Search for: All records

Developmental psychology researchers who investigate the multifaceted nature of prejudice, shown within everyday peer interactions, emphasize the importance of creating inclusive environments for children where equity and justice are promoted. This article uses the Social Reasoning Developmental (SRD) model to explore how children and adolescents reason about social inclusion and exclusion, drawing on moral, social group, and psychological considerations. The role of bystanders in challenging social exclusion is highlighted, with a focus on promoting proactive bystander intervention to create inclusive environments. This review identifies age, group identity, group norms, intergroup contact, empathy, and theory of mind as key influences on children's and adolescents’ bystander reactions. It emphasizes that interventions promoting inclusive peer and school norms, confidence in intergroup contact, empathy, and social perspective-taking can foster inclusive environments and empower bystander action that challenges intergroup social exclusion. 

Research on multisided platforms has emphasized how platform owners accumulate significant power over other platform actors, such as producers and customers, arguing for the need to balance such power with accountability. We review two perspectives on platform accountability: (a) a bottom-up, emergent perspective that focuses on the collective action taken by lower-powered platform actors such as producers (e.g., gig workers, app developers) to enhance rule adequacy and push back against platform owners’ power; and (b) a top-down, institutional perspective that emphasizes preventing extractive opportunism and maintaining a level playing field among different platform actors by enabling legal, regulatory, and governance changes. The bottom-up perspective’s overarching focus is on procedural (rule-focused) fairness, while the top-down perspective’s focus is largely on distributive (outcome-focused) fairness. While both perspectives are important, they have limitations regarding platform accountability, especially given the power and informational asymmetries inherent among platformactors. Therefore, synthesizing across literatures, we provide a framework for platform accountability that accounts for both procedural and distributive fairness, and is based on a fundamental premise: multisided platforms require multisided accountability systems. Thus, our review proposes an approach for enforcing platform accountability that has the potential to rebalance the power between high-powered and low-powered platform actors.