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. 

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. 

Abstract The present study investigated how Black and White American children, ages 6 to 9.5 years and 9.5 to 12 years (N = 219,M_Age = 9.18 years, SD_Age = 1.90; 51% female) evaluated vignettes in which peers included a same‐ or cross‐race peer in a high‐intimacy or low‐intimacy context. These data were collected from 2021 to 2022. Children expected characters to be less likely to include cross‐race peers in high‐ than low‐intimacy contexts. They also evaluated cross‐race exclusion more negatively in high‐ and low‐intimacy contexts. Black participants evaluated cross‐race exclusion more negatively than did White participants. Older participants were more likely to personally include a cross‐race peer. This study is a first step toward understanding the role of intimacy in cross‐race peer relationships. 

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. 

Abstract Little is known about how children and adolescents evaluate unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties based on ethnicity‐race and gender in the classroom. U.S. boys and girls, White (40.7%), Multiracial (18.5%), Black/African American (16.0%), Latine (14.2%), Asian (5.5%), Pacific Islander (0.4%), and other (4.7%) ethnic‐racial backgrounds, 8–14 years,N = 275, evaluated teacher allocations of high‐status leadership positions favoring specific ethnic‐racial or gender groups during 2018–2021. Adolescents, more than children, negatively evaluated unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties that resulted in group‐based inequalities, expected peers who shared the identity of a group disadvantaged by the teacher's allocation to view it more negatively than others, and rectified inequalities. Understanding perceptions of teacher‐based bias provides an opportunity for interventions designed to create fair and just classrooms that motivate all students to achieve. 

BackgroundWhile research has documented negative social and academic consequences that occur when students experience peer exclusion, few studies have been conducted to investigate teachers’ evaluations of peer exclusion. AimsThis study investigated whether ethnic and gender biases enter teachers’ evaluations of classroom peer exclusion that met criteria for bullying. SampleTeachers (N = 740; 77% female) of early and middle adolescents participated in the study. Participants were recruited from 118 elementary and secondary schools across the Czech Republic. MethodsUsing a between‐subjects design, teachers evaluated a scenario of classroom peer exclusion initiated by majority ethnic (Czech) students. The scenarios varied contextual characteristics: target’s ethnicity (majority Czech vs. minority Arab), target’s gender, and excluders’ gender. ResultsAnalyses revealed several subtle contextual effects. Although teachers viewed exclusion as having a more negative impact for the fair treatment of Arab targets than for Czech targets, their reasoning about the wrongfulness of such exclusion was less focused on the moral concerns about fairness for Arab than for Czech targets. In contrast to girl targets, teachers were less concerned about the harmful impact on exclusion for boy targets when considering intervention. Excluders’ gender had significant interactions with the target’s gender on reasoning about wrongfulness of exclusion and the target’s ethnicity for viewing exclusion as impairing the target’s academic engagement. ConclusionsThe findings of subtle ethnic and gender biases underscore the need for research on teacher perspectives on peer exclusion and for training teachers how to address peer exclusion in the classroom across various contexts. 

Abstract Early and middle adolescents' judgements and reasonings about peers who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer group norms were examined across three studies with varying intergroup contexts. Study 1 participants included (N = 199) non‐Arab American participants responding to an Arab American/non‐Arab American intergroup context. Study 2 included (N = 123) non‐Asian and (N = 105) Asian American participants responding to an Asian/non‐Asian American intergroup context. Study 3 included (N = 275) Lebanese participants responding to an American/Lebanese intergroup context. Across all three studies participants responded to ingroup and outgroup deviant group members who challenged their peer groups to either include or exclude an outgroup peer with similar interests. Findings indicated that adolescents approved of peers who challenged exclusive peer norms and advocated for inclusion of an ethnic and cultural outgroup, and disapproved of peers who challenged inclusive group norms and advocated for exclusion. Non‐Arab and non‐Asian American adolescents displayed ingroup bias when evaluating a deviant advocating for exclusion. Additionally, age differences were found among Asian American adolescents. Findings will be discussed in the light of intergroup research on those who challenge injustices. 

Abstract In response to some resource inequalities, children give priority to moral concerns. Yet, in others, children show ingroup preferences in their evaluations and resource allocations. The present study built upon this knowledge by investigating children's and young adults’ (N = 144; 5–6‐year‐olds,M_age = 5.83,SD_age= .97; 9–11‐year‐olds,M_age = 10.74,SD_age= .68; and young adults,M_age = 19.92,SD_age = 1.10) evaluations and allocation decisions in a science inequality context. Participants viewed vignettes in which male and female groups received unequal amounts of science supplies, then evaluated the acceptability of the resource inequalities, allocated new boxes of science supplies between the groups, and provided justifications for their choices. Results revealed both children and young adults evaluated inequalities of science resources less negatively when girls were disadvantaged than when boys were disadvantaged. Further, 5‐ to 6‐year‐old participants and male participants rectified science resource inequalities to a greater extent when the inequality disadvantaged boys compared to when it disadvantaged girls. Generally, participants who used moral reasoning to justify their responses negatively evaluated and rectified the resource inequalities, whereas participants who used group‐focused reasoning positively evaluated and perpetuated the inequalities, though some age and participant gender findings emerged. Together, these findings reveal subtle gender biases that may contribute to perpetuating gender‐based science inequalities both in childhood and adulthood. 

Abstract This study investigated the socializing influence of peers and parents in interracial encounters by disentangling how children and adolescents consider peer and parent messages when predicting interracial and same‐race inclusion. Black and White children (9–14 years old,N= 246) predicted the likelihood of interracial and same‐race peer inclusion when peer and parent sources of influence were present and provided justifications for their expectations. Results revealed that, while participants predicted inclusion would be less likely when parent sources of influence were present than when peer sources of influence were present, the racial composition of the encounter and the race of the participant mattered only in contexts with peer sources of influence. Participants’ reasoning about the benefits of inclusion and social pressure also differed when parent or peer sources were present. This study informs efforts to improve the quality of interracial peer interactions and programs designed to promote positive intergroup peer relationships. 

Abstract Divergent cultural, religious, and ideological beliefs and practices are often challenging to contemplate and difficult to accept when they conflict with an individual’s own convictions and way of life. The recognition that children and adolescents grow up in an increasingly diverse world has led to a general interest in fostering tolerance. In this article, we discuss three central questions on tolerance and related research. First, we consider age‐related patterns of responses toward tolerance of diversity and whether they depend on the type of dissenting beliefs and practices children are asked to tolerate. Second, we focus on how and why children are asked to be tolerant. Third, we discuss the boundaries of tolerance—the reasons and conditions that make tolerance less likely. Overall, we conclude that tolerance and intolerance can occur at all ages and depend on what, how, why, and when individuals are asked to tolerate belief discrepancy and dissenting practices.