Search for: All records

Abstract This study examined how children’s moral reasoning in response to intergroup exclusion scenarios relates to inclusive attitudes and behaviors. A sample of 528 students (M_age= 9.19,SD = 0.90; 264 girls) in third through fifth grade participated in theDeveloping Inclusive Youth(DIY) program, which provided structured opportunities for moral reasoning through varied intergroup scenarios and peer discussions. Results showed that more frequent use of moral reasoning predicted greater inclusivity across multiple measures. Children who engaged in higher levels of moral reasoning demonstrated more negative evaluations of exclusion, greater empathy toward peers from multiple racial groups, and a stronger desire to play with those peers. However, moral reasoning was not significantly associated with expectations for inclusion or with attitudes toward boys or girls. No significant interactions emerged between moral reasoning and participant demographics (race, gender, grade), suggesting broadly applicable effects. These findings highlight moral reasoning as a key mechanism for promoting inclusive orientations in childhood, particularly in contexts involving racial diversity. Future research should explore how moral reasoning interacts with other factors, such as empathy, perspective-taking, and group norms, to support inclusivity across social contexts. 

Inclusive classrooms aim to promote the social participation of children with learning difficulties (LD). Research shows that children without LD view it as fair to include their peers with LD into the classroom community. Still, children with LD often face social exclusion. This study addressed this gap by investigating how children reason about challenging LD-based exclusion. One objective was to document the distinction between children’s personal goals and their expectations of their peers’ goals when confronting exclusionary behavior toward a peer with LD. Swiss elementary school children (N= 349, 7–13 years, 48% female) were introduced to a scenario about a classmate with LD who was excluded from a group task. They reasoned whether and why they would intervene and what reactions they expected from the group and the perpetrator. The results showed that the vast majority of childrenpersonallyintended to intervene, primarily for moral reasons. However, children’s expectations about their peers were different. They expected a wide range of responses, including negative group dynamics and LD-stereotypes. Higher perceptions of inclusive classroom norms were related to fewer expectations of negative group dynamics. Moreover, older children’s reasoning was more differentiated and included multiple concerns simultaneously. These findings inform strategies for creating inclusive classrooms. 

Abstract High‐quality forms of intergroup contact, such as cross‐group play and friendships, have been identified as particularly effective for promoting positive beliefs toward outgroup peers. Relations between children's cross‐group play experiences and their beliefs about peers’ math and science competencies and high‐status occupational prospects have not yet been examined. Understanding these relations is important given that children from minoritized groups continue to face exclusion and bias in these domains. The present study examined the associations between children's (N = 983,M_age = 9.64, SD_age = .89) reported cross‐group play experiences and their math and science competency beliefs and high‐status occupation expectations about girls and Black peers. Results revealed that, for majority group participants (i.e., boys and White children), higher levels of cross‐group play were associated with significantly higher beliefs and expectations for girls and Black peers. Further, results demonstrated contexts in which higher levels of cross‐group play were positively associated with girls’ and Black children's beliefs and expectations for their own groups. Together, these findings advance theory and research on the benefits of cross‐group contact in childhood by highlighting novel outcomes to which cross‐group contact is positively related, as well as by showing that children from both minoritized and majority status groups stand to benefit from cross‐group contact. 

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. 

To investigate children’s and adolescents’ reasoning about distributive fairness in a rural area of Nepal, we asked participants (53% girls,N= 706,M_age= 13.48;SD_age= 1.79) to distribute educational resources to schools that varied by social class (SC) and to justify their allocation. Most participants allocated equally or equitably; only a minority rewarded the higher-SC school with extra resources. Novel results revealed multiple forms of reasoning coexisting in children’s and adolescents’ explanations about distributive fairness; participants’ reasoning did not just mirror their numeric allocation. Those who allocated equally were primarily concerned with nondiscrimination, whereby some participants focused on social equality and emphasized removing structural barriers. Furthermore, participants’ allocation and reasoning depended on their SC and positive experiences at school. 

Abstract Interethnic bullying that targets ethnic minority students has serious consequences for the lives of victimized students. Teachers’ evaluations of the bullying are critical because teacher intervention can stop bullying and improve the adjustment of victimized students. Because the literature has documented partially overlapping biases against people of Arab ethnicity and people with refugee backgrounds, this study investigated whether teachers’ attitudes toward refugees play a role in their evaluations of the interethnic bullying of an Arab student. Teachers (n = 373; 77% female) who participated in the study filled the Threats–Benefits Inventory (TBI) that measured two types of attitudes toward refugees (perceiving refugees as a threat and perceiving refugees as a benefit) and evaluated a hypothetical vignette of interethnic bullying targeted at an Arab student. SEM analysis, controlling for gender, age, and contact with refugees, indicated that teachers’ attitudes toward refugees were not associated with their perceptions of the interethnic bullying as wrong or with their willingness to intervene. However, viewing refugees as a source of high threat or low benefit was consistently associated with lower recognition of the negative outcomes of the interethnic bullying. Moreover, a greater willingness to intervene positively associated with female gender and increasing age. The study suggests that teachers’ attitudes toward refugees may contribute to underestimating negative outcomes of interethnic bullying among students. To foster appropriate evaluations of interethnic bullying, teacher education should aim to promote understanding of different marginalized groups and to reduce biases against people with refugee backgrounds.