and maintain high social status also shape group norms. Studying gossip among adults, Baumeister, Zhang, and Vohs (2004) demonstrated that those who spread rumors (one form of bullying) gain social status because engaging in this activity conveys that the gossiper knows the rules that govern the collective. While participation in gossip can strengthen and even elevate one’s status within the group, the very characteristics targeted by bullies (behaviors, body shape or size, clothing, etc.), in turn, convey what is not tolerated by the members of this group. For example, in her study of middle schools, Eder (1995) demonstrated that norms about sexuality were enforced through gender policing. That is, youth who deviated from the gender norms were labeled as “sluts” and “fags” by those in the position of power. Even when the labels were untrue or



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  321

incorrect, the process of ridicule and gossip reinforced the norms (e.g., notions about female and male sexuality). Indeed, focusing on deviations or violations of social norms is an effective way to foster compliance among group members (Baumeister et al., 2004). Bullying also fosters compliance among bystanders who witness such behavior. Observational data obtained in Canadian elementary schools show that, while peers are present in over 85% of bullying situations, a peer tries to stop the behavior in only about 10–19% of cases (Atlas & Pepler, 1998). Although most youth regard bullying as unacceptable or wrong (Boulton, Trueman, & Flemington, 2002; Rigby & Johnson, 2006), they typically go along with it and rarely challenge the behavior or stand up for the victim (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001; Salmivalli et al., 1998). In the case of repeated bullying incidents where the bully attacks the same target over and over again, diffusion of responsibility (Darley & Latane, 1968)—a construct used to account for bystanders’ inaction in response to violent crime where they do not know one another or the victim—seems inadequate to account for bystander passivity. To comprehend the lack of responses to incidents, we need to understand how bullying affects those who witness such incidents. The mere witnessing of bullying is emotionally distressing, which might explain why bystanders fail to intervene. By relying on end‐of‐school‐day mood ratings and open‐ended accounts of daily bullying incidents (both personally experienced and witnessed), Nishina and Juvonen (2005) demonstrated that both anxiety and school dislike peaked during the days when middle school students saw someone else being bullied. Other studies suggest that fear of retaliation or threat to one’s own social standing as well as lack of confidence in knowing how to effectively intervene can account for bystander passivity (e.g., Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2008; Mishna & Alaggia, 2005; Pöyhönen, Juvonen & Salmivalli, 2010; Sentse, Scholte, Salmivalli & Voeten, 2007). While anxiety and self‐protective motives can help explain why most youth are reluctant to intervene in bullying, the exceptions involve those with high social status. Examining the relations between feeling empathy for the victims and defending as well as self‐efficacy to intervene and defend, Pöyhönen at al. (2010) found that these associations were each moderated by social status. That is, only high‐social‐status individuals were impelled by their empathy and sense of self‐ efficacy to intervene. By failing to protect the victims, most bystanders thereby align themselves with bullies. When bullying incidents take place, some bystanders respond by smiling and laughing, giving the impression that they approve of the behavior (Salmivalli et al., 1998). But even the mere passivity of the onlookers suggests that they do not object to the behavior (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). Although youth should recognize that they themselves do not always act consistent with their moral judgments,

322  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter they interpret others’ public behavior (i.e., not objecting to bullying) as indicating their approval of the behavior. Thus, bystander compliance gives rise to pluralistic ignorance (Miller & Prentice, 1994) when youth falsely assume that peers’ behavior reflects their approval of bullying. Such misperceptions in turn further promote bullying. This link was demonstrated by Sandstrom, Makover, and Bartini (2012) who compared 4th‐ and 8th‐graders’ perceptions of their personal attitudes and their classmates’ attitudes toward bullying. Not only did students perceive the attitudes of their classmates to be more favorable than their own (i.e., more supportive of bullying), but also their overestimation of classmates’ approval was related to higher likelihood of joining the bullying and lower likelihood of defending the victim. While misperceived group norms help further account for why youth fail to show their concern for victims of bullying even when they condemn the behavior, the power of social norms can also work the other way. Pozzoli and Gini (2010) showed that perceived pressure to intervene, in turn, predicts defending. Thus, in addition to social status, group norms play a critical role in either inhibiting or encouraging bystander involvement. Taken together, these findings again demonstrate the importance of the larger group context: bystanders’ passivity is not explained by lack of personal concerns or inability to feel for the victim, but rather by (mis)perceptions of group norms and their social rank.

Victim Plight in Context Thus far we have reviewed the role of social hierarchies in promoting bullying and how bullying and the hierarchical structure of the group shape peer norms. We have also described how policing group norms relates to bystander compliance and how pluralistic ignorance about the acceptability of bullying can further encourage bullying. Although we have referenced victims of bullying insofar as they are targeted by bullies and not helped by bystanders, here we shift our focus to accounting for the emotional pain of victims and how this varies across different group contexts. It is well established that victims of bullying exhibit a variety of concurrent and long‐term psychosocial problems. In the short term, students who are bullied often experience internalizing symptoms (e.g., feeling anxious and depressed; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010), school adjustment difficulties (e.g., attendance problems, poor grades; Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005), and physical health complaints (e.g., headaches, nausea; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). Even experiencing single incidents of bullying is related to increased daily levels of humiliation and



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  323

anxiety (Nishina & Juvonen, 2005). Furthermore, longitudinal analyses suggest that victimization experiences have lasting effects on the chronically bullied. Controlling for a range of childhood risk factors, those who are bullied during childhood or adolescence are more likely to experience psychiatric problems in adulthood, compared to nonvictimized youth (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). Thus, there is much evidence that victims of bullying experience high levels of emotional distress not only as these incidents occur, but also, in some cases, over the course of many years. Can we then predict who is likely to be bullied by their peers? Given the strategic nature of bullying, it is not surprising that perpetrators target those who do not fit the group (e.g., classroom or school) norms. For example, youth who are overweight (Pearce, Boergers, & Prinstein, 2002), those who physically mature “off‐time” compared to peers (Reynolds & Juvonen, 2010), youth with disabilities (Son, Parish, & Peterson, 2012), or those who are perceived to be, or who identify as, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT; Katz‐Wise & Hyde, 2012) are likely to be targeted in most school settings. It appears that personal characteristics and particular social identities are conducive to bullying especially when accompanied by marginalized social status (Hodges & Perry, 1999). Hence, in addition to indicating what is not tolerated or what might threaten the group’s image, bullies target the most nonconforming individuals who are also frequently less socially connected. Indeed, experimental evidence suggests that by early adolescence nonconforming in‐group members are evaluated more harshly than out‐ group members who are perceived as similar to oneself (Abrams, Rutland & Cameron, 2003). The least fitting classmates (or schoolmates), therefore, suffer not only from bullying but also from social isolation and lack of support within their collectives. We presume that the silence of the bystanders further exacerbates the humiliation and pain of the victimization experience. Under these circumstances, the victim is likely to conclude that “nobody cares about me” or “there is nothing I can do to stop this.” Indeed, internalizing problems (e.g., depression, loneliness) are linked to victims’ tendency to blame themselves for these bullying experiences. Specifically, victims of bullying frequently endorse characterological self‐blaming attributions, which involve attributing an event to something internal, uncontrollable, and stable (e.g., It’s something about the type of person I am; Graham & Juvonen, 1998). Such attributions help account for the distress of the victimized (Graham & Juvonen, 1998) as well as the continuation of victimization (Schacter, White, Chang, & Juvonen, 2015). Maladaptive self‐blaming attributions are also sensitive to the broader social context in which victims experience bullying. Focusing on an ethnically diverse sample of middle school students, Schacter and Juvonen (2015) found that, when

324  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter bullied youth attended schools with lower levels of overall victimization, they were more likely to turn inward and feel “It’s all my fault.” Victims at schools with higher levels of victimization, in contrast, were more likely to attribute these negative experiences to more controllable and less stable factors, such as being “in the wrong place in the wrong time.” Consistent with these findings regarding attributions, the associations between victimization and mental health (i.e., social anxiety, depression) are also stronger in settings with lower overall levels of bullying and victimization (Bellmore, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2004; Huitsing, Veenstra, Sainio, & Salmivalli, 2012). This is one demonstration of how social cognitions (e.g., self‐ blame) are shaped not only by personal experiences, but also by the normativity of the experiences within groups and collectives. Such findings highlight that victimization experiences are embedded within a broader group and school context, which has implications for victims’ subsequent adjustment. Beyond the overall prevalence of victimization at school, another important contextual feature relating to youth’s bullying experiences is ethnic composition—specifically the ethnic diversity of schools. As classroom‐ and school‐level ethnic diversity increases, students belonging to societally ­marginalized ethnic groups (African American and Latino) report feeling a greater sense of safety at school, and less loneliness and victimization (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006). We presume that schools with high ethnic diversity possibly provide students with more opportunities to fit in, and, as such, they may also reduce the need to establish and maintain a social hierarchy, while in homogeneous settings group members may feel pressure to conform to a narrow set of norms. Further analyses of diverse settings by Graham, Munniksma, and Juvonen (2013) showed how those students who were able to “take advantage” of the diversity of the school by forming cross‐ethnic friendships felt least vulnerable. Taken together, these findings suggest that the composition of groups and collectives is another important contextual factor to consider.

The Electronic Context of Cyberbullying Thus far we have focused on the role of group processes and larger contextual variants within schools and classrooms. But, in recent years, bullying increasingly occurs online as well. Cyberbullying has been defined as targeted humiliation or intimidation (e.g., insults or threats) sent and received through the use of the Internet or mobile devices (Smith et  al., 2008). Across studies of cyberbullying, prevalence estimates generally range between 10 and 40% reporting cybervictimization, and approximately 10 to 20% reporting cyberbullying others (see Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014 for meta‐analysis). Many of the same



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  325

students who are targets of school‐based bullying also experience cybervictimization (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Similarly, there is significant overlap between students involved in traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Kowalski et  al., 2014). The question relevant to this chapter is whether the group processes underlying cyberbullying, bystander compliance, and victim plight might be unique to online environments. In spite of the overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying, certain features or properties of electronic communication are likely to magnify both bullying behaviors and experiences. For example, limited monitoring (i.e., by adults) and potential for anonymity create a venue where youth do not necessarily think twice about posting or sending hurtful messages (Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009). At the same time, lack of social cues (e.g., facial expressions, emotional reactions) promotes greater levels of self‐disclosure (Mesch, 2009). In focus groups (Mishna et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2008), youth have specifically expressed concerns about increased disclosure. When they convey sensitive information about themselves and their relationships online, this information can then be used to humiliate them. Thus, cyberspace promotes disinhibited behaviors, making bullying perpetration easier, while also increasing the odds of becoming the target of bullying. Bystander responses, in turn, appear to be swayed by factors similar to school‐ based bullying. For example, in an experimental study of online bystander behavior, Bastiaensens and colleagues (2014) found that youth witnessing cyberbullying were more likely to join in and engage in similar behaviors if they were told that their good friends were also encouraging the bullying. Consistent with our previous analysis of the social function of bullying, these results suggest that joining in bullying behavior may be particularly common when such behaviors are regarded as normative among close friends. Given the above described dynamics with bullies and bystanders, there are reasons to expect that experiences with bullying in the electronic environment may be particularly distressing for victims. Youth report that picture/video clip and chatroom bullying are significantly worse experiences than traditional bullying (Smith et  al., 2008). This may be partially attributable to the very public nature of information posted on social media (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Unless strict privacy settings are enacted, when a humiliating photo of a student is posted on Facebook, it reaches wide audiences, not just a close group of friends. Moreover, victims often experience cyberbullying at home, alone, and without the immediate support of peers to step in (Smith et al., 2008). This experience may then feel as if the victim is humiliated under a spotlight on stage, while the audience hides in the darkness of a large auditorium. Taken together, the lack of social cues online may facilitate bullying behavior and also increase risk of being targeted due to greater self‐disclosure. Although the

326  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter group processes of witnessing cyberbullying may function similarly to those operating in school‐based bullying, visible reminders of one’s large social network audience (e.g., number of Facebook friends) may make the victimization experiences more painful. Thus, there are reasons to expect that the specific features of the online environment not only promote the hostile behaviors, but may also magnify the pain of the targets.

Lessons Learned In this chapter, our goal was to provide a social‐contextual framework for understanding the group processes involved in bullying during childhood and adolescence. By examining how the prevalence and impact of bullying behavior shifts across different social and structural features of environments, we have identified specific conditions under which bullying may be particularly useful and when experiencing bullying may be especially painful for victims. Where do we go from here? We hope that our discussion of bullying offers several important lessons regarding the processes underlying this behavior and implications for prevention and intervention initiatives. First, we have emphasized the critical role of considering environmental features when understanding the motivation behind bullying. Based on the research reviewed here, it is important for researchers, policymakers, and school personnel to be aware of how large, unstructured, and anonymous environments necessitate the creation of structure. Youth may fill this desire by forming social status hierarchies, which are, in turn, related to elevated levels of bullying. Moving forward, it will be important to experiment with the implementation of school organizational structures. Specifically, these structures should reduce the need for youth to rely on bullying in order to form social hierarchies during social transitions. Another goal is to change the social norms so that social status can be gained not by subordinating others, but by being brave enough to stand up for others (cf., Gini et al., 2008). At the same time, it is also vital to consider the individual motives of bullies. If bullying is about fulfilling a need to dominate others, perhaps schools can offer leadership opportunities for students that allow them to harness this motivation in a more productive and acceptable fashion. Additionally, our review highlights that bullying is, at its core, a dynamic social process. Bullying does not just involve an exchange between perpetrator and victim; rather, a defining feature of bullying is that it occurs in front of an (often silent or encouraging) audience. Given the power of social norms to guide behavior, and given that most youth misinterpret bystander passivity as a sign of approval, it



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  327

might be important to teach youth about such misperceptions. Making students aware of each other’s true beliefs and attitudes about bullying (i.e., that it is unacceptable) may help to prevent pluralistic ignorance and hesitance to take a stand in bullying situations. For example, the KiVa bullying intervention in Finland has shown success by providing students with methods to enhance empathy and self‐ efficacy, and to show support to victims (Kärnä et al., 2011). This program also publicizes students’ private attitudes towards bullying, in order to eliminate their impressions that others agree with it. Thus, we believe that interventions that go beyond traditional approaches (e.g., advertising what is not tolerated in school and the importance of reporting incidents) and aim to change the social norms that support bullying have great promise. Although changing peer group norms may help victims of bullying feel more supported, we must also be increasingly sensitive to the role of the broader context in the victim experience. In light of the strong associations between victimization, attributions of self‐blame, and subsequent distress, it is critical to acknowledge how various environmental conditions of a ­victim’s experience (e.g., varying levels of victimization at school) may give rise to different interpretations of why they were targeted. Thus, in addition to interventions that aim to change group norms, techniques like attributional retraining might be particularly effective in alleviating victims’ tendencies to blame themselves, thereby reducing their negative mental health outcomes. These programs may be especially effective for students who are targeted in schools that lack ethnic diversity, or where they represent the predominant ethnic group (Graham, Bellmore, Nishina, & Juvonen, 2009). Diversity of the student body is another important feature of school environments that might help curb bullying behavior. Environments that can promote a balance of power among ethnic groups are beneficial insofar as they encourage an egalitarian social setting where bullying does not serve the same benefits as in a more structured, or hierarchical environment. But other types of diversity pertaining to socioeconomic differences, variations in sexual orientation, and numbers of students with disabilities may also matter. In more homogenous schools, it may be particularly obvious when a student does not fit group norms. Furthermore, social norms regarding what is and is not tolerated can become increasingly narrow if bullying continues. Thus, many forms of diversity might promote multiple group norms where most students can find their niche and feel both safe and accepted. Finally, we also discussed cyberspace as a relevant context for understanding bullying behaviors and victim plight. There are a number of similarities between online and offline (e.g., school) contexts. In terms of the unique risks posed by cyber environments, we acknowledge that the majority of students today use online ­communication to maintain and expand existing social relationships. In turn, we do not suggest that youth should avoid using these media; in fact, there is evidence

328  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter that social interactions with peers online can be quite beneficial for students coping with exclusion (Gross, 2009). Although we have highlighted the potential negative consequences of online communication among youth, it is important to realize that texting, tweeting, and Facebook posting also offer opportunities for positive social development. As such, intervention and prevention programs specifically targeting cyberbullying should not only use similar approaches to those listed above (e.g., encouraging bystander intervention, improving victim attributions) but also find ways to capitalize on these features of online environment that can promote adaptive coping. References Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and deviant in‐group and out‐group individuals. Child Development, 74, 1840–1856. Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99. Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 259–271. Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8, 111. Bellmore, A. D., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2004). Beyond the individual: The impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims’ adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1159–1172. Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social intelligence— empathy = aggression? Aggressive & Violent Behavior, 5, 191–200. Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27–33. Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Flemington, I. (2002). Associations between secondary school pupils’ definitions of bullying, attitudes towards bullying, and tendencies to engage in bullying: Age and sex differences. Educational Studies, 28, 353–370. Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E, Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., Vitaro, F. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six‐site, cross‐national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222–245. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Borch, C. (2006). Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: A growth curve modelling analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 935–959. Cillessen A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163.



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  329

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. Journal of the American Medical Association, Psychiatry, 70, 419–426. Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. De Waal, F. B. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 61, 459–479. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage‐environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education, 3, 139–186. Eder, D. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Galván, A., Spatzier, A., & Juvonen, J. (2011). Perceived social norms and values to capture school culture in elementary and middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 346–353. Garandeau, C. F., Ahn, H., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). The social status of aggressive students across contexts: The role of classroom status hierarchy, academic achievement, and grade. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1699–1710. Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1123–1143. Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467–476. Gini, G, & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta‐analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. Graham, S., Bellmore, A., Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2009). “It must be me”: Ethnic diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle school. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38, 487–499. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self‐blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587–599. Graham, S., Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2013). Psychosocial benefits of cross‐ethnic friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85, 469–483. Gross, E. F. (2009). Logging on, bouncing back: An experimental investigation of online communication following social exclusion. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1787–1793. Hawkins, D., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527. Hawley, P. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy‐based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132. Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76, 677–685. Huitsing, G., Veenstra, R., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). “It must be me” or “It could be them?”: The impact of the social network position of bullies and victims on victims’ adjustment. Social Networks, 34(4), 379–386. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2010.07.002 Juvonen, J., & Galván, A. (2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 225–244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

330  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 159–185. Juvonen, J., & Gross, F. E. (2008). Extending the school social scene?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505. Juvonen, J., Le, V.‐N., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17, 393–400. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A Large‐scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6. Child Development, 82, 311–330. Katz‐Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 142–167. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta‐analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073–1137. Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 12, 87–393. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). Collective errors and errors about the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 541–550. Mishna, F., & Alaggia, R. (2005). Weighing the risks: A child’s decision to disclose peer victimization. Children & Schools, 27, 217–226. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222–1228 Nishina A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76, 435–450. Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M.R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37–48. Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer‐reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental psychology, 41(5), 699. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. Pearce, M. J., Boergers, J., & Prinstein, M. J. (2002). Adolescent obesity, overt and relational peer victimization, and romantic relationships. Obesity, 10, 386–393. Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224. Pellegrini A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psycholology, 20, 259–280. Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying?: The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143–163.



Bullying in School and Online Contexts  331

Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 815–827. Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P, & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244–252. Reynolds, B. M., & Juvonen, J. (2010). The role of early maturation, perceived popularity, and rumors in the emergence of internalizing symptoms among adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1407–1422. Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educational Psychology, 26, 425–440. Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 15, 112–120. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1998). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I’m OK but you’re not” and other peer‐relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363–375. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. Sandstrom, M., Makover, H., & Bartini, M. (2013). Social context of bullying: Do misperceptions of group norms influence children’s responses to witnessed episodes? Social Influence, 8, 196–215. Savin‐Williams, R. C. (1977). Dominance in a human adolescent group. Animal Behaviour, 25, 400–406. Schacter, H. L., & Juvonen, J. (2015). The effects of school‐level victimization on self‐ blame: Evidence for contextualized social cognitions. Developmental Psychology, 51, 841–847. Schacter, H. L., White, S. J., Chang, V. Y., & Juvonen, J. (2015). “Why me?”: Characterological self‐blame and continued victimization in the first year of middle school. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44, 446–455. Sentse, M., Scholte, R., Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2007). Person–group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009–1019. Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57–67. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippet, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.

332  Jaana Juvonen and Hannah L. Schacter Son, E., Parish, S. L., & Peterson, N. A. (2012). National prevalence of peer victimization among young children with disabilities in the United States. Child & Youth Services Review, 34, 1540–1545. Wolke, D., Woods, S., & Samara, M. (2009). Who escapes or remains a victim of bullying in primary school? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 835–851. Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205–224.

16 Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying and Victimization Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron

As early as 1978, Dan Olweus recognized that children’s social groups were likely to play an important role in the problem of childhood bullying. More specifically, he outlined a number of mechanisms such as social contagion and diffusion of responsibility that may lead typically nonaggressive children to become involved in bullying incidents. Over the next two decades, a rapidly growing body of literature emerged that attempted to identify the extent of the bullying problem, as well as the personal characteristics of bullies and their victims (see Mishna, 2012, for a review). The individual focus of this research was in contrast to school‐based interventions, which continued to acknowledge the significance of the group, emphasizing strategies aimed at changing the group’s implicit and explicit support for bullying. Importantly, in recent years, studies that have attempted to explain bullying behavior have evolved to also consider the role of the “group”. By applying their understanding of group processes to the phenomenon of bullying, researchers have put a spotlight on the role of these processes in determining young people’s behavior in bullying situations, highlighting the various roles bystanders can play in

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

334  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron bullying incidents, as well as the ­contribution of factors such as group membership and group norms. Comparatively, this group‐based bullying research is in its infancy, but the findings have important implications for our understanding of both why people engage in bullying behavior and why they defend victims. These findings are critical for the further development of effective, school‐based antibullying interventions. The main aim of the current chapter is thus to provide a systematic review of school‐based interventions that draw on the group to tackle the problem of bullying. It begins with an overview of recent research and theory relevant to understanding the group processes underlying bullying, focusing specifically on identified predictors of bullying and defending behavior. Intervention programs that draw on this work are then described and their effectiveness discussed. Conclusions regarding the current state of the field are subsequently drawn, including implications for current antibullying programs, the design of future effective programs and directions for future research.

The Group and Bullying In the late 1990s, a significant shift in the field of bullying research occurred. Although many studies continued to center their attention on bullies and victims, the broader social context also began to be taken into account. Observational studies by Atlas and colleagues (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000) were influential in this shift. By observing interactions in primary‐school classrooms and playgrounds, they revealed that the peer group was involved, in some capacity, in approximately 80% of bullying episodes. A study by O’Connell, Pepler, and Craig (1999), using video and remote audio recordings of children, also showed a significant positive relationship between the number of peers present during bullying and the duration of the episode. At the same time, the roles that children could take in a bullying incident began to be delineated more clearly. According to a conceptualization developed by Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, and Kaukiainen (1996), besides being the bully or victim, children can also be an assistant to the bully, a reinforcer of the bully, an outsider, or a defender of the victim. Assistants to the bully take an active role in bullying episodes and join in once the bullying has started. Reinforcers act in ways that encourage the bully (e.g., laughing, providing an audience). Outsiders remain uninvolved in the situation. Finally, defenders are willing to intervene and actively help the victim.



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  335

The behavior of the peer group members enacting these various roles is thought to have a significant impact on whether or not bullying continues. Assisting or reinforcing communicates support for the bully and their behavior (Salmivalli, 2010). Children who remain outside the situation could also be viewed as giving tacit support for the bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996). In contrast, if peers defend a victim of bullying, this could communicate that bullying behavior will not be tolerated. In line with these propositions, research has shown that greater reinforcing behavior within a classroom is associated with greater bullying (Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). Defending, on the other hand, has been shown to enhance children’s sense of safety at school (Gini, Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008b), to be effective in stopping specific bullying incidents (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001), and to reduce the likelihood of bullying overall (Salmivalli et al., 2011). Given the positive effects of group members who defend, understanding the factors that contribute to such behavior has become extremely important to intervention efforts. To date, the links between a range of social‐cognitive variables and defending have been considered. This work shows that defending behavior is associated with higher levels of empathy (Gini, Albiero, Benelli & Altoé, 2008a), lower levels of moral disengagement (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013) and greater utilization of problem‐solving coping strategies (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). Moreover, children who perceive themselves as competent in social situations (i.e., have high social self‐efficacy) or believe they are capable of defending a victim (i.e., have high defending self‐efficacy) are also more likely to engage in defending actions (Gini et al., 2008; Thornberg & Jungert, 2013). Although the preceding studies acknowledge the group‐based nature of bullying, it should be noted that the variables of interest tend to be conceptualized at an individual level. In contrast, a body of research has also emerged that explicitly considers a range of group‐level factors in relation to the problem. These group‐ level factors are derived from social psychological theories on group processes and group dynamics that provide clues as to how group membership could influence bullying behavior. Much of the research also takes a group perspective in another way, by examining intergroup bullying, where the bully and victim belong to different social groups (referred to as the in‐group and the out‐group). In these contexts, group identities are likely to be more salient and group membership will play an additional role in determining subsequent behavior. Much of the bullying research taking a “group” point of view has drawn on the social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and its developmental extension, social identity development theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004). Briefly, the social identity perspective proposes that individuals are prone to self‐categorization, perceiving themselves as members of

336  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron particular groups (e.g., based on sex, ethnicity, or social activity). These group affiliations form part of an individual’s self‐concept, or social identity, and impact on out‐group orientation (e.g., attitudes, behavior). Social identity development theory provides a developmental account of the role of social identities in children’s self‐­concept and intergroup orientation. According to this approach, children’s intergroup attitudes are a reflection of their changing understanding of social categories (such as ethnic group) and their developing identifica­tion with salient social categories. Importantly, this theory also points to the significance of social context in determining the salient social categories, providing information about intergroup conflict and also determining the acceptability of negative out‐group attitudes and behaviors (Nesdale, 2004). In relation to bullying behavior, a range of social identity factors have been proposed to explain negative actions directed by children toward out‐group members. This research is focused on how children’s membership of particular social groups, such as peer groups, friendship groups, their class or school, influences their behavior in bullying contexts. Group norms (i.e., rules or standards that prescribe appropriate attitudes and behaviors to be displayed by group members; Turner, 1982) express important aspects of a person’s social identity and, consequently, group members should be motivated to behave in accordance with them, even if group norms support out‐group hostility and derogation. A high level of identification with the in‐group or a belief that a member’s position within the group, or the position of the group overall, could be improved by such a display can also contribute to negative intergroup behaviors (Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, Kiesner, & Griffiths, 2008). A range of studies focusing on children’s close social groups are available to support the application of the social identity perspective to bullying. For instance, studies have revealed similarities in bullying behavior within children’s friendship groups (e.g., Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003). Further, although classroom norms have been found to predict bullying (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), the norms of smaller, more proximal groups have also been shown to be influential. When group norms support out‐group dislike, aggression and bullying have been found to be more acceptable (Ojala & Nesdale, 2004) and more likely (Duffy & Nesdale, 2010; Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, & Kiesner, 2008), even after school‐wide norms that support inclusive, prosocial behavior have been taken into account (Nipedal, Nesdale, & Killen, 2010). In addition, within probullying groups, it is central members or those who anticipate future central membership who report a greater likelihood of engaging in aggressive actions toward an out‐group (Charters, Duffy, & Nesdale, 2013). Findings consistent with the social identity approach also emerge when defending is the outcome of interest. Defenders tend to belong to friendship groups that



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  337

contain other defenders (Ruggieri, Friemel, Sticca, Perren, & Alsaker, 2013). Intervention intentions also appear to rely on the standards set by friends, with children being more willing to intervene if they believe their friends expect them to (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010), but less willing to intervene if their friendship group consists of others who bully (Espelage, Green, & Polanin, 2012). In sum, the past 20 years has seen the emergence of a substantial body of work that moves beyond a singular bully–victim focus and instead considers bullying from a group‐based perspective. This work highlights the importance of the wider peer group in predicting bullying and defending behavior. Group processes that encourage bullying or defending within smaller, more immediate social networks have also been identified. This research has important practical implications, contributing to the development of a range of interventions aimed at reducing bullying and victimization within the child and adolescent population.

Antibullying Interventions As with the research described previously, interventions designed to utilize the power of the group to help combat bullying vary in their focus and in the extent to which they have been evaluated reliably (see Paluck & Green, 2009). For some, the broad peer group is central, with a key goal being to promote positive school‐wide norms and increase the prosocial involvement of bystanders in bullying situations. In contrast, others concentrate on the more immediate social network in an effort to address the group processes underlying the problem. Figure 16.1 provides an overview of the different types of interventions.

School-based antibullying interventions

Focus of intervention

Target of intervention

Changing bystander behavior

Selected peers

Whole school community

Changing social network processes

Victims, bullies, and selected bystanders

Class groups

Figure 16.1  Types of Group‐focused, School‐based Antibullying Interventions.

338  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron

Interventions aimed at changing bystander behavior At a broad level, intervention programs designed to increase the likelihood of bystander intervention attempt to change school norms about bullying and, thus, alter the rewards attendant on bullying behavior. More specifically, these interventions typically aim to boost the involvement of bystanders by enhancing their capacity to take on a defending role. Strategies for achieving these goals vary considerably across interventions, however, with programs differing in the extent of both peer and school community involvement. Peer support strategies.  At the narrower end of the spectrum, a number of strategies have been developed to target specially selected peers. These are typically referred to as peer support strategies, with Cowie (2011) describing three main types. Befriending schemes involve training selected peers to offer informal support and friendship to children who need it. In active listening schemes, selected peers are trained in counselling skills that can be used to offer emotional support to victims of bullying. Finally, peer mediation schemes focus more on the interaction between the victim and bully, with selected peers trained in conflict resolution skills. To date, results regarding the effectiveness of such strategies for reducing bullying have been disappointing. For instance, in an effort to determine the use and benefits of peer support, Naylor and Cowie (1999) recruited 51 schools in the United Kingdom that had used some form of peer support program for at least one year. Among Grade 7 and Grade 9 respondents, benefits for the victims, peer supporters, and school were acknowledged. Victims were helped to find the strength to overcome bullying, peer supporters acquired skills, and the school as a whole was shown to care about bullying. However, the prevalence of bullying and victimization in schools that used peer support was found to be similar to that reported in prevalence studies conducted at around the same time, leading to the conclusion that such strategies had little effect on the amount of bullying that was occurring. Less than encouraging findings also emerged from an Italian study by Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, and Cowie (2003). They found a befriending intervention did little to reduce bullying, although it did prevent the increase in negative behaviors that was observed in control classrooms. There was also no significant effect on assisting, reinforcing, or defending behaviors. Based on these findings, providing training in support strategies to only selected peers would seem insufficient to deal with the problem of bullying. Whole‐school approaches.  In contrast to peer support methods, whole‐school approaches typically target all children within a school, while also promoting the active involvement of other members of the school community such as teachers



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  339

and parents. The whole‐school approach received widespread interest after initially being implemented by Olweus (1991) in Norway. Directed at students in Grades 4 to 7, the core program consisted of interventions at the school, class, and individual levels. School‐level components included the establishment of a program‐ coordinating committee, the introduction of school rules against bullying, improved playground supervision, and meetings of staff and parents. At the classroom level, rules against bullying were enforced and regular class meetings to discuss bullying were held. Strategies at the individual level focused on staff intervention when bullying occurred and serious discussions with bullies, victims, and their parents. These strategies communicated to students that bullying was unacceptable, with negative consequences occurring for those who engaged in such behavior. In addition to promoting a positive, prosocial school‐wide norm, the program helped children to understand their role in bullying and gave them the opportunity to practice skills for dealing with bullying incidents. Results from Olweus’s (1991) original study revealed marked reductions in bullying both eight and 20 months after the intervention had been introduced. A decrease of approximately 50% was seen in the number of students who were bullied or who bullied others. Further, there was an associated decrease in other antisocial behaviors (e.g., vandalism, fighting, and truancy) and an improved social climate within the school. More recent Norwegian evaluations of the program have resulted in findings comparable to Olweus’s earlier work (Olweus & Limber, 2010). Implementation of the program in the United States has also resulted in some success (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007; Limber, Nation, Tracy, Melton, & Flerx, 2004), although reductions in bullying and victimization have typically been smaller than those reported by Olweus and colleagues. Not all adaptations of Olweus’s program have been successful, however. Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, and Charach (1994) adapted the program for a Canadian population and evaluated the outcomes 18 months after implementation. Their results showed a small but significant increase in the percentage of children who bullied others, as well as an increase in the percentage of children reporting victimization during the previous term. The responses of peers to bullying were also assessed, and no change was apparent in the number of children who indicated they would intervene to stop a bullying incident. However, fewer children reported that they would join in the bullying of a child they did not like. To some extent, the differences between Olweus’s (1991) findings and those of the other intervention studies reported here could be attributed to the different cultural contexts. The Norwegian intervention was a nationally based effort, financed by the Ministry of Education, and occurring in conjunction with a nationwide campaign against bullying in schools. In contrast, other researchers note that whole‐school projects, which typically require a long‐term commitment, involve significant challenges, including difficulties in obtaining the full involvement

340  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron of staff, parents, and children (Pepler et al., 1994). A supportive community environment and dedicated schools would therefore seem vital if intervention efforts are to succeed. Other, more recent, programs that rely on a whole‐school approach more explicitly focus on increasing children’s confidence in their ability to defend against bullying (i.e., their defending self‐efficacy). It is thought that such an increase will, in turn, lead to greater actual defending behavior, reducing the positive group‐based rewards for bullying and making it less likely (Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Kaljonen et al., 2011). Arguably, the most well‐known of these is the KiVa antibullying program (Salmivalli, Kärnä, & Poskiparta, 2010). Funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education, this program is designed to change bystanders’ behavior by increasing their defending self‐efficacy, as well as their empathy and antibullying attitudes. The program consists of universal actions, implemented in the classroom and via computer. Student lessons include discussions, role‐play exercises, and short films about bullying. An antibullying computer game (for primary school students) and an Internet forum (for secondary school students) supplement these lessons. Throughout, the role of the group is emphasized and strategies to help victims of bullying are identified and practiced. When instances of bullying occur within the school, actions also take place, involving discussions with victims and bullies and the recruitment of prosocial classmates to support the victimized child. Large‐scale evaluations of the KiVa program have been conducted in Finland with children from Grades 1 to 9. These evaluations revealed that, nine months after program implementation, reductions of around 15% were apparent in the prevalence of bullying and victimization (Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Alanen, et al., 2011). The extent of this change differed across grades, with the program being more effective in Grades 1 to 6 than in Grades 7 to 9. Specific analysis of the Grade 4 to 6 students also showed the program to result in greater defending self‐ efficacy, greater empathy and more antibullying attitudes at nine‐month follow‐ up, although the effects for the latter two variables were no longer apparent at 12‐month follow‐up (Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Kaljonen, et al., 2011). In terms of bystanders’ actual behavior, some evidence also exists to suggest that the KiVa intervention reduces the likelihood of bystanders assisting the bully (Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Kaljonen, et al., 2011; Kärnä et al., 2013). Effects on defending are less evident, with any increases in this type of behavior no longer apparent at 12‐month follow‐up (Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Kaljonen, et  al., 2011) or decreases in defending emerging (Kärnä et  al., 2013). Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the KiVa program has some positive effects on bullying and victimization, so that its continued use and dissemination should be encouraged. However, whether the changes occur as a result of greater peer interventions in bullying episodes remains unclear.



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  341

Interventions aimed at changing social network processes Additional group‐based approaches to tackling bullying focus more specifically on children’s close social networks. Such a focus is warranted, given that these proximal networks have been shown to be influential in determining behavior in bullying situations, even after the broader school climate has been taken into account (Nipedal et al., 2010). A range of interventions can be considered to fall within this category, with the various strategies differing in terms of the children that they focus on and the timing of their implementation. Two well‐known approaches that involve intervention efforts that occur after a bullying incident are the Support Group Method (previously known as the No Blame Approach; Robinson & Maines, 1997) and the Method of Shared Concern (Pikas, 1989). Both approaches involve discussions with the victim and bullies individually and as a group, with additional children such as bystanders or prosocial individuals also potentially included. The goal of these discussions is to produce constructive strategies for dealing with the situation. When considering the group processes that underlie these methods, it could again be argued that group norms are central. That is, the group is tasked with engaging in actions that support the victim of bullying, meaning that prosocial rather than antisocial behaviors and attitudes are supported and reinforced (Pikas, 1975; Young, 1998). Further, if ringleader bullies continue their bullying behavior and thus violate the newly developing norms, they risk losing their influence over other group members (Rigby, 2010; Young, 1998). In terms of the effectiveness of such strategies, limited evidence is available. Although approaches similar to those described above have on occasion been integrated into whole‐school interventions (e.g., see Salmivalli et al., 2010), few studies have considered the strategies in isolation. Robinson and Maines (1997) reported that, of 57 cases where the Support Group Method was applied, 55 resulted in a successful outcome. Young (1998) also reported immediate success in 80% of primary school cases when this method was used. Similar success rates emerge for the Method of Shared Concern (Duncan, 1996). What is lacking, however, are well‐designed studies that investigate the broader effects of this intervention style. Such research is necessary before broad‐scale implementation of such strategies can be recommended. A final group‐based intervention approach, that of cooperative learning, also focuses on children’s close social networks but involves the entire class group. Cooperative learning refers to “classroom techniques in which students work on learning activities in small groups and receive rewards or recognition based on their group’s performance” (Slavin, 1980, p. 315). Types of cooperative learning strategies include the Jigsaw Technique (Aronson, Blaney, Stephin, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), where school material is broken into sections and assigned to the individual

342  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron members of small groups. Each member has to become an “expert” in their section, learning the material with students from other groups who were given the same section. Children subsequently return to their original group, where they are required to impart their specialized knowledge. Teams‐Games‐Tournaments are another example (Slavin, 1995), where teams are provided with academic material and study together to prepare all team members for an upcoming tournament. In each instance, the small groups are formed so as to maximize h ­ eterogeneity (e.g., in relation to ethnicity, sex, ability level, friendship ­network) and each group member contributes to the group’s overall goal. In this way, the conditions that underlie cooperative learning align with those proposed by Allport (1954) to improve intergroup relations. In particular, Allport’s intergroup contact theory posits that contact between groups will reduce bias and conflict, particularly when the groups are interacting in a situation in which they have equal status and a common goal and intergroup cooperation is needed to achieve that goal. Cooperative learning strategies can be employed to attain this type of contact within the classroom environment. Cooperative learning strategies have been successfully used to improve relations between children (e.g., Aronson et al., 1978; Stevens & Slavin, 1995; Walker & Crogan, 1998). However, little is known about whether collaborative learning between members of different friendship groups has an effect on bullying and victimization more generally. One study that provides some insight into this issue was conducted by Cowie, Smith, Boulton, and Laver (1994). Collaborative learning strategies were implemented in three ethnically mixed middle schools in the United Kingdom, with outcomes assessed over a two‐year period. Results revealed that, at follow‐up, the collaborative learning classes were no different to control classes in their level of bullying. There was some evidence, however, of a greater reduction in victimization in the intervention classes as compared to the control classes. Although further study of cooperative learning as a bullying intervention strategy is required, the development of this method highlights the importance of considering not just the content of intervention, but the process used to implement it. Material that emphasizes the building of cooperative interactions has the potential to be reinforced if it is delivered using a method that promotes exactly such relationships.

Meta‐analytic findings regarding the current status of interventions As the number of intervention studies conducted continues to grow, meta‐analyses regarding the effectiveness of interventions have also begun to emerge, with mixed findings. For instance, Smith, Schneider, Smith and Ananiadou’s (2004) meta‐ analysis of whole‐school interventions revealed that over 90% of the effect sizes for



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  343

self‐reported victimization and bullying were negligible or negative, leading them to make only a cautious recommendation that whole‐school interventions continue to be employed, at least until additional evaluations can occur. Similarly, in their review, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) noted that formal engagement of peers in school‐based antibullying interventions (i.e., via peer mediation, peer m ­ entoring, or strategies that encourage bystander intervention) was not significantly related to changes in bullying. It was associated with victimization, however, with use of these strategies found to be associated with an increase in victimization. More encouraging results regarding peer‐group‐focused strategies come from a review by Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott (2012). Their meta‐analysis focused on 11 studies in which the antibullying intervention directly addressed bystander behavior and attitudes. They found that the likelihood of bystander intervention increased by 20% of a standard deviation more in intervention conditions than in control conditions. Whether this increase was also associated with a reduction in bullying and victimization was not explored. In sum, the literature regarding the effectiveness of antibullying interventions that take the group into account indicates that, although some positive effects can result, these effects are often small and might be short‐lived. That is not to say that they should be dismissed, however, as even small effects can mean a difference to a substantial number of children (e.g., when implementing the KiVa program with approximately 300,000 children, a reduction of about 3,900 victims and 2,300 bullies was estimated by Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Alanen et  al., 2011). The continued dissemination of these interventions should therefore be encouraged. Nonetheless, efforts to further enhance and evaluate intervention effectiveness remain vital.

Limitations and Future Directions Although intervention programs have a long history of using groups to tackle the phenomenon of bullying, research aimed at understanding the role of the group has been one step behind. Importantly, recent psychological research is closing this gap and initial steps have been taken to apply what we know about group processes in children to the problem of bullying. This has opened up fascinating lines of research that extend social‐developmental psychology theory, while also having important implications for the design of future school‐based antibullying programmes. In addition, the increasingly systematic evaluation of intervention ­programs that attempt to harness the power of groups to tackle bullying has led to important insights regarding the effectiveness of said interventions. Individual

344  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron evaluations of group‐based intervention programmes, and meta‐analyses, have ­produced mixed, and often disappointing findings. Based on this chapter review, a number of future lines of enquiry can be identified that could help clarify what interventions work, how, and for whom.

Need for further systematic, robust evaluation As the preceding review indicates, intervention programs can vary widely, and many contain a combination of strategies aimed at changing group processes and thus reducing bullying. To date, however, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of the varying interventions or their components. Rather than considering a single program in isolation, future research should aim to randomly assign schools to various intervention conditions in order to allow their impact to be weighed against each other. In a similar way, comparing the effectiveness of various program components would help to determine which are necessary and sufficient for change to occur, thus allowing more specific policy recommendations to be made.

Tailoring interventions to suit specific age groups More attention to the timing of interventions is also suggested. Results from Tofti and Farrington’s (2011) meta‐analysis suggests that bullying programs, in general, have a larger effect for older children (aged 11 years or more) rather than younger children (aged 10 years or less). In contrast, recent examinations of the KiVa program indicate its effects to be greater among primary school than high school students (Kärnä et  al., 2013; Kärnä, Voeten, Little, Poskiparta, Alanen, et  al., 2011). Since social groups become increasingly important during late childhood and early adolescence (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998), it could be argued that interventions designed to target the group’s influence have the potential for greatest impact amongst those at the upper end of this spectrum. However, the fact that conformity to peers in antisocial situations seems to peak in early adolescence (see Smith, 2010) could make translating this potential into real behavior change a significant challenge.

Investigation of underlying mechanisms Uncovering the underlying mechanisms through which interventions have their effect is also an important goal for future studies, as identifying the modifications that are needed to reduce bullying will allow more targeted intervention efforts.



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  345

Normative change, whether at the small group or school level, is often posited as key to intervention efforts, but few studies include measures that would indicate if such change has occurred. Moreover, approaches to altering the extent of group support for bullying can range from decreasing reinforcement for bullying to increasing defending self‐efficacy and defending behavior. Whereas several studies have shown a reduction in reinforcing and assisting behavior as a result of intervention, increases in defending self‐efficacy and defending behavior are not always apparent (Kärna et al., 2013; Pepler et al., 1994). Whether or not such changes, when they occur, underlie reductions in bullying is also yet to be determined.

Consideration of specific group members’ influence The importance of specific peers to intervention efforts should also be considered. Keeping in mind that, within probullying groups, it is those who currently hold or wish to hold a central position who are most likely to bully (Charters et al., 2013), the question arises as to whether it is these central members or the more peripheral members who are most critical to the change process. On the one hand, it has been suggested that changing the attitudes of followers could be beneficial, as this would reduce support for ringleader bullies (Rigby, 2010; Young, 1998). Ringleaders would thus also need to change their attitudes and behaviors if they wanted to maintain their influence over group members. On the other hand, as central group members best represent what the group has in common, they are typically evaluated more positively than other group members (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003) and peripheral members are motivated to conform to the demands of such children in order to avoid victimization and exclusion (Adler & Adler, 1995). It might therefore be that changing the behavior of ringleaders is the more difficult, but necessary, task.

Additional group‐based lines of research Future studies should investigate additional predictors of bullying behavior derived from social and developmental psychology theory and research, as well as consider the distinctive nature of intergroup bullying. Recently, researchers have applied well‐established predictors of out‐group attitudes (intergroup contact, cultural openness, and intergroup anxiety) to understand bystander intentions in an intergroup bullying context (Abbott & Cameron, 2014). The further application of group processes to the phenomenon of bullying is sure to be a fruitful line of enquiry and contribute significantly to the development of future interventions.

346  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron

The role of the media As noted previously, whole‐school interventions for bullying have been at their most effective when implemented in the context of broad‐based community support (e.g., Olweus, 1991), and one way in which such support can be communicated is via the media. However, little research has specifically examined the impact of antibullying media messages. Nevertheless, there is reason to think that such messages might be a useful adjunct to more traditional school‐based programs. Although not focusing on bullying per se, various forms of media have been successfully used to improve intergroup relations. For instance, Cameron and colleagues (Cameron, Rutland, Brown, & Douch, 2006; Cameron & Rutland, 2006) have developed a range of story books that describe close friendships between children of different groups (e.g., disabled and nondisabled children). These stories are read in small groups over several weeks, with discussions of the stories taking place at the end of each session. The researchers found that children who read these stories and discussed their content expressed significantly more positive attitudes toward out‐group members compared to children in control groups. Television is also a potentially powerful way to promote positive social norms. Consisting of television cartoons and associated curricular material, the Media Initiative for Children  –  Northern Ireland (MIFC‐NI; Connolly, Fitzpatrick, Gallagher, & Harris, 2006) highlights diversity by including characters with a disability and from different racial and cultural groups. The cartoons are broadcast on commercial television stations, with the curricular material presented to playgroups in nurseries and preschools. Preliminary analysis of this initiative has shown it to increase children’s ability to recognize instances of exclusion and their willingness to include others (Connolly et al., 2006). Sesame Street, an education program that is broadcast around the world, is also an example of a television show that models prosocial interactions and promotes positive attitudes towards diverse groups (e.g., Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, children with disabilities). A recent meta‐analysis has shown greater exposure to Sesame Street to be associated with more positive attitudes towards a range of out‐groups (Mares & Pan, 2013). However, further research is needed to determine the added benefits that such wide‐ranging initiatives might have for school‐based programs that aim to reduce bullying and improve relations between children.

Conclusion In recent years, the role of the group in bullying has been increasingly ­recognized, with interventions developed to harness the power of the group to help reduce bullying behavior. However, although antibullying programs are now commonplace in



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  347

schools, varying in their content, remit, breadth, and design, further robust, systematic evaluation is required. This chapter presents a comprehensive review of existing programs and the research evaluating them, with findings that paint a rather mixed picture. While some programs have a significant impact on bullying behaviors, others are less effective, and even appear to increase bullying. This might be a rather discouraging result for antibully practitioners and educational policy makers who support such initiatives. Nevertheless, it highlights a significant policy implication that can be derived from this field: the need for careful, systematic and controlled evaluation of the impact of antibullying programs in small‐scale pilots, prior to their introduction on a national level. It also highlights the need for interventions tailored for particular age groups and social contexts. By further developing interventions that take into account the processes occurring within and between children’s social networks, it is hoped that more substantial and long‐lasting reductions in bullying can be achieved.

References Abbot, N. J., & Cameron, L. (2014). What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness and in‐bias on assertive bystander intervention intentions. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 167–182. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145–162. doi: 10.2307/2787039 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company. Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99. doi: 10.1080/00330679809597580 Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274. doi: 10.1016/j.adohealth.2006.10.005 Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 469–488. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‐4560.2006.00469.x Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00929.x Charters, M., Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2013). A social identity approach to explaining children’s aggressive intentions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 163–172. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2013.03.001 Connolly, P., Fitzpatrick, S., Gallagher, T., & Harris, P. (2006). Addressing diversity and inclusion in the early years in conflict‐affected societies: A case study of the Media

348  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron Initiative for Children – Northern Island. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14, 263–278. doi:10.1080/09669790900880027 Cowie, H. (2011). Peer support as an intervention to counteract school bullying: Listen to the children. Children and Society, 25, 287–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1099‐0860.2011.00375.x Cowie, H., Smith, P. K., Boulton, M., & Laver, R. (1994). Cooperation in the multi‐ethnic classroom: The impact of cooperative group work on social relationships in middle schools. London: David Fulton Publishers. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 22–36. doi: 10.1177/ 0143034300211002 Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development, 18, 121–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9507.2008.00484.x Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2010). Group norms, intra‐group position and children’s aggressive intentions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 696–716. doi: 10.1080/17405620903132504 Duncan, A. (1996). The Shared Concern Method for resolving group bullying in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 12, 94–98. doi: 10.1080/0266736960120206 Espelage, D., Green, H., & Polanin, J. (2012). Willingness to intervene in bullying episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer‐group influences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 776–801. doi: 10.1177/0272431611423017 Espelage, D., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer‐group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205–220. doi: 10.1111/1467‐8624.00531 Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoé, G. (2008a). Determinants of adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.002 Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008b). The role of bystanders in students’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 617–638. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.02.001 Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527. doi: 10.1111/1467‐9507.00178 Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 535–551. doi: 10.1037/a0030417 Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Alanen, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011a). Going to scale: A nonrandomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for Grades 1–9. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 796–805. doi: 10.1037/a0025740 Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011b). A large‐scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6. Child Development, 82, 311–330. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01557.x



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  349

Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in the southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 55–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mares, M.‐L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta‐analysis of children’s learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 140–151. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2013.01.001 Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children’s responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle school. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 1–14. doi: 10.1002/ab.80012 Mishna, F. (2012). Bullying: A guide to research, intervention and prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Naylor, P., & Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging school bullying: The perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 467–479. Doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0241 Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–245). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., & Kiesner, J. (2008a). Effects of group norms on children’s intentions to bully. Social Development, 17, 889–907. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9507. 2008.00475.x Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., & Griffiths, J. (2008b). Effects of group norms on children’s intentions to bully. Social Development, 17, 889–907. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9507.2008.00475.x Nipedal, C., Nesdale, D., & Killen, M. (2010). Social group norms, school norms, and children’s aggressive intentions. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 195–204. doi: 10.1002/ ab.20342 O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452. doi: 10.1006/ jado.1999.0238 Ojala, K., & Nesdale, D. (2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 19–35. doi: 10.1348/026151004772901096 Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Wiley. Olweus, D. (1991). Victimization among school children. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets of violence and aggression (pp. 45–102). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in schools: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1939‐0025.2010.01015.x Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

350  Amanda L. Duffy and Lindsey Cameron Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti‐bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95–110. Pikas, A. (1975). Treatment of mobbing in school: Principles for and the results of the work of an anti‐mobbing group. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 19, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/0031383750190101 Pikas, A. (1989). The common concern method for the treatment of mobbing. In E. Roland, & E. Munthe (Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective (pp. 91–104). London: David Fulton Publishers. Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta‐analysis of school‐based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65. Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 815–827. doi: 10.1007/s10802‐010‐9399‐9 Rigby, K. (2010). Bullying interventions in schools: Six basic approaches. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Crying for help: The no blame approach to ­bullying. Bristol: Lucky Duck Publishing. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 619–700). New York, NY: Wiley. Ruggieri, S., Friemel, T., Sticca, F., Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. (2013). Selection and influence effects in defending a victim of bullying: The moderating effects of school context. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science, 79, 117–126. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.05.060 Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010). From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti‐bullying program. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 441–467). New York, NY: Routledge. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000488 Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676. doi: 10.1080/15374416. 2011.597090 Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342. doi: 10.3102/00346543050002315



Harnessing the Power of the Group to Reduce Bullying  351

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole‐school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560. Smith, P. K. (2010). Bullying in primary and secondary schools: Psychological and organizational comparisons. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 137–150). New York, NY: Routledge. Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321–351. doi: 10.3102/00028312032002321 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self‐efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 475–483. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003 Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta‐analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. doi: 10.1007/s11292‐010‐9109‐1 Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self‐categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Walker, I., & Crogan, M. (1998). Academic performance, prejudice, and the jigsaw classroom: New pieces to the puzzle. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 381–393. Young, S. (1998). The support group approach to bullying in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 14, 32–39. doi: 10.1080/0266736980140106

PART VI Intergroup Contact and Cross‐group Relationships

17 Contact Strategies for Improving Intergroup Relations among Youth Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah

Researchers and practitioners have long sought to understand how contact between groups can be effective in reducing prejudice and promoting positive intergroup relations. More than a half century of research has identified a range of situational and psychological variables that specify when and how positive effects of intergroup contact are likely to occur (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Interest in how contact processes operate among youth has grown in recent decades to inform programs that bring youth from different groups together and maximize the potential for achieving positive outcomes from intergroup contact (Aboud et al., 2012). Indeed, children’s developing attitudes toward different groups are readily affected by those with whom they come into contact (Aboud, Mendelsohn, & Purdy, 2003; Killen, Crystal, & Ruck, 2007); these attitudes may not only impact their future beliefs (Ellison & Powers, 1994), but may become harder to change as children grow older (see Aboud & Levy, 2000; Killen et al., 2007). In this chapter, we review classic and contemporary perspectives on intergroup contact, with a particular focus on research demonstrating the positive effects of intergroup contact among children and adolescents. We begin by outlining optimal The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

356  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah conditions for the contact situation that can greatly enhance the positive effects of contact. We also describe the ways in which individuals categorize themselves as group members, and how these categorizations can influence their experiences in intergroup contexts; here, we emphasize inclusive forms of categorization such as recategorization, and the powerful role recategorization can play in shaping intergroup attitudes. We then delve into some of the processes through which intergroup contact exerts its effects, with a particular focus on emotional processes such as threat, anxiety, and empathy. We also discuss some features of the larger social environment, such as norms and indirect contact effects, which have also been shown to influence intergroup attitudes. We conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of future research directions.

Features of the Contact Situation: Optimal Conditions  for Intergroup Contact Perhaps the most well‐recognized formulation of intergroup contact theory sets out the situational conditions under which intergroup contact should occur. Beyond waiting for societal shifts in attitudes to take place over long periods of time, Allport (1954) held that attitudes and relations between groups could be improved by pro‐ actively altering features of the immediate contact situation. Optimal conditions for intergroup contact typically include (1) establishing equal status between groups within the contact situation; (2) encouraging the groups to interact in a cooperative manner; (3) having the groups work together toward common goals, and (4) ensuring that the contact between groups is supported by institutional authorities, laws, or customs. Rather than being conceived of as entirely independent, these conditions are typically understood to be interrelated and to mutually reinforce each other. Efforts to establish equal status between groups can be supported by institutional norms and authorities that provide guidance regarding how members of different groups should relate to each other. Additionally, encouraging groups to cooperate should involve some degree of interdependence, such that members of these groups must work together, and rely on each other, in order to achieve their shared goals. Research evidence demonstrating the importance of these optimal conditions comes from meta‐analytic and empirical studies. For meta‐analytic studies, researchers attempt to find every study conducted on a particular topic and then statistically pool results from those studies to examine the overall pattern of effects, as well as to uncover additional variables that moderate those effects (see Johnson & Eagly, 2000). A meta‐analysis performed by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), including more than 500 studies of intergroup contact, revealed positive contact



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  357

effects across many different settings, groups and contexts; overall, the positive effect of intergroup contact was especially pronounced when the contact occurred under optimal conditions, such as those specified by Allport (1954). Subsequent analyses of these data by Tropp and Prenovost (2008) tested whether similar patterns of contact effects would be observed in studies involving contact between children and adolescents from different types of group. These authors found that the generally positive effects of intergroup contact were consistent, regardless of whether the studies involved racial and ethnic contact between youth from different groups, or contact between youth from other types of groups (e.g., disabled and nondisabled children). They observed significantly stronger effects of intergroup contact in child and adolescent samples when the contact was structured with optimal conditions, as compared to the remaining samples; moreover, this positive effect of optimal conditions was consistent both for contact between youth from different racial and ethnic groups, and for youth from other types of groups (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008). Thus, in line with the broader contact literature, the meta‐analytic findings suggest the importance of establishing optimal conditions in contact settings in order to facilitate positive outcomes from intergroup contact among youth. Illustrating this point, many notable examples come from school settings, where cooperative strategies are often used. Cooperative learning strategies encourage youth from different groups to work together and learn from each other, and they have explicit support from teachers and school staff. Numerous studies have shown that having children work together and learn from each other not only promotes greater academic success, but also fosters positive intergroup attitudes and relations among diverse groups of children in the classroom (e.g., Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978; Slavin, 1980). Additionally, Wright and Tropp (2005) considered how features of the classroom environment—such as language(s) of instruction and numerical representation of different groups—can provide children with cues regarding group status in the classroom, which have implications for their developing intergroup attitudes. Ethnically mixed classes, in which both ethnic minority and majority languages are used by teachers, can serve to equalize the status of ethnic minority and majority language students, thereby establishing optimal conditions for contact among children from these different ethnolinguistic groups. Wright and Tropp (2005) tested hundreds of young Latino and White children during their early school years (5 to 7 years old). Participating children were asked to select photographs of Latino and White target children in response to a variety of attributes and to indicate who they would like to have as friends. Overall, while Latino children offered more balanced ratings of the targets, White children showed a clear preference for White targets over Latino targets, choosing more White targets in relation to positive attributes

358  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah and selecting more White targets as potential friends. Further analysis revealed that this bias was substantially smaller among White children in ethnically mixed classes in which both Spanish and English were used for instruction, as compared to White children in predominantly White classes in which only English was used. These findings suggest that equalizing children’s classroom status with support of the school, by balancing representations of ethnic minority and majority students and using both languages in the classroom, can encourage positive intergroup attitudes among children from different ethnolinguistic groups. Relatedly, Hallinan and Smith (1985) showed that students who had more opportunities for contact reported more cross‐group friendships. Such findings indicate that ethnically balanced classrooms are an important means by which to maximize cross‐group friendliness. Other studies of interventions seeking to improve intergroup relations around the world (e.g., Maoz, 2002; Stephan & Stephan, 2001; Tal‐Or, Boninger, & Gleicher, 2002) have also highlighted the importance of maintaining equal participation across groups, so as to equalize their status within the intervention setting (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2012). Encouraging youth from different groups to interact in an equal, cooperative manner can be a particularly powerful means by which to ensure that their contact reduces intergroup prejudice, and one that has particular relevance in educational contexts where children and adolescents spend a large portion of their time.

When Different Groups Become Part of the Same Group: The Role of Recategorization While optimal conditions for contact may promote positive outcomes, other strategies for structuring contact situations have also been shown to be highly effective. For example, rather than altering conditions of the contact situation, other approaches seek to shift people’s conceptions of the groups in the contact situation in order to promote more positive relations between them. In this section, we discuss evidence from experiments and field studies of contact interventions to show how processes of recategorization—where different groups become recognized as part of the same group—can shape how children and adolescents experience intergroup contact, and, in turn, positively impact their intergroup attitudes. Typically, individuals identify with groups at multiple levels; an individual can identify with an ethnic group, or a class in a school (i.e., with subgroups), as well as with a broader social category that includes many subgroups, such as a nation, which may include people from a range of ethnic groups, or a school that includes many classes (i.e., with superordinate groups; Stone & Crisp, 2007). Many experimental



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  359

and survey studies have shown that, when people begin to view themselves and former out‐group members as part of the same superordinate group, they perceive greater similarity in beliefs and show more positive attitudes and behaviors toward them (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Research in a multiethnic school reveals that contact can improve interethnic attitudes among diverse groups of children to the extent that the children in the school felt like one common group (Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, and Anastasio, 1994). Relatedly, Al Ramiah and Hewstone (2012) have examined how an intergroup contact intervention can affect ethnic and national identification among adolescents from diverse ethnic groups in Malaysia, made up of majority Malay and minority Chinese and Indian participants. The authors studied a three‐month nation‐building intervention (the Malaysian National Service Program) designed to both strengthen the superordinate Malaysian identity and encourage youth to maintain identification with their own ethnic subgroup (i.e., dual identity). Based on a pretest, posttest with control group design, the authors found that National Service participants from all three ethnic groups were more highly nationally and ethnically identified post‐test than control group participants. However, pretest levels of ethnic and national identification were generally higher among National Service participants than among control group participants, with little change over time. Higher levels of national identification may have been due to the prevailing salience of the superordinate category of being Malaysian (given that the National Service camp was run by the Malaysian government) while higher ethnic identification may have grown from the salience of ethnic categories apparent to program participants as soon as they arrived for the intervention. Additional factors that can facilitate recategorization into a common in‐group include cooperation between the subgroups, having members of different subgroups appear similar and equal to each other, and institutional norms that favor the superordinate identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). These factors are akin to Allport’s (1954) conditions for positive intergroup contact, and there is evidence to suggest that establishing optimal conditions for contact can help to facilitate recategorization processes among children and adolescents from ethnically diverse schools. For example, Molina and Wittig (2006) conducted four studies with diverse samples of middle‐ and high‐school students, in which students provided survey responses concerning their views of the school environment. These authors observed that the more students perceived interdependence with their peers—that students from different races cooperate with each other and work well together in the pursuit of common goals—the more likely they were to feel that everyone in their class was part of a common in‐group. These findings emphasize the need for contact‐based interventions to create the kinds of optimal conditions described by Allport to allow recategorization efforts to have their full effect.

360  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah Studies examining the efficacy of recategorization‐based interventions compared to categorization‐based ones have found evidence that recategorization leads to a greater improvement in intergroup relations. For example, Cameron, Rutland, Brown, and Douch (2006) conducted an experiment using White British elementary school students ranging from 5 to 11 years of age. The 6‐week long intervention took the form of children reading stories about White British (in‐group) children who had relationships with refugees, and they compared the efficacy of the interventions based on three different models of categorization: recategorization into a common in‐group identity (e.g., where White British and refugee characters were represented as part of a common in‐group in the stories), dual identity (e.g., where both the subgroup identity and the common in‐group identity were emphasized in the stories), and decategorized identity (e.g., where group identities were de‐emphasized in the stories and the individuating characteristics of refugee characters were emphasized instead). The authors found that, of the three interventions, and compared to a control condition, the dual identity version of the intervention led to the greatest improvement in attitudes toward refugees. Thus, the authors argue that school interventions should both facilitate the development of an inclusive superordinate identity, while also maintaining an emphasis on children’s subgroup identities. Along the same lines, Guerra et al. (2010) conducted research with European‐ Portuguese and African‐Portuguese children (9–10 years old), in which they tested experimentally the effects of three different kinds of categorization strategies: recategorization into a common in‐group identity (e.g., where European‐Portuguese and African‐Portuguese children were represented as part of a common in‐group), dual identity (e.g., where both the subgroup identities and the common in‐group identity were emphasized), and categorization (e.g., where only the subgroup identities were emphasized). The authors observed that both the dual identity and common in‐group identity approaches outperformed the categorization approach in promoting positive intergroup attitudes. Furthermore, the majority European‐ Portuguese children exhibited lower bias on competence ratings of out‐group children in the dual identity condition, whereas African‐Portuguese minority children showed less bias on competence ratings in the common in‐group identity condition. The findings of Cameron et al. (2006) and Guerra et al. (2010) stand in contrast to previous work on minority and majority preferences for group representation. For example, research conducted in the United States using White and Black participants (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, Niemann, & Snider, 2001) finds that majority Whites, who may want to blur the long history of deep inequality between Blacks and Whites, tend to prefer a common in‐group representation (e.g., thinking of themselves and others simply as “American”), while minority Blacks, who may want to maintain their culture and not deny ongoing race‐based disparities,



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  361

tend to prefer a dual identity representation (i.e., thinking of themselves as “Black” and “American”). Dovidio, Gaertner, and Saguy (2009) have argued that groups will adopt the representation that most promotes their group’s goals, and this can depend on group status and the intergroup context. For instance, Guerra et  al (2010) argue that, when viewed through such a functional perspective, their results may reflect the recent immigration of Africans to Portugal; under these circumstances, the minority group may seek to assimilate (thereby preferring a common group representation), while the Portuguese majority may seek to retain its distinctiveness while relating to the new immigrant group (thereby preferring a dual identity). Thus, attention must be paid to differences in intergroup histories and variability in social contexts when designing and implementing contact interventions, as these factors may influence the efficacy of different forms of recategorization across intergroup contexts. As demonstrated by this body of research, the effectiveness of contact interventions based on recategorization processes are likely to depend on unique features of the intergroup context such as status and power relations between groups, and the recent or long‐standing nature of contact and conflict between the groups.

From Social Situations to Psychological Responses: Emotional Processes in Intergroup Contact With its traditional social‐psychological approach, contact research has t­ypically focused on structuring features of the contact situation, while granting relatively less attention to group members’ subjective responses to those contact situations. Clearly, however, people and groups have histories of relations and experiences with each other, many of which may have presented challenges, conflicts, or psychological concerns that are likely to inform their views of and responses to cross‐group relations. Targeting such psychological concerns and responses to contact can enhance the extent to which contact interventions will capitalize on the positive potential for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. In this section, we discuss some key roles that subjective, emotional processes play in intergroup contact effects. Threat.  The experience of threat plays a critical role in intergroup relations (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Stephan and colleagues have demonstrated how perceived threats against one’s group predict prejudice against other groups (e.g., Stephan, Ybarra & Morrison, 2009), while distinguishing between two forms of

362  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah threat: symbolic threats (e.g., threats to the in‐group’s value system, belief system, or worldview) and realistic threats (e.g., threats to the in‐group’s political and economic power). Several studies have also shown that contact can reduce perceived threat, and that reductions in threat can act as a mediator in the relationship between intergroup contact and attitudes (e.g., Tausch, Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2007). Returning to the Malaysian National Service Program described above, Al Ramiah, Hewstone, Little, and Lang (2013) examined longitudinally how different forms of threat mediate contact effects in different ways, depending on the status of the groups in question. The authors describe a comprehensive affirmative action policy that favors the Malay majority and secures their status, while the Chinese and Indian minorities compete for resources. While Malays reported lower symbolic threat from ethnic minorities following the intervention, symbolic threat did not appear to mediate contact effects among Malays in relation to the minority Chinese and Indian communities, presumably because Malays are in a fairly secure, high‐ status position. By contrast, symbolic threat mediated contact effects among both Chinese and Indian minority respondents in relation to the Malay majority, and this was associated with more positive evaluations of the Malay majority group. Additionally, the authors found that contact reduced Chinese and Indians’ perceptions of realistic threat toward each other, which, in turn, was associated with more positive attitudes between the two minority groups. This finding supports the view that realistic threat can act as a pivotal mediator of contact effects when minority groups may view one another as competitors for scarce resources. Anxiety.  In addition to these forms of threat, intergroup anxiety can grow from lack of familiarity, uncertainty, fear, prior negative experience, and n ­ egative societal perceptions that further contribute to shaping relations b­ etween groups (Stephan, Diaz‐Loving, & Duran, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Particularly during the initial stages of intergroup contact, people are likely to feel anxious and have negative expectations about how they might be perceived or received by members of other groups, and in turn, these tendencies can lead to attempts to avoid or curb intergroup contact. At the same time, a growing body of research indicates that positive contact with members of other groups can diminish feelings of anxiety and foster prejudice reduction and a greater willingness for further contact. Indeed, longitudinal survey studies in the United States, Europe, and South Africa with high school and university students show that positive contact between students from different racial and ethnic groups can predict less intergroup anxiety and less intergroup prejudice over time (Binder et  al., 2009; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003; Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2011).



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  363

Experimental and meta‐analytic research show similar trends. For example, among those who initially demonstrated higher prejudice, White and Latino college students paired with a cross‐group partner for a series of friendly interactions showed lower levels of physiological stress and a greater willingness to initiate future cross‐group interactions (Page‐Gould, Mendoza‐Denton, & Tropp, 2008). With data pooled across many studies, meta‐analytic research shows that greater intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup anxiety, and lower intergroup anxiety typically predicts lower intergroup prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Empathy.  Additional work shows that the positive effects of contact may not only be due to anxiety reduction, but to its ability to promote empathy among members of different groups. Indeed, Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2008) meta‐analytic work reveals that empathy—like reduced anxiety—mediates the relationship between contact and prejudice, such that greater intergroup contact predicts greater intergroup empathy, and greater empathy in turn predicts lower intergroup prejudice. An illustrative example is provided by Turner, Hewstone, and Voci (2007), who show that greater self‐disclosure during contact with Asians predicts lower anti‐Asian prejudice among White British students, and this is largely due to increases in empathy that the students felt toward Asians. Further work suggests that anxiety reduction and empathy may also function sequentially, such that reducing anxiety may be most crucial during the initial stages of contact, and that greater empathy may be cultivated once anxiety has been reduced (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011; Swart et al., 2011). Thus, anxiety reduction may play an especially critical role in the early stages of intergroup contact by setting the stage for greater empathy and openness in subsequent intergroup encounters.

Social Environments Beyond the Contact Situation: Norms and Indirect Contact Effects In addition to focusing on contact situations and subjective responses to them, research attention has also examined how aspects of the broader social environment can contribute to our understanding of intergroup contact effects among youth. In social contexts where positive contact with out‐groups is common, prejudice can be reduced on a macro‐level because people perceive more tolerant norms towards contact in their social environment (Christ et al., 2014). Thus, as an intervention, intergroup contact has the capacity to simultaneously impact the attitudes and perceived norms of people in any societal context in which there is positive intergroup contact, thereby providing a means of improving intergroup relations in neighbourhoods, work places and schools.

364  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah Norms.  A growing body of research indicates that children are sensitive to norms of inclusion or exclusion from their peers (see Abrams & Killen, 2014; Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003). Social pressures or concerns about being loyal to one’s own group can induce children to display biased intergroup attitudes (Abrams, 2011). At the same time, norms that support cross‐ethnic relations in one’s social environment can predict more positive intergroup attitudes (Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009), greater preferences for cross‐ethnic friendship (Jugert, Noack, & Rutland, 2011) and greater willingness to sit with out‐group members in the cafeteria (Al Ramiah, Schmid, & Hewstone, 2014). Along these lines, studies in U.S. middle schools by Tropp, O’Brien, and Migacheva (2014) show that, when ethnic minority and majority students perceive inclusive norms for cross‐ethnic relations from their in‐group peers (e.g., that their peers support and desire cross‐ethnic friendships), they themselves report greater interest in cross‐ethnic friendships. The significant effects of perceived inclusive norms emerged beyond any effect of prior cross‐ethnic friendships and perceived exclusive norms (e.g., that their peers teased or made jokes about children from other ethnic groups), and these findings were consistent among both ethnic minority and majority students. These findings suggest that both ethnic minority and majority children may generally be willing to develop cross‐group friendships, and especially the more that they perceive support for positive contact in their social environments. Indirect contact.  Children and adolescents may also be encouraged to engage in intergroup contact and forge cross‐group friendships to the extent that they observe positive examples of cross‐ethnic relations in their social environments. For example, when young people observe positive interactions between members of their own and other groups, they tend to report more positive intergroup attitudes and a greater willingness to engage in intergroup contact themselves (e.g., Mazziotta, Mummendey, & Wright, 2011; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin‐Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). Using both student and community samples, researchers from many different countries have demonstrated ways in which indirect contact can promote positive intergroup relations. In cases where fellow in‐group members are known to have positive relations with out‐group members, indirect contact has been shown to be effective in fostering tolerance toward foreigners in Germany (Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007), reducing hostility between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004), reducing prejudice toward refugees among British students (Cameron et  al., 2006), and enhancing positive intergroup attitudes toward ethnic minorities among Norweigian youth (De Tezanos‐Pinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010). In large part, such positive outcomes occur because indirect contact helps to alleviate people’s anxieties about interacting with out‐group members, while



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  365

establishing norms that suggest that members of the different groups are likely to get along (Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008; Wright et  al., 1997). Norms may involve both (1) perceived attitudes of in‐group members toward the out‐group, as we often look to fellow in‐group members as guides for intergroup behavior (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990), and (2) perceived norms of out‐group members toward the in‐group, as our own interest in contact may depend on the extent to which we believe out‐group members are willing to engage in contact with members of our own groups (e.g., Tropp & Bianchi, 2006). Research by Gómez, Tropp, and Fernandez (2011) provides an illustrative example of how intergroup anxiety and perceived norms can mediate indirect contact effects among Spanish and immigrant youth in Spain. Spanish and immigrant high school students completed questionnaires to test how indirect contact (measured as the number of in‐group members they know who have out‐group friends), intergroup anxiety, and perceived in‐group and out‐group norms would predict students’ intergroup attitudes and expectancies for cross‐ethnic relations. Overall, findings from this study showed that greater indirect contact (i.e., greater numbers of known in‐group members who have out‐group friends) predicted more positive intergroup attitudes and more positive expectations for future intergroup contact. Consistent with prior work (e.g., Turner et al., 2008), intergroup anxiety, perceived in‐group norms, and perceived out‐group norms all partially mediated the effect of indirect contact on positive intergroup attitudes and expectancies, even when controlling for students’ prior cross‐group friendships and direct contact experiences. Additionally, while the general patterns of effects were similar for Spanish and immigrant youth, perceived out‐group norms more strongly predicted the relationship between indirect contact and outcomes among immigrant students than among Spanish students. Along with earlier work, these findings suggest that subjective concerns associated with contact often diverge for members of minority and majority groups (Devine & Vasquez, 1998), and minority expectations for contact are often more likely to depend on how out‐group members feel than are majority expectations (Tropp & Bianchi, 2006). While in‐group norms are typically powerful determinants of intergroup attitudes and relations among youth (e.g., Abrams et al., 2003; Tropp et  al., 2014), out‐group norms are particularly powerful in shaping intergroup perceptions and intended behaviours among minority youth (Al Ramiah et al., 2014; Gómez et al, 2011; Tropp & Bianchi, 2006). More work is needed to specify points of divergence in minority and majority perspectives in relation to intergroup contact, to enhance our understanding of the processes through which positive intergroup expectancies and experiences may be achieved, and to ensure that such processes are taken into account when designing effective contact strategies.

366  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah

Conclusions and Future Directions In this chapter we have sought to elucidate how direct and indirect contact strategies can improve intergroup relations effectively—specifically among youth. Contact under optimal conditions—such as equal status, cooperative contact with institutional support—can be beneficial for reducing prejudice and promoting positive shifts in intergroup attitudes. When youth are encouraged to identify both with subgroups and a superordinate, inclusive group, they may come to report less prejudice toward other groups. Witnessing examples of positive contact between groups and supportive norms for contact within one’s social environment can further encourage children to develop positive attitudes toward members of other groups, and to become more willing to engage in interactions with them. Such strategies tend to operate by decreasing negative emotional responses to out‐group members, such as threat and anxiety, and increasing positive emotional responses to out‐ group members, such as empathy. While contact research has come a long way in explaining how and when contact works, there remain areas for further investigation. For example, while we know that contact effects for children and adolescents are comparable to those obtained in studies with older populations, we still do not have a clear and coherent understanding of the ways in which developmental processes may affect how contact is experienced at different ages (see also Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). For instance, the experience and effects of intergroup contact may be distinct among young children who are first learning the meanings of social categories (Aboud & Levy, 2000), as compared to those of older children and adolescents who are developing new needs and concerns associated with identity and belonging (Killen et al., 2007). Further research is needed to clarify the ways in which contact may function different at different ages and stages of development for children and adolescents. Additionally, further work is needed to understand how prior intergroup experiences and attitudes affect how youth may respond to current contact interventions (see Tropp, 2006). Prejudiced attitudes can vary as a function of diverse intergroup experiences at different stages of development (Raabe & Beelman, 2011), and this variability may affect the degree to which contact could be effective in reducing prejudice. For instance, in a study of Catholic and Protestant students in Northern Ireland, Al Ramiah, Hewstone, Voci, Cairns and Hughes (2013) found that contact experiences were p ­ articularly influential when they were a relatively novel occurrence in a young person’s life; those who had more prior contact showed lower levels of prejudice, and current contact reduced prejudice less markedly for those individuals than for those who had very little or no prior contact. Such findings suggest that interventions cannot be expected to have a uniform



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  367

effect; rather, variation in prior experience may contribute to varied outcomes for interventions, highlighting the importance of taking prior intergroup experiences into account when interpreting the effects of contact interventions on youth. Notwithstanding, Al Ramiah et al. (2013) show that higher levels of p ­ rimary school contact predicted higher secondary school contact and, consequently, more university contact. Related findings indicate that people who experience interracial contact in schools and neighborhoods early in their childhood are more likely to report less racial prejudice later in life (Wood & Sonleitner, 1996). Thus, there is an argument to be made for instituting contact interventions early in a young person’s life in order to reap their full and multiplying benefits in improving intergroup attitudes over their lifetime. Although there is a long tradition of work on the positive effects of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice, it should be noted that this research has tended to focus on largely positive contact experiences. But there has been a growing emphasis on investigating the effects of negative contact, and the possibility of both positive and negative outcomes must be considered when implementing contact interventions. For example, Barlow et al. (2012) have observed that negative contact may have a stronger association with increased racism than positive contact has with reduced prejudice. Research has also demonstrated that prior negative intergroup experiences, such as exposure to prejudice, discrimination, or other forms of social rejection due to one’s group membership, could hinder the positive potential of contact (Tropp, 2006). Indeed, ethnic minority youth often encounter prejudice and ethnic victimization that can negatively impact social relations in ways that may differ from the common experiences of ethnic majority children (Quintana, 2011; Quintana & McKown, 2008; Verkuyten, 2006). Additionally, children and adolescents from ethnic minority groups may also be socialized to have different expectations for inclusion or exclusion in their social environments as compared to those from the ethnic majority group (Hughes et al., 2006). Thus, both positive and negative intergroup experiences should be examined when children and adolescents participate in contact interventions. Finally, given the extent of research on the effects of intergroup contact, relatively little is known about the factors that predict interest in intergroup contact, or strategies that are most effective for encouraging groups to n ­ aturally engage in intergroup contact when opportunities exist in their social context. Prior research with children, adolescents, and young adults has highlighted the roles of norms and prior cross‐group friendships in promoting or inhibiting contact (e.g., Al Ramiah et al., 2014; Gómez et al., 2011; Shelton & Richeson, 2005; Tropp & Bianchi, 2006). Studies with college students have also noted how shared interests and participation in shared activities can foster positive intergroup attitudes and further intergroup contact (e.g., Brown, Brown, Jackson, Sellers, & Manuel, 2003; Fischer, 2011).

368  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah Further theoretical and empirical work is needed to clarify how these and others factors function together in supporting youth as they reach across group boundaries and engage in contact with each other. References Aboud, F. E., & Levy, S. R. (2000). Interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 269–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Aboud, F. E., Mendelson, M. J., & Purdy, K. T. (2003). Cross‐race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173. Aboud, F., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C., Niens, U., & Noor, N. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32, 307–336. Abrams, D. (2011). Wherein lies children’s intergroup bias? Egocentrism, social understanding, and social projection. Child Development, 82(5), 1579–1593. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self‐categorization, and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228. Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). Social exclusion of children: Developmental o­ rigins of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 1–11. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and deviant in‐group and out‐group individuals. Child Development, 74(6), 1840–1856. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2012). “Rallying around the flag”: Can an intergroup contact intervention promote national unity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 239–256. Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M., Little, T., & Lang, K. (2013). The influence of status on the relationship between intergroup contact, threat and prejudice in the context of a nation‐ building intervention in Malaysia. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58, 1202–1229. Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2013). It’s never too late for “us” to meet “them”: Prior intergroup friendship moderates the impact of later intergroup friendship in educational settings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 57–75. Al Ramiah, A., Schmid, K., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Why are all the Asian (White) kids sitting together in the cafeteria? British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 100–124. Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643.



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  369

Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Maquil, A., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J.‐P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis amongst majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. Brown, K. T., Brown, T. N., Jackson, J. S., Sellers, R. M., & Manuel, W. J. (2003). Teammates on and off the field? White student athletes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1379–1403. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219. Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N., … Hewstone. M. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on out‐group prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111, 3996–4000. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320901111 de Tezanos‐Pinto, P., Brown, R., & Bratt, C. (2010). What will the others think? In‐group norms as a mediator of intergroup contact. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 507–523. Devine, P. G., & Vasquez, K. A. (1998). The rocky road to positive intergroup relations. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 234–262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K. (2002). Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in responding to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus: Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 167–188. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20. Ellison, C., & Powers, D. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 385–400. Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, 377–390. Fischer, M. J. (2011). Interracial contact and changes in the racial attitudes of White college students. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 547–574. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common in‐group identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common in‐group identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Groups Research, 25, 224–249. Gómez, A., Tropp, L. R., & Fernandez, S. (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on intergroup attitudes and expectancies among minority and majority groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 161–173.

370  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Monteiro, M. B., Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). How should intergroup contact be structured to reduce bias among majority and minority group children? Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 13, 445–460. Hallinan, M. T., & Smith, S. S. (1985). The effects of classroom racial composition on students’ interracial friendliness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 3–16. Hughes, D., Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, & Spicer P. (2006). Parents’ethnic‐racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–70. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 496–528). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2011). Friendship preferences among German and Turkish preadolescents. Child Development, 82(3), 812–829. Killen, M., Crystal, D., & Ruck, M. (2007). The social developmental benefits of intergroup contact for children and adolescents. In E. Frankenberg & G. Orfield (Eds.), Realizing the promise of diversity in American schools (pp. 57–73). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of in‐group and out‐group friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 76–92. Maoz, I. (2002). Conceptual mapping and evaluation of peace education programs: The case of education for coexistence through intergroup encounters between Jews and Arabs in Israel. In G. S. B. Nevo (Ed.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 259–267). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social‐cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. Molina, L. E., & Wittig, M. A. (2006). Relative importance of contact conditions in explaining prejudice reduction in a classroom context: Separate and equal? Journal of Social Issues, 62, 489–509. Page‐Gould, E., Mendoza‐Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross‐group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross‐group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094. Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross‐group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety‐reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta‐analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.



Contact Strategies for Improving Youth Intergroup Relations  371

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐ analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Quintana, S. (2011). Ethnicity, race, and children’s social development. In P.K. Smith & C.H. Hart (Eds.), Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 299– 316). Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell. Quintana, S., & McKown, C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national ­prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta‐analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82, 1715–1737. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107. Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342. Stephan, W. G., Diaz‐Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejuice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1221–1238. doi:10.1037/a0024450 Tal‐Or, N., Boninger, D., & Gleicher, F. (2002). Understanding the conditions and processes necessary for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. In G. S. B. Nevo (Ed.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 89–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tausch, N., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2007). Individual‐level and group‐level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 541–556. Tropp, L. R. (2006). Stigma and intergroup contact among members of minority and majority status groups. In S. Levin & C. Van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 171–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tropp, L. R., & Bianchi, R. A. (2006). Valuing diversity and interest in intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 533–551. Tropp, L. R., O’Brien, T., & Migacheva, K. (2014). How peer norms of inclusion and exclusion predict children’s interest in cross‐ethnic friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 151–166.

372  Linda R. Tropp and Ananthi Al Ramiah Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting interethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta‐analytic and field studies. In S. Levy and M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 236–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit out‐group prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self‐disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843–860. Verkuyten, M. (2006). Ethnic peer victimization and psychological well‐being among early adolescents. In X. Chen, D. C. French, & B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 339–363). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wood, P. B., & Sonleitner, N. (1996). The effect of childhood interracial contact on adult antiblack prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 1–17. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin‐Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Language and intergroup contact: Investigating the impact of bilingual instruction on children’s intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 309–328.

18 Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes

A little boy in the South was playing with the child of the washerwoman. Everything was going smoothly until a neighbor White child called over the fence, “Look out, you’ll catch it.” “Catch what?” asked the first White child. “Catch the black. You’ll get colored, too.” (Allport, 1954, p. 306)

School environments in many countries of the Western world are changing dramatically due to an increase in ethnic1 diversity fuelled by migration. This increase opens up the opportunity for children to form friendships across ethnic lines. These types of friendships are desirable for at least two reasons. First, Gordon Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis stated that intergroup contact could reduce prejudice if it entailed four conditions: equal status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and authority support. Pettigrew (1998) proposed that cross‐ ethnic friendships would be a particularly effective form of contact compared to less intimate forms because it is likely to fulfill all of Allport’s (1954) conditions. Comprehensive meta‐analytic evidence indeed shows that cross‐ethnic friendships are one of the most powerful means to improve intergroup attitudes among

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

374  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes children (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008). Second, cross‐ethnic friendships provide other valuable benefits because they are associated with social competence (Lease & Blake, 2005), and improved academic performance among minority students (Hallinan & Williams, 1990). Yet, research shows that, compared to same‐ethnic friendships, cross‐ethnic friendships are less common (Kao & Joyner, 2004), less stable (Schneider, Dixon, & Udvari, 2007), and decline with age (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). It is therefore important to understand which factors contribute to the formation of cross‐ethnic friendships and their stability, and which social‐developmental changes are associated with having cross‐ethnic friendships. In this chapter, we present an overview of how research from social developmental psychology and sociology has contributed to our knowledge about cross‐ethnic friendships. We begin by describing the history of research on the issue, then review current findings on antecedents and consequences, and conclude by providing suggestions for future research.

History of Research on Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships Gordon Allport reviewed research from the first half of the 20th century on sociometric studies of relations between children of different ethnicities in classrooms and the role of ethnicity and social class in friendship relations. These studies were part of the literature that ultimately served as the basis of his (1954) contact hypothesis predicting contact between different groups would reduce intergroup prejudice, which has since become one of the most researched topics in the field of social psychology up to the present (cf., Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Research on the antecedents and consequences of cross‐ethnic friendship proliferated after the decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1954 that segregation in public schools based on ethnicity was unconstitutional (Brown vs. Board of Education). Four years after this decision Allport (1979, p. xxii) noted that, “If, therefore, gradualism is permitted, it would seem wiser to start the process of integrating with elementary schools rather than with high schools.” The desegregation in schools led to a first wave of studies looking at its effects on intergroup relations.

Preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friendships Initial studies of the consequences of school desegregation on the formation of intergroup friendships yielded sobering results (cf., Johnson & Johnson, 1982; Schofield, 1989, 1995). For example, Stephan and Rosenfield (1978) conducted



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  375

a study to examine the effects of school desegregation on intergroup relations, which showed that relatively few cross‐ethnic friendships emerged in desegregated schools. A consistent finding was that children showed a bias towards selecting children of the same ethnic background as friends. Aboud (1988) reviewed studies showing that, in desegregated schools, same‐ethnic interactions and ratings of liking by children exceeded cross‐ethnic ones among both minority (Black) and majority (White) children. In sum, these earlier studies on cross‐ group friendship suggest that there is a consistent bias in favor of same‐ over cross‐ethnic friendships.

Development of antibias programs In order to promote positive intergroup relations in schools, antibias programs have been developed based on the notion that peer influence leads to conforming behavior and is a valuable source of influence on the development of ethnic evaluations (Aboud & Fenwick, 1999; Berndt, 1979; Pettigrew, 1998). Cooperative learning methods like the Jigsaw Method (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), in which students work in small groups to acquire new material, have been applied and tested in the school context to promote peer interaction and cooperation and ultimately to improve intergroup relations in ethnically heterogeneous classrooms (cf., Sharan, 1980). However, early criticism of these methods was that effects of positive relationships during these interactions did not generalize to other ethnic group members not involved in the setting (Amir, 1976). In addition, as noted earlier, direct cross‐ethnic friendships remained rare. The focus of research on school desegregation was primarily on the effects of contact within the classroom and interventions to promote interaction. One of the main results was that contact is necessary but not sufficient to promote cross‐ethnic friendships. Thus, this research was limited in that it concentrated exclusively on structural conditions like contact opportunity and ethnic similarity.

Contemporary Research on Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships After the first wave of studies on the effects of desegregation, interest in the subject seemed to have waned by the 1990s. Yet, somewhat of a renaissance in research on cross‐ethnic friendships, particularly in social developmental psychology, set in after the publication of Aboud et al.’s (2003) seminal paper, one of the first to study mutual friendship relations longitudinally. Importantly, recent research has adopted

376  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes a developmental intergroup perspective that shares the social psychological focus on the group and group membership (Killen, Richardson, & Kelly, 2010). In this section, we review recent research on the antecedents of cross‐ethnic friendships, on friendship stability and quality, as well as on their consequences.

Antecedents of cross‐ethnic friendships A number of structural, intergroup, and family factors influence the formation of cross‐ethnic friendships. In the following sections, we will ­discuss each factor and its relationship to cross‐ethnic friendships in turn, starting with structural factors. Proximity.  Proximity, also sometimes referred to as propinquity, merely describes the fact that opportunity for contact between different ethnic groups must exist for cross‐ethnic friendships to occur. Yet, the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and frequency of cross‐ethnic friendships is not linear. Same‐ethnic preference actually increases with growing ethnic heterogeneity and only decreases where there is no longer an ethnic majority (Moody, 2001). A recent study sheds light on another effect of proximity that depends on the availability of other‐ethnicity peers in a friendship ­network (“network propinquity”; Mouw & Entwisle, 2006). Echols and Graham (2013) showed that the availability of cross‐ethnic peers in early adolescents’ social networks was an important predictor of whether they had cross‐ ethnic friends themselves. Thus, network propinquity may serve as a descriptive norm signaling that it is acceptable to have out‐group friends because other friends already have these types of friendships. These results indicate that the relationship between proximity and cross‐ethnic friendships is complex and that it is fruitful to consider proximity from the perspective of actors in a social network and not just at the classroom level. In addition, proximity can depend on institutional practices such as academic tracking, where students are separated into different classes based on academic ability. Tracking can lead to uneven distribution of students from different ethnic groups and thus limits the ability of children from different ethnic groups to come into close contact (Hamm, Brown, & Heck, 2005; Moody, 2001). Homophily.  Contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than between dissimilar people (McPherson, Smith‐Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Yet, similarity based on ethnicity is not the only dimension that matters for children’s friendship choices. Shared interests also matter (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). In a series of studies, McGlothlin, Killen and colleagues had children weigh ethnic similarity compared to similarity in activity interests when judging friendship potential (Margie, Killen, Sinno, & McGlothlin, 2005; McGlothlin & Killen, 2005; McGlothlin, Killen, &



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  377

Edmonds, 2005). Their findings indicated that children in ethnically heterogeneous schools focused more on shared activity interests than on ethnicity when asked to judge whether two children from different ethnicities could be friends. This implies that in the absence of information on activity interests children may initially base their friendship decisions on salient physical attributes such as ethnicity. However, when children also know more about the activity interests of their peers, this knowledge may become more important for their friendship decisions. Indirect support for this account comes from a longitudinal study showing that children entering secondary schools initially showed a marked preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friendships, which decreased over the year as children supposedly became more acquainted (Jugert, Noack, & Rutland, 2011). Reciprocity.  We like those that like us in return. Previous research suggests that ethnic minority children nominate equal numbers of same‐ and cross‐ethnic friends in elementary school but that their nominations of cross‐ethnic friends are less likely to be reciprocated by their ethnic majority peers (Graham & Cohen, 1997; Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987; Hallinan & Williams, 1987; Leman & Lam, 2008). Yet, after elementary school, ethnic minority children are less likely to nominate ethnic majority children as friends, possibly because of a lack of reciprocation. Unfortunately, many studies in the field have exclusively relied on one‐way nominations of different‐ethnicity peers as a measure of cross‐ethnic friendships. This is problematic given that one‐way friend nominations do not necessarily demonstrate either a relationship or actual contact (Aboud et  al., 2003). Unidirectional friendships differ qualitatively from reciprocated friendships (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995), and cross‐ethnic friendships are determined by different factors depending on whether they are unidirectional or reciprocal (Echols & Graham, 2013). Thus, future research should distinguish between these two types of friendship more clearly. Failure to do so may hinder progress in the field because essentially different constructs are treated as if they were the same. Thus, divergent findings between different studies may also stem from this indiscriminate treatment of unidirectional and reciprocated friendships. Status.  When making decisions about friendships, high social status is a valued dimension for children and adolescents (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Social status can stem from various sources, one of which is academic achievement. Hamm et  al. (2005) found that White American adolescents with a high grade point average were less likely to nominate cross‐ethnic peers as friends, while ethnic minority students who did well in school were more likely to nominate cross‐ethnic friends. Because of the correlated nature of academic achievement and ethnic minority status, these results imply that adolescents may select friends based on

378  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes academic achievement rather than ethnicity alone. Social status in the classroom can also derive from socio‐behavioral characteristics. Children with high peer status who are popular among their peers are also more likely to have cross‐ethnic friends (Kawabata & Crick, 2008; Lease & Blake, 2005), possibly because they can afford to cross ethnic boundaries due to their leadership position. Status can also depend on the ethnic makeup of the classroom. Ethnic minority groups typically possess lower status in society than the ethnic majority group and children are well aware of these status differences (Kiesner, Maass, Cadinu, & Vallese, 2003). Yet, when ethnic minority groups form a majority in the classroom, their social status within that classroom increases (Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006). Intergroup factors.  Beyond structural factors reviewed above individual attitudes and perceptions at the intergroup level are also relevant in predicting who is going to have cross‐ethnic friendships. In Berry’s (1990) two‐dimensional acculturation framework the dimension of out‐group orientation reflects a person’s willingness to develop relationships with other ethnic groups. Titzmann, Silbereisen, & Schmitt‐Rodermund (2007) found that Russian Jewish adolescent immigrants in Israel and ethnic German adolescent immigrants in Germany who were high in out‐group orientation also showed less preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friends. More recently, Jugert et  al. (2011) found out‐group orientation to be only predictive of German not of Turkish children’s preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friendships. In addition, biculturalism (i.e., being high in ethnic and national identity), another acculturation strategy, may be particularly relevant in explaining ethnic minority members’ propensity for cross‐ethnic friendships. Thus, in one study bicultural identification was related to less preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friendships longitudinally among south‐Asian English ­children (Rutland et al., 2012). Intergroup attitudes are also important, as children who show a strong attitudinal preference for their own ethnic group are unlikely to select members of other ethnic groups as friends. Consequently, Aboud et al. (2003) found that White American children high in prejudice were more likely to exclude cross‐ethnic peers. The effect of intergroup attitudes on the propensity to have cross‐ethnic friendships was also confirmed longitudinally with children (Jugert et  al., 2011), and adolescents (Binder et al., 2009). As children move from middle into late childhood, inclusion in peer groups becomes increasingly important to them (Horn, 2006) and so they become more sensitive toward which types of behavior are sanctioned by their peers (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003). Qualitative evidence suggests that negative in‐group peer norms prohibiting cross‐ethnic mixing hinder cross‐ethnic friendships (Aboud & Sankar, 2007). Quantitative evidence confirmed that initial peer



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  379

norms and perceived changes thereof were important predictors of preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friendships longitudinally (Jugert et al., 2011). Finally, it may be important to closely examine the extent to which Allport’s (1954) optimal contact conditions (equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and authority support) are actually established in the classroom. Findings by Jugert et al. (2011) showed that perceived contact conditions were only predictive of German but not Turkish children’s ethnic friendship preferences, suggesting that it is problematic to assume that contact conditions have a uniform effect on all children’s friendship choices (Molina & Wittig, 2006). Parental attitudes and support.  Surprisingly little research has focused on the role of parents in influencing their child’s decision making about cross‐ethnic friendships. In one of the first studies on this subject Edmonds and Killen (2009) examined parental influence from the perspective of adolescents. They found that perceived parental ethnic attitudes had an impact on whether adolescents would bring different ethnicity friends, and in particular cross‐ethnic dates, home. More recently, Munniksma, Flache, Verkuyten, and Veenstra (2012) expanded on this study by investigating the underlying reasons why some parents object to their children having close friends from another ethnic group. In their study on Turkish‐ Dutch and Dutch parents they found that family reputation, vulnerability and religiosity play a role in parental acceptance of their children’s interethnic peer relations and this was particularly evident among Turkish‐Dutch parents. Two recent studies further illustrate the role parents have on managing their children’s friendships with other ethnic groups. Both studies are based on the concept of intergenerational closure (Coleman, 1990). Put simply, intergenerational closure exists when the parents of children who are friends are friends themselves. Windzio (2012) showed that parents of cross‐ethnic friendship dyads are unlikely to be acquainted and that this lack of intergenerational closure is strongly related to fewer mutual invitations to birthday parties among 10‐year‐olds. Hunter, Friend, Williams‐Wheeler, and Fletcher (2012), using qualitative interviews of Black and White mothers, elucidated some of the barriers to intergenerational closure. These barriers included not only structural ones such as residential segregation, but also reflected differences in social class or religion and the social distance that comes with them. Overall, these findings indicate that it is important to consider the role parents have on their children’s decision making regarding cross‐ethnic friendships, in particular outside the classroom. In sum, the frequency of cross‐ethnic friendships is determined by multiple factors at the structural, intergroup, and family level. Yet, the frequency of cross‐ethnic friendships does not tell us anything about their longevity. Friendship stability is an important index of the depth of a friendship. Long‐lasting

380  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes friendships are more likely to provide benefits such as companionship, intimacy, and support. Moreover, differential stability of same‐ and cross‐ethnic friendships likely contributes to the relative infrequency of cross‐ethnic friendships. Thus, in the following section, we will review the small literature on the stability of cross‐ethnic friendships.

Stability and quality of cross‐ethnic friendships Consistent findings in the literature show that cross‐ethnic friendships are less stable than same‐ethnic friendships (Aboud et  al., 2003; Hallinan & Williams, 1987; Jugert, Noack, & Rutland, 2013; Lee, Howes, & Chamberlain, 2007; Schneider et al., 2007). However, a recent study by McDonald and colleagues (2013) suggests that ethnic similarity may not affect friendship stability when accounting for friends’ similarity in socio‐behavioral characteristics. These authors found that, in predicting friendship stability and quality, it is more important whether friends are similar in terms of peer reputation and aggressiveness than whether they share the same ethnicity. Similarly, Jugert et al. (2013) found that, when cross‐ethnic friends were similar with regard to empathy, their friendship was less likely to dissolve than when they were dissimilar. Further, Kawabata and Crick (2011) showed that leadership skills increased the stability of cross‐ethnic friendships. Thus, the results of these studies point to the importance of studying friends’ similarity in socio‐behavioral characteristics and peer reputation that go beyond similarity in ethnicity. Some scholars have suggested that differences in friendship quality could explain the relatively low stability of cross‐ethnic friendships (Aboud et al., 2003). However, others (Schneider et al., 2007) found no differences in friendship quality between same‐ and cross‐ ethnic friendships. Overall, the literature on stability and quality of cross‐ethnic friendships is very slim, probably due to the necessity of longitudinal data. More research is needed to fully understand the factors contributing to friendship stability among cross‐ethnic friendship dyads.

Consequences of cross‐ethnic friendships Positive consequences of cross‐ethnic friendships.  Research shows that cross‐ethnic friendships influence the development of many social and emotional qualities like solving conflicts (McGill, Way, & Hughes, 2012; Nelson & Aboud, 1985) and positively influences self‐esteem and socio‐emotional support (Hartup & Stevens, 1997; McGill et al., 2012). Kawabata and Crick (2008) investigated how cross‐ethnic friendship contributes to social adjustment. They hypothesized that cross‐group



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  381

friendships contribute in unique ways to social adjustment as they help to reduce social bias and associated negative emotions, and promote adjustment to other ethnicities. Their results showed that children who had more cross‐ethnic friendships were viewed by teachers as being more ethnically inclusive and having more leadership skills. Further studies suggest that cross‐ethnic friendships provide unique psychosocial benefits as they are associated with social competence (Lease & Blake, 2005), and less victimization by peers (Kawabata & Crick, 2011). The best documented consequences of cross‐ethnic friendship are related to intergroup attitudes. As reviewed at the beginning of this chapter, over the past 60 years a great deal of research has focused on the question of how peer relations influence prejudice. For example, studies in the 1980s and 1990s showed that children with cross‐ethnic friends in early grades are more likely than those without to have out‐group friends in adolescence and adulthood (Ellison & Powers, 1994; Patchen, 1982). Overall, there is robust evidence for causal relationship of cross‐ ethnic friendships improving intergroup attitudes (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011; Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009). In a longitudinal study, Feddes and colleagues (2009) measured associations between friendship and out‐group attitudes between 7‐ to 11‐year‐old German children (high‐status group) and German‐Turkish (low‐status migrant group) in three ethnically heterogeneous primary schools at the beginning and end of the school year. The results showed that having an out‐group friend at the beginning of the school year was positively associated with more positive attitudes toward the out‐group at the end of the school year. Importantly, positive attitudes toward the out‐group at the beginning of the school year were not associated with having more out‐group friends at the end of the school year. A  recent meta‐analysis by Davies et  al. (2011) supports these results. The meta‐analysis included 17 studies with children and 30 studies with adolescents. As in the studies discussed above, in both samples having a direct friend in the out‐group was moderately related to less prejudice (correlations between friendship and prejudice were −.20 among children and −.23 among adolescents). Overall, these results support the friendship hypothesis of Pettigrew (1998) that direct friendship results in more positive attitudes toward the out‐group. Mediators of  the  relationship between cross‐ethnic friendships and  intergroup attitudes.  In the past two decades, research on consequences of cross‐group friendship has focused on the underlying processes determining changes in attitudes: Why does friendship result in improved attitudes towards other groups? There now exists a rich body of research that identifies mediators in the friendship–attitude relationship. Feddes and colleagues (2009) investigated the possible role of peer group norms. They asked the German and German‐Turkish children whether they thought other in‐group and out‐group children thought it would be okay to have

382  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes out‐group friends or not. It was found that having cross‐ethnic friends at the beginning of the school year positively influenced children’s perceptions of whether other children thought it normal to have an out‐group friend at the end of the school year. Having a cross‐ethnic friend, therefore, resulted in more positive perceived norms about cross‐group friendship which, in turn, positively influenced these children’s attitudes towards the other group. In other words, peer group norms about cross‐ethnic friendship mediated the positive association between cross‐ethnic friendship and more positive out‐group attitudes. Other studies by Cameron and colleagues (Cameron, Rutland, & Brown, 2007; Cameron, Rutland, Hossain, & Petley, 2011) have shown that extended friendship (i.e., knowledge about cross‐ethnic friendship) also results in more positive social norms that, in turn, positively influence intergroup attitudes. Other studies on mediators of the friendship–attitudes association have also found that cross‐ethnic friendship results in spontaneous identification with out‐group children (Cameron, Rutland, Brown, & Douch, 2006), greater empathy and trust towards the out‐group (Swart, Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2011). In three studies, Turner, Hewstone, and Voci (2007) showed that both direct and extended cross‐ethnic friendship resulted in reduced intergroup anxiety towards the out‐group. Moderators of friendship effects.  One important question in investigating consequences of cross‐ethnic friendship on intergroup attitudes is under which conditions it is most effective. A recent review of 32 studies on interventions aimed at reducing prejudice and enhancing inclusion has shown moderate positive effects of interventions based on peer relations (Aboud et al., 2012). One of the proposed key moderators was difference in the social status of ethnic groups. For ethnic majority members, interventions were found to be more effective in reducing prejudice than for ethnic minority members. In the contact literature this phenomenon has also been reported. For example, Tropp and colleagues found that mere contact influences out‐group prejudice and inclusion differently depending on group status (cf., Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Tropp & Prenovost, 2008). That is, minority groups showed a weaker relationship between intergroup contact and a reduction of prejudice than majority groups which, according to Tropp and Pettigrew could not be explained by the quality of intergroup contact. Indeed, in regard to intergroup friendship, Feddes and colleagues (2009) replicated this, showing that positive effects of intergroup friendship on the development of children’s intergroup attitudes were only found among the majority high‐status (German), but not minority low‐status (German‐Turkish) children. These results suggest that cross‐ethnic friendships are particularly important depending on group status.



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  383

One possible explanation for this phenomenon, as suggested by Tropp and Pettigrew (2005), is that ethnic majority members are more concerned about appearing prejudiced in intergroup settings than minority settings. In contrast, minority group members’ concern is mainly being the target of prejudice. Nevertheless, the minority/majority asymmetry in contact effects remains to be further empirically investigated. A recent study by McGill and colleagues (2012) also showed differences in consequences of cross‐ethnic versus same‐ethnic friendships depending on the ethnic group. In their study they investigated patterns of same‐ and cross‐ethnic best friendships among adolescents. In accordance with previous studies, they found most youth to have only same‐ethnic best friends in middle school. Generally, their findings showed that same‐ethnic friendship was related to more social well‐being for Black and Asian American youth, but not for White and Latino youth. As an explanation, the authors concluded that the ethnic context in the schools may be particularly hostile for Black and Asian American students. Same‐ethnic friendships may therefore be particularly important for these youth. Negative consequences of  cross‐ethnic friendships.  Titzmann (2012) showed that cross‐ethnic friendships can create stressful family dynamics that reduce adolescents’ well‐being. This is because the parents of adolescent immigrants are often less well socioculturally adapted than their children, leading to the adoption of adult family roles by providing emotional support for their parents among their children. McGill, and colleagues (2012) found that Black and Asian American adolescents with only cross‐ethnic best friends reported lower emotional well‐being than those with only same‐ethnic best friends. Recent findings from social psychology also suggest that sustained intergroup contact can have negative effects at the group level for adult minority members as it lowers their support for social change, equality, and justice (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2007). In addition, research by Castelli, De Amicis, and Sherman (2007) showed that ethnic majority children between 4 and 7 years old evaluated in‐group children more positively when they played only with other in‐group members. This implies that the choice of having positive relations only with other in‐group members or out‐group members has consequences for how a child is viewed by other in‐group members. Castelli and colleagues called this the “Loyal Member Effect.” Thus, future research should investigate carefully possible negative effects of cross‐ethnic friendships at the individual and group level. Cross‐ethnic friendships might come at a cost if these are the only kind of friendships that children have or if parents or peers do not approve of intergroup contact.

384  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes

Summary In this chapter, we have reviewed the literature on children’s and adolescents’ cross‐ethnic friendships, focusing on their antecedents and consequences. The likelihood of cross‐ethnic friendships depends on structural, intergroup, and family factors. With regard to structure, the availability of same‐ and cross‐ ethnic peers both at the level of the social setting (e.g., school) and within the network (e.g., children’s friendship network) influence decision‐making about cross‐ethnic friendships. However, more availability of cross‐ethnic peers does not automatically lead to more cross‐ethnic friendships (cf., Moody, 2001). Similarity based on ethnicity may be an important criterion for friendships decisions early on in the acquaintance process. Nevertheless, studies suggest that, when children also have information regarding other important criteria (e.g., activity interests), ethnicity may become less important. Status among peers is another important factor determining friendship decisions. Studies suggest that high peer status is associated with having cross‐ethnic friendships and that status of ethnic minority children may depend on whether they form a majority in the classroom. With regard to intergroup factors, acculturation attitudes, intergroup attitudes, peer group norms, and contact conditions all have an influence on whether children and adolescents are likely to have cross‐ethnic friends. Only recently have researchers begun to explore the influence of parents on children’s decision making about intergroup peer relations. The evidence to date suggests that parents are influential, particularly with regard to friendships outside the classroom. The second part of the chapter focused on consequences of cross‐ethnic friendships. Research has now shown that having cross‐ethnic friendships has positive psychosocial consequences, which include better social adjustment and more positive attitudes towards ethnic out‐groups. In regard to the question why cross‐group friendship leads to more positive attitudes it has been found that having cross‐ethnic friends changes perceived peer group norms, it results in greater identification with the out‐group as well as more empathy and trust towards the out‐group. Importantly, cross‐ethnic friendship reduces feelings of intergroup anxiety. Ethnicity (i.e., ethnic status) has been found to be a key moderator of the friendship‐attitudes relationship as the relationship is stronger for ethnic majority than ethnic minority members. Cross‐ethnic friendship may also have negative consequences when it is the only kind of friendship children have or when parents or peers do not approve of the friendship.



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  385

Future Directions We want to repeat the call made by Graham, Taylor, and Ho (2009) that scholars interested in cross‐ethnic friendships need to take a multidisciplinary perspective. Some of the most important advances in the field have come from sociology. This is not only true for theory but also for analytical approaches. One of the most intriguing analytical tools developed by sociologists is longitudinal social network analysis (e.g., Simulation Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis [SIENA]; Snijders, Van de Bunt, & Steglich, 2010). With longitudinal peer nominations data on, for example, classroom networks, SIENA allows for disentangling processes of selection (e.g., selecting friends because of certain characteristics) and influence (e.g., being influenced by friends’ characteristics) and takes into account the complex statistical interdependency in social networks. To illustrate, using social network analysis Munniksma, Stark, Verkuyten, Flache, and Veenstra (2013) were able to provide more insight into how extended friendships influence intergroup attitudes. These researchers noted that measures of extended friendship are strongly related to measures of direct friendship (Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004; Turner & Brown 2008). The reason for this is that extended intergroup friendships within a social setting are likely to be associated with direct friendships in that setting. To examine the unique effects of extended friendship on intergroup attitudes it was necessary to exclude these direct friendships. By assessing the entire social network in the classroom, these researchers could determine the number of extended friendship relations that an individual had that were not simultaneously part of direct friendships. Using this approach among 661 Dutch students in multiethnic schools, they could show that, for students with relatively unfavorable out‐group attitudes, extended friendship with out‐group members was related to more positive attitudes independent of direct friendships. The network analyses, therefore, avoided the misclassification of intergroup friendship as extended when it was, in fact, direct intergroup friendship. Future research should also investigate children’s interpretations of friendship choices. Do children justify not befriending a member of another ethnic group and, if so, how? We need to know more about when and how ethnic group membership plays a role in children’s friendship choices. Stark and Flache (2012) argue that ethnic segregation in friendship networks is a mere by‐product of opinion homophily. That is, because ethnic group membership and opinions are often correlated, preference for same‐ over cross‐ethnic friends may simply occur because children from different ethnic groups do not share the same opinions. But more open‐ended assessments could also shed more light on children’s reasoning about friendship choices (cf. Killen, Henning, Kelly, Crystal, & Ruck, 2007). Another interesting

386  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes avenue for future research is cross‐group friendships based on religion. Across Western Europe questions of diversity have been increasingly coined in religious terms with particular focus on Islam (Verkuyten & Slooter, 2007). Thus, religious group membership may have become an important social marker next to ethnicity. Overall, the literature on cross‐ethnic friendships is poorly integrated because researchers have used different definitions of friendship (best friendships vs. more lenient definitions; one‐way vs. reciprocal), and different ways to measure friendship (peer nominations vs. closed questions). The picture will become even more complicated as the number of mixed‐ethnic children increases. Mixed‐ethnic children pose a problem to the researcher, as it is difficult if not impossible to define when a mixed‐ethnic child has a cross‐ethnic friendship. In addition, much of the research has been merely explorative or descriptive with very few studies trying to address questions of moderation and mediation. However, there is a clear need to move beyond descriptive studies specific to particular study contexts to generalizable findings. Thus, future studies should aim to study contextual factors with experimental and multilevel approaches (e.g., compare teaching methods and school‐level factors). Note 1 We use the terms “ethnic” and “ethnicity” rather than “race” or “racial” throughout this chapter. Ethnicity is a ‘social group a person belongs to, and either identifies with or is identified with by others, as a result of a mix of cultural and other factors including language, diet, religion, ancestry, and physical features traditionally associated with race” (Bhopal, 2004, p. 443). We acknowledge that race is more commonly used in North America where ethnic differences have historically been based mainly on skin color. We use ethnic/ethnicity as synonyms for racial/race.

References Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Exploring and evaluating school‐based i­nterventions to reduce prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 767–786. doi: 10.1111/0022‐4537.00146 Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 87–112). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Aboud, F. E., Mendelson, M. J., & Purdy, K. T. (2003). Cross‐race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173. doi:10.1080/01650250244000164



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  387

Aboud, F. E., & Sankar, J. (2007). Friendship and identity in a language‐integrated school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 445–453. doi: 10.1177/ 0165025407081469 Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C. S., Niens, U., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32(4), 307–336. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.05.001 Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and deviant in‐group and out‐group individuals. Child Development, 74, 1840–1856. doi:10.1046/j.1467‐8624.2003.00641.x Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th edition). New York, NY: Basic books. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 608–616. doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.15.6.608 Berry, J. W. (1990). Acculturation and adaptation: A general framework. In W. H. Holtzman & T. H. Bornemann (Eds.), Mental health of immigrants and refugees (pp. 90–102). Austin, TX: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health. Bhopal, R. (2004). Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: For reflection and debate. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(6), 441–445. doi: 10.1136/ jech.2003.013466 Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., … Leyens, J.‐P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. doi:10.1037/ a0013470 Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., & Brown, R. (2007). Promoting children’s positive intergroup attitudes towards stigmatized groups: Extended contact and multiple classification skills training. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 454–466. doi:10.1177/ 0165025407081474 Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00929.x Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Hossain, R., & Petley, R. (2011). When and why does extended contact work? The role of high quality direct contact and group norms in the development of positive ethnic intergroup attitudes amongst children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 193–206. doi:10.1177/1368430210390535

388  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes Castelli, L., De Amicis, L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The loyal member effect: On the preference for in‐group members who engage in exclusive relations with the in‐group. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1347–1359. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.43.6.1347 Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross‐group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta‐analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103 Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup Contact and Attitudes Toward the Principle and Practice of Racial Equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2007.01993.x Echols, L., & Graham, S. (2013). Birds of a different feather: How do cross‐ethnic friends flock together? Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 59(4), 461–488. doi: 10.1353/ mpq.2013.0020 Edmonds, C., & Killen, M. (2009). Do adolescents’ perceptions of parental racial attitudes relate to their intergroup contact and cross‐race relationships? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 5–21. doi:10.1177/1368430208098773 Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 385–399. Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80(2), 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2009.01266.x Graham, J. A., & Cohen, R. (1997). Race and sex as factors in children’s sociometric ratings and friendship choices. Social Development, 6, 355–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9507.1997. tb00111.x Graham, S., Taylor, A., & Ho, A. (2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 394–413). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Hallinan, M. T., & Teixeira, R. A. (1987). Students’ interracial friendships: Individual characteristics, structural effects, and racial differences. American Journal of Education, 95, 563–583. Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1987). The stability of students’ interracial friendships. American Sociological Review, 52, 653–664. doi:10.2307/2095601 Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1990). Students’ characteristics and the peer‐influence process. Sociology of Education, 63, 122–132. Hamm, J. V., Brown, B. B., & Heck, D. J. (2005). Bridging the ethnic divide: Student and school characteristics in African American, Asian‐descent, Latino, and White adolescents’ cross‐ethnic friend nominations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 21–46. doi:10.1111/j.1532‐7795.2005.00085.x Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 355–370. doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.121.3.355 Horn, S. S. (2006). Group status, group bias, and adolescents’ reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, doi:10.1177/0165025406066721



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  389

Hunter, A. G., Friend, C. A., Williams‐Wheeler, M., & Fletcher, A. C. (2012). Race, class, and religious differences in the social networks of children and their parents. Youth & Society, 44(3), 450–475. doi:10.1177/0044118X12451798 Jackson, M. F., Barth, J. M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. E. (2006). Classroom contextual effects of race on children’s peer nominations. Child Development, 77, 1325–1337. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2006.00937.x Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning experiences on cross‐ethnic interaction and friendships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118(1), 47–58. doi:10.1080/00224545.1982.9924417 Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2011). Friendship Preferences Among German and Turkish Preadolescents. Child Development, 82(3), 812–829. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624. 2010.01528.x Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2013). Children’s cross‐ethnic friendships: Why are they less stable than same‐ethnic friendships? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(6), 649–662. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.734136 Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends?: Activities among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 557–573. doi: 10.1111/j.1533‐8525.2004.tb02303.x Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross‐racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1177–1183. doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.44.4.1177 Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2011). The antecedents of friendships in moderately diverse classrooms: Social preference, social impact, and social behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(1), 48–57. doi:10.1177/0165025410368946 Kiesner, J., Maass, A., Cadinu, M., & Vallese, I. (2003). Risk factors for ethnic p ­ rejudice during early adolescence. Social Development, 12, 288–308. doi: 10.1111/1467‐9507.00234 Killen, M., Henning, A., Kelly, M. C., Crystal, D., & Ruck, M. (2007). Evaluations of interracial peer encounters by majority and minority U.S. children and ­adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 491–500. doi: 10.1177/ 0165025407081478 Killen, M., Richardson, C. B., & Kelly, M. C. (2010). Developmental perspectives. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 97–114). London: Sage. Lease, A. M., & Blake, J. J. (2005). A comparison of majority‐race children with and without a minority‐race friend. Social Development, 14, 20–41. doi:10.1111/ j.1467‐9507.2005.00289.x Lee, L., Howes, C., & Chamberlain, B. (2007). Ethnic heterogeneity of social ­networks and cross‐ethnic friendships of elementary school boys and girls. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 325–346. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2007.0016 Leman, P. J., & Lam, V. L. (2008). The influence of race and gender on children’s conversations and playmate choices. Child Development, 79(5), 1329–1343. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2008.01191.x Margie, N. G., Killen, M., Sinno, S., & McGlothlin, H. (2005). Minority children’s intergroup attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 251–269. doi: 10.1348/026151005X26075

390  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes McDonald, K. L., Dashiell‐Aje, E., Menzer, M. M., Rubin, K. H., Oh, W., & Bowker, J. C. (2013). Contributions of racial and sociobehavioral homophily to friendship stability and quality among same‐race and cross‐race friends. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(7), 897–919. doi:10.1177/0272431612472259 McGill, R. K., Way, N., & Hughes, D. (2012). Intra‐ and interracial best friendships during middle school: Links to social and emotional well‐being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(4), 722–738. doi:10.1111/j.1532‐7795.2012.00826.x McGlothlin, H., & Killen, M. (2005). Children’s perceptions of intergroup and intragroup similarity and the role of social experience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 680–698. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.008 McGlothlin, H., Killen, M., & Edmonds, C. (2005). European‐American children’s intergroup attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 227–249. doi: 10.1348/026151005x26101 McPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. Molina, L. E., & Wittig, M. A. (2006). Relative importance of contact conditions in explaining prejudice reduction in a classroom context: Separate and equal? Journal of Social Issues, 62, 489–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‐4560.2006.00470.x Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679–716. doi: 10.1086/338954 Mouw, T., & Entwisle, B. (2006). Residential segregation and interracial friendship in schools. American Journal of Sociology, 112(2), 394–441. doi:10.1086/506415 Munniksma, A., Flache, A., Verkuyten, M., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Parental acceptance of children’s intimate ethnic out‐group relations: The role of culture, status, and family reputation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 575–585. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2011.12.012 Munniksma, A., Stark, T. H., Verkuyten, M., Flache, A., & Veenstra, R. (2013). Extended intergroup friendships within social settings: The moderating role of initial out‐group attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(6), 752–770. doi:10.1177/ 1368430213486207 Nelson, J., & Aboud, F. E. (1985). The resolution of social conflict between friends. Child Development, 56(4), 1009–1017. doi: 10.2307/1130112 Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 306–347. doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.117.2.306 Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect crossgroup friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety‐reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 770–786. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262848 Patchen, M. (1982). Black–White contact in schools: Its social and academic effects. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65



Children’s and Adolescents’ Cross‐Ethnic Friendships  391

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta‐analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi: 10.1037/ 0022‐3514.90.5.751 Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.  571–645). New York, NY: Wiley. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Jugert, P., Nigbur, D., Brown, R., Watters, C., … Le Touze, D. (2012). Group identity and peer relations: A longitudinal study of group identity, perceived peer acceptance, and friendships amongst ethnic minority English children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 283–302. doi:10.1111/j.2044‐835X. 2011.02040.x Schneider, B. H., Dixon, K., & Udvari, S. (2007). Closeness and competition in the inter‐ ethnic and co‐ethnic friendships of early adolescents in Toronto and Montreal. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 115–138. doi:10.1177/0272431606294822 Schofield, J. W. (1989). Black and White in school: Trust, tension or tolerance? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schofield, J. W. (1995). Review of research on school desegregation’s impact on elementary and secondary school students. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 597–616). New York, NY: Macmillan. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271. doi: 10.3102/00346543050002241 Snijders, T. A., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. (2010). Introduction to s­tochastic actor‐based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60. doi:10.1016/j. socnet.2009.02.004 Stark, T. H., & Flache, A. (2012). The double edge of common interest: Ethnic segregation as an unintended byproduct of opinion homophily. Sociology of Education, 85(2), 179–199. doi:10.1177/0038040711427314 Stephan, W. G., & Rosenfield, D. (1978). Effects of desegregation on race relations and self‐esteem. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 670–679. doi:10.1037/ 0022‐0663.70.5.670 Swart, H., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2011). Achieving out‐group forgiveness and out‐group trust: The importance of crossgroup friendships, self‐disclosure, and empathy. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 181–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Titzmann, P. F. (2012). Growing up too soon? Parentification among immigrant and native adolescents in Germany. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(7), 880–893. doi:10.1007/ s10964‐011‐9711‐1 Titzmann, P. F., Silbereisen, R. K., & Schmitt‐Rodermund, E. (2007). Friendship homophily among diaspora migrant adolescents in Germany and Israel. European Psychologist, 12, 181–195. doi:10.1027/1016‐9040.12.3.181

392  Philipp Jugert and Allard R. Feddes Tropp L. R, & Pettigrew T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2005.01643.x Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. A. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting children’s inter‐ethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta‐analytic and field studies. In S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup relations: An integrative developmental and social psychological perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Turner, R. N., & Brown, R. (2008). Improving children’s attitudes toward refugees: An evaluation of a school‐based multicultural curriculum and an anti‐racist intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 1295–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2008.00349.x Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit out‐group prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self‐disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388. doi: 10.1037/0022‐3514.93.3.369 Verkuyten, M., & Slooter, L. (2007). Tolerance of Muslim beliefs and practices: Age‐related differences and context effects. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 467–477. doi:10.1177/0165025407081480 Windzio, M. (2012). Integration of immigrant children into inter‐ ethnic friendship networks: The role of “intergenerational openness.” Sociology, 46(2), 258–271. doi:10.1177/ 0038038511419182

19 Interracial Contact among University and School Youth in Post‐apartheid South Africa Colin Tredoux, John Dixon, Kevin Durrheim, and Buhle Zuma

The story of South Africa’s political transformation is now well known. Apartheid government, premised on racial discrimination and White privilege, was replaced in 1994 through negotiation and democratic election. Racial segregation and oppression in South Africa dated from at least the 1652 arrival of the Dutch East India Company in present‐day Cape Town. Similar histories of racism and discrimination are present in many other former colonies across the world. However, whereas many countries eliminated legislated race discrimination in the 20th century, the White South African government deepened its segregationist and racist program of “apartheid.” Simultaneously, military insurrection arose within South Africa, and by the late 1980s a de facto civil war was in progress. On 2 February 1990, though, the African National Congress was unbanned, its leader Nelson Mandela set free, and a peaceful settlement negotiated (see Worden, 2011, for more detail).

The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents, First Edition. Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale, and Christia Spears Brown. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

394  Tredoux, Dixon, Durrheim, and Zuma South Africa is particularly interesting in that it has brought groups into contact that had formerly been rigidly separated and reared to fear each other. A central conjecture of social psychology is that contact between groups in disharmony can reduce intergroup hostilities and prejudices. This “contact hypothesis” was proposed by Gordon Allport (1954) and developed by later generations of social psychologists (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Allport argued that, to be beneficial, interactions should unfold under certain conditions, including co‐operative dependency, institutional support, and equality of status (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 66). Empirical support for Allport’s “contact hypothesis” is now extensive. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) report a meta‐analysis showing that over 96% of studies have found that contact reduces prejudice, with an aggregate r = −0.21. They also conclude that the conditions identified by Allport facilitate, but are not a prerequisite for, effective contact. There are several explanations for the general efficacy of contact: recent research has focused increasingly on the role of affective processes, exploring the role of contact in reducing negative emotions such as intergroup anxiety and promoting positive emotions such as empathy (e.g., Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2005). Present conditions in South Africa provide a rich and timely test bed for contact theory. During the apartheid era, people classified as belonging to different “races” were rigidly separated in virtually all aspects of life and interracial encounters were often hierarchical, and instrumental. It is not surprising, then, that early attempts to test contact theory in South Africa were largely disconfirmatory (see Finchilescu & Tredoux, 2008), but the extraordinary political and social changes that have unfolded in South Africa have created the opportunity, perhaps for the first time, for groups to interact under more favorable circumstances. At the same time, however, we believe that researchers must reflect carefully on the local contexts in which contact occurs. In our own research we have addressed: (1) the role contact plays within the total repertoire of relations between groups in a changing South Africa, exploring its effects on attitudes towards ongoing processes of restitution and inequality, as well as on more standard measures of prejudice (e.g., Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2007); and (2) the concrete behavioral and spatial patterning of intergroup contact. Of particular interest to us is what we have called the “micro‐ecology of contact”—the spatiotemporal unfolding of interaction and isolation at relatively intimate levels of analysis and across a variety of everyday life settings (see Dixon, Tredoux, Durrheim, Finchilescu, & Clack, 2008). We have set about such work since 2000. This has taken us to locations including beaches (Dixon & Durrheim, 2003), public university spaces (Tredoux, Dixon, Underwood, Nunez, & Finchilescu, 2005), cafeterias in schools and universities (Clack, Dixon, & Tredoux, 2004), and high school playgrounds (Clack, 2007). We have used methods ranging from national probability surveys (Dixon et al. 2007)



Interracial Contact among Youth in Post-apartheid South Africa  395

to behavioral mapping (Dixon & Durrheim, 2003), from focus group interviews (Durrheim & Dixon, 2005) to observational studies of interaction (Tredoux & Dixon, 2009). We will restrict ourselves in this review to studies of contact we, and others, have conducted with school and university youth. However uneven and incomplete its expression, the transformation of the South African education system since 1994 has begun to redress some of the inequities of apartheid in education. Desegregation has enabled particular forms of “integrated” education to emerge and some degree of widening of access to resources (see Lemon, 2005). Many schools (and universities) in South Africa have become increasingly multiracial and can now profess to have attained racial integration alongside their other educational and civic goals. As a result, schools and universities are profoundly significant locations for studies of intergroup contact in the “new” South Africa. We organize the rest of our review under three broad headings: self‐report tests of contact theory, the racial ecology of contact, and qualitative investigation of cross‐race friendship formation.

Self‐report Tests of Contact Theory Along with laboratory experiments, questionnaire surveys represent the most widely used methodology in contact research. Four surveys have explicitly studied South African school and university youth in recent years. In the first, Holtman, Louw, Tredoux and Carney (2005) surveyed 1,119 Grade 10 and 11 students from 19 schools in the Cape Town area, and found strong, statistically significant relations between self‐reported contact and prejudice measures.1 Beta coefficients in regression equations modeling prejudice were typically greater than |0.25| for amount and quality of contact, and sometimes as high as |0.6|. In a second study, Tredoux and Finchilescu (2010) conducted a survey of four South African university campuses, located in different regions, sampling a total of 3,277 students. The researchers reported moderately strong (|0.28| to |0.64|) relations between self‐reported contact and various measures of racial prejudice for both Black and White South Africans. Intergroup anxiety was a strong mediator of the contact–prejudice relation, dominating both contact quality and contact amount. In addition, students who were concerned about the out‐group evaluation of the ingroup had higher levels of prejudice towards the out‐group. Blaming the out‐group (for contact avoidance) and having strong identification with the in‐ group also had robust, direct effects on prejudice. Swart and colleagues report a set of surveys (Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2010, 2011), of White and Colored high school students, in which they tested

396  Tredoux, Dixon, Durrheim, and Zuma more sophisticated elaborations of the contact hypothesis. They showed that cross‐group friendship is a positive predictor of positive out‐group attitudes, and a negative predictor of negative action tendencies, mediated by intergroup anxiety and affective empathy. Multigroup comparisons confirmed that contact effects are stronger for majority than minority groups (in this study, White students were considered to constitute the majority, given the historical dominance of their group in South Africa, even though they are a demographic minority). In a three‐wave longitudinal survey, Swart et al. (2011) surveyed 465 Colored high school students, and explored the effects of cross‐group friendships on attitudes and intended behavior toward a White South African out‐group, via affective mediators. A bidirectional model showed full longitudinal mediation in the direction from contact to prejudice. In sum, the results of these surveys are in line with Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta‐analysis. They provide unambiguous evidence of the inverse relationship between self‐reported contact and self‐reported prejudice in post‐apartheid South African youth. However, by virtue of their correlational nature, we contend that they do not provide a convincing answer to the deeper (causal) question of whether contact between different groups of South African youth results in improved relations. Nor do they provide a concrete inventory of the varying forms of contact emerging in post‐apartheid South Africa.

The Racial Ecology of Contact We have argued elsewhere (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005, p. 709) that, although the contact hypothesis is empirically well supported, it veers towards a utopian view of social life in historically divided societies, and “is far less convincing … as a depiction of the actual nature of ethnic and racial contact in particular contexts or as a realistic account of the obstacles to transformation that exist there.” As a remedy, we have expended considerable effort on researching intergroup interactions and contact in everyday settings and on recovering participants’ own understandings of the meanings of “interracial” contact (“the ecology of interracial contact,” Dixon & Durrheim, 2003, p. 4), that is to say, the full range of behaviors that unfold when people from different groups are contiguous in space and time. Although “contact” is often read as the ineluctable precursor of integration, it frequently leads to the (re)production of segregation in new forms. Our concern with racial ecology is not simply a response to what we see as a partially closed methodological and theoretical circle, it is also a serious reflection on the recalcitrant and, in the view of some, escalating residential, educational, and economic



Interracial Contact among Youth in Post-apartheid South Africa  397

segregation and inequality that many “postconflict” societies report. There is ample evidence that segregation in the United States continues relatively unabated, with adverse consequences for poverty and healthcare (Massey & Denton, 1988, 1993). Likewise, Christopher (2005) examined census records in South Africa, and concluded that neighborhoods were, by 2001, barely more integrated than under apartheid. Pulling down the barriers set up by apartheid in South Africa or Jim Crow in the United States and enforcing the desegregation of educational and other public institutions has not resulted in meaningful integration; rather, the result is “illusory contact” and resegregation (e.g., Schofield, 1982). We believe that studying the “ecology,” and “micro‐ecology,” of intergroup interactions amongst university and school youth may reveal some of the social psychological processes that lead to wider patterns of re‐segregation.

Seating patterns of students in university cafeterias and public spaces One goal of our research on the micro‐ecology of contact has been to explore the use of shared space. An opportune location for this is in the refectories (or cafeterias) dotted around university campuses and residences. Four of our studies have mapped the seating patterns of students in these facilities, and two have attempted to tie these to quantitative attitudinal data or to shared understandings of how the spaces in question are partitioned through the actions of students. In general, the method for the study of seating patterns is observational, and we have found that “mapping” techniques are especially useful in capturing the spatial arrangement of social relations. Maps are drawn of the spaces in question, denoting tables, seats, food counters, and the like, and observers are then able to mark the physical location and group identity of every person in the space. By systematically sampling scheduled periods of observation over time, we can build up a dynamic and representative picture of the “racial ecology” of relations within a given location (see Figure  19.1 for examples of the maps used by Schrieff, Tredoux, Dixon and Finchilescu, 2005, and Clack et al., 2004). Indices of segregation and integration can then be calculated from the resulting data (e.g., D [dissimilarity] and xPy [interaction]—see Massey & Denton, 1988). Schrieff et  al. (2005) studied dining rooms of two large residences at the University of Cape Town, each of which had two “wings” or “arms,” separated by a salad bar. Student enrolment in the residences was approximately 60% Black and 40% White. Results, accumulated over 200 different observational canvasses of the dining spaces, showed extremely high levels of segregation: the median values of D and xPy were 0.92 and 0.08, respectively (the measures range from 0 to 1, and 1 to 0, respectively). On average, 92% of tables were completely segregated, per

FT left-hand side IT EX

6

6

12

12 10

8

4

A B

9

I

Doorway

N

10

10

C

10

6 8

6 4

10

TOASTERS

SALAD BAR

6

SAUCES

Serving area

W

12

12

Kitchen

D O

W E S

KITCHEN ENTER

Doorway

D

F

EXIT

Figure 19.1  Maps Used by Schrieff et al. (2005) (Left), and Clack et al. (2004) (Right).



Interracial Contact among Youth in Post-apartheid South Africa  399

observational period. Detailed inspection showed that one wing in each of the residence dining halls was almost exclusively monoracial. Thus, segregation at the level of table choice was reinforced by a broader territorial organization of eating space. This set of findings was replicated in the same venues by Alexander (2007). Levels of segregation remained very high, as did the specific differential occupation of left and right arms of the dining rooms. Self‐segregation was also observed by Koen and Durrheim (2010), in an entirely different geographical and functional setting. They photographed 67 first‐year university classes in the first two weeks of the academic year at the University of KwaZulu‐Natal, and then again in the last two weeks of the semester. Campbell, Kruskal, and Wallace’s (1966) “adjacency index” (I) was used to measure equality of distribution of three groups (Indian, White, and Black) over the seats in the lecture theatre (I varies between –∞ and + ∞, where negative values indicate fewer adjacencies than expected by chance, and positive values more than expected by chance). The distribution of seating adjacencies was markedly uneven at the beginning of the semester, with median I values of approximately −0.51. By the end of the semester, this level of unequal distribution had increased significantly, to approximately ‐0.64. When the variation in I was examined across classrooms, it was found to be correlated in particular with classroom density, suggesting that preference played an important role: that is, when classrooms were not as full, allowing more choice in seating position, distributions were more unequal. Similarly, Alexander and Tredoux (2010) collected data on the seating patterns of twenty‐six undergraduate tutorial groups across a full academic year. Results showed high levels of segregation in table seating choices, with a mean D value of 0.71 (s = 0.09). Although there appeared to be a decrease in the value of D across the time period (D = 0.81 vs D = 0.67), this was not statistically significant (t = 2.03, df = 13, p > 0.06). Two themes arose naturally from this study of university refectories and teaching venues. In the first place, friendship patterns seemed to determine the seating arrangements rather than race, per se, and the monoracial groups of friends we observed sitting together could have predated university enrollment. The preeminence and tenacity of monoracial friendships among university students is interesting in its own right, but is not evidence that race in and of itself signals resegregation. Secondly, although seating in residence dining rooms appears fluid, and allocated on demand, fixed meal times seem likely to reintroduce social ritual, rendering seating patterns more determinate than they may really be. We wanted to study public spaces that were inherently fluid, and to observe the role of race in these spaces. To address the first of these themes Schrieff, Tredoux, Finchilescu, and Dixon (2010) followed first‐time students from the very first day of entry into a residence,

400  Tredoux, Dixon, Durrheim, and Zuma to the end of their first year of study. During this period, they mapped seating patterns in the dining rooms in three waves, approximately two months apart. Again, maps were constructed to facilitate data collection and raters recorded seating patterns over many occasions.2 Over the course of the year, students were also surveyed in three waves, employing measures designed to elicit their racial attitudes and their friendship choices. Schrieff et al. (2010) established several key findings. First, very few of the students entering the residence for the first time knew any of their fellow students at the time of entry. They therefore had to establish new friendships, rather than exploit preexisting friendships. Second, the seating preferences of first‐time students were strongly racialized from the very first few days they spent in residence. The average value of D for the first wave was 0.90. Third, these seating preferences remained consistent for the duration of the academic year: in the second wave the average value of D was 0.89, and in the third wave 0.94. Fourth, the rate of cross‐race friendship was low, even though opportunities for making cross‐race friends were good. Whereas a total of 285 friendships were reported by students, only 51 (18%) of these were cross‐race (against an expected proportion, under an assumption of no preference, of 48%). The majority of participants (60%) were aware that most of the peers they regularly sat with were of their race. When asked how they decided where to sit for their very first meal, 25% reported that they chose to sit with friends, and 45% reported that they chose to sit alongside someone they had previously met, but who was not a friend. In a later survey in the residence, 54% of participants nominated “friendship” as the most important determinant of seating patterns in the dining hall. Schrieff et al. (2010) further explored the importance of “intergroup anxiety” by asking students how “comfortable” they were sharing a table with peers who were of a different race. Correlations with affective prejudice scores were r = −0.54 (p