"Honestly, they are just like us": U.S. parents choose middle-class gender and racial ingroup peers for their children.

Children and adolescents benefit from positive intergroup peer interactions, but they are unlikely to have many opportunities for these interactions if their parents are uncomfortable with them. Drawing primarily on social identity theory (SIT), this study investigated how U.S. parents' (N = 569) comfort with their children's potential intergroup peer interactions (a) differed by child and peer group gender (boy, girl), race (Black, White), and social class (higher-, middle-, or lower-subjective social status), (b) changed over the transition from childhood to adolescence (8-10, 11-13, and 14-16 years), and (c) varied by context intimacy (hanging out vs. sleeping over). The sample was equally balanced between parents of children reflecting those same group memberships. Consistent with SIT, when asked to choose, parents were typically most comfortable with their child spending time with middle-class peers who shared their child's gender and racial ingroup membership. Moreover, parents often explained their decisions with reference to similarities between these peers and their own child or family. Parents' comfort did not differ systematically by child age, but many parents were less comfortable with cross-gender peer interactions in the more intimate sleepover context than the less intimate hangout context. All groups of parents also exhibited at least some openness to cross-group interactions. These findings advance developmental scientists' understanding of parents' roles as potential facilitators or gatekeepers of their children's intergroup peer interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Adolescents' Evaluations of those who Challenge Exclusive and Inclusive Peer Norms.

Early and middle adolescents' judgments 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 light of intergroup research on those who challenge injustices.

What motivates adolescent bystanders to intervene when immigrant youth are bullied?

Pathways to bystander responses were examined in both generalized and bias-based bullying incidents involving immigrant-origin victims. Participants were 168 (Mage  = 14.54, 57% female) adolescents of immigrant (37.5%) and nonimmigrant backgrounds, who responded to their likelihood of intervening on behalf of either an Arab or Latine victim. Models tested whether contact with immigrants and one's desires for social contact with immigrant-origin peers mediated the effects of individual (shared immigrant background, and discriminatory tendencies) and situational (inclusive peer norms) intergroup factors on active bystander responses. Findings indicated that desires for social contact reliably mediated effects across both victims; however, contact with immigrant peers was only associated with responses to Latine victims. Implications for how to promote bystander intervention are discussed.

Lebanese adolescents' expectations about social inclusion of peers in intergroup contexts.

This study examined the role of group norms, group identity, age, contact, and stereotypes on youths' decisions to include a peer in an intergroup context portraying Lebanese and American adolescents. Lebanese participants (N = 275), ages 12 and 16 years, were surveyed about expectations for inclusion of an out-group target with similar interests or an in-group target with different interests into their own Lebanese group or another American group. Findings indicated participants focused on shared interests, rather than national identity, when making inclusion decisions for either group and group norms mattered. Older participants expected American peers to be less inclusive towards an out-group peer. Direct contact predicted inclusivity of out-group American peers into one's own Lebanese group, and indirect media-based contact predicted expectations for inclusivity into an American out-group. Findings have implications for interventions aimed at improving cross-national friendships which, in turn, have the potential to reduce prejudicial attitudes.

The consequences of outgroup helping: Children's and adolescents' reasoning.

The goal of this study was to examine the consequences of helping an outgroup in an intergroup context where the threat to the ingroup and outgroup varied. Fourth and eighth graders (N = 126; fourth graders: Mage = 9.07 years, SD = 0.38; eighth graders: Mage = 12.84 years, SD = 0.34) were asked whether excluding an ingroup member who helped an outgroup by sharing equally or not was acceptable. Equal helping or outgroup helping occurred when the groups had equal need for a vital resource, the outgroup needed it more, or the ingroup needed it more. Overall, excluding the helpful ingroup member was viewed as unacceptable. It was least acceptable when the outgroup needed the help and was given more help than the ingroup. Exclusion was judged to be most acceptable when both groups needed the same amount of help, or the ingroup needed more help, but more help was given to the outgroup, and these findings were driven by fourth graders. Participants' social cognitions regarding perceptions of group interest, group identification, and approval of the helping act predicted their acceptability of excluding the helping member. Concerns for group loyalty were used to justify exclusion, but appeals to the emotional harm of exclusion, generosity, and the low salience of the act of helping were used to reject exclusion. The findings contribute to developmental research on intergroup relations and exclusion from peer groups.

Expectations About Ethnic Peer Group Inclusivity: The Role of Shared Interests, Group Norms, and Stereotypes.

This study investigated three factors that contribute to social exclusion: group norms, individual characteristics, and stereotypes. Non-Arab American 12- and 16-year-olds (N = 199) judged their expectations about the inclusivity of Arab American and non-Arab American peer groups toward new peers characterized by: (a) different ethnic identity but similar interests (e.g., hobbies) and (b) same ethnic identity but different interests. Participants expected that when groups had exclusive norms, Arab American peers would base inclusion decisions on ethnic identity, but that their own non-Arab group would base decisions on shared interests. Participants who reported stereotypes expected their in-group to be ethnically less inclusive. With age, ethnic-based exclusion increased. The findings are discussed in light of current research on developmental intergroup relationships.

When does the in-group like the out-group? Bias among children as a function of group norms.

Research indicates that in-group favoritism is prevalent among both adults and children. Although research has documented that individuals do not consistently display an in-group bias, the conditions under which out-group preference exists are not well understood. In this study, participants (N = 462) aged 9 to 16 years judged in-group deviant acts that were either in line with or counter to a generic norm shared by both groups. The findings demonstrated, for the first time, that children preferred out-group over in-group deviance only when the in-group peer's deviance was in line with the generic norm and a threat to their group's identity. Participants justified their disapproval of these deviants by focusing on the need for group cohesion and loyalty, while they signified their approval by spotlighting the need for autonomy. Our findings suggest that children's intergroup attitudes are influenced by how the behavior of their peers matches different levels of group norms.

Context differences in children's ingroup preferences.

Ingroup preferences when deciding who to include in 2 distinct intergroup contexts, gender and school affiliation, were investigated. Children and adolescents, in the 4th (9-10 years) and 8th (13-14 years) grades, chose between including someone in their group who shared their group norm (moral or conventional) or who shared their group membership (school affiliation or gender). With age, children displayed a greater ability to balance information about ingroup norms and group membership. Younger children were more likely to include an outgroup member who supported equal norms than were older children. Accompanying the choices made, there was a greater use of fairness reasoning in younger rather than older participants, and increased references to group identity and group functioning for school identification. There were no differences in ingroup preferences in the school and gender contexts for groups involving moral norms. Desires for equal allocation of resources trumped differences related to ingroup preference. For social-conventional norms, however, there was a greater ingroup preference in a school intergroup context than in a gender intergroup context. Thus, the results demonstrate the importance of context in the manifestation of ingroup preference and the increasing sophistication, with age, of children's and adolescents' group decision-making skills.

Social exclusion: the interplay of group goals and individual characteristics.

Past research has shown that adolescents justify social exclusion based on concerns for group functioning, and yet, to date, no study has evaluated whether group functioning justifications shift or remain stable across different exclusion contexts. In this study, we systematically manipulated exclusion context (i.e., competitive or noncompetitive soccer groups) and individual characteristics of the target of exclusion to test the nature of the interaction between these factors during exclusion judgments. Adolescents' (N = 201; 61% Female) exclusion judgments differed across contexts only when an individual's ability was under consideration. Intergroup (i.e., gender, nationality) and interpersonal (i.e., aggression, shyness) characteristics overwhelmed contextual considerations. Results indicate the complexity of factors weighed by adolescents when making exclusion judgments, and suggest the need for extension of the present findings to understand more fully the interaction between the context of exclusion and individual characteristics in exclusion judgments.

Development of intra- and intergroup judgments in the context of moral and social-conventional norms.

Children and adolescents evaluated group inclusion and exclusion in the context of generic and group-specific norms involving morality and social conventions. Participants (N = 381), aged 9.5 and 13.5 years, judged an in-group member's decision to deviate from the norms of the group, whom to include, and whether their personal preference was the same as what they expected a group should do. Deviating from in-group moral norms about unequal allocation of resources was viewed more positively than deviating from conventional norms about nontraditional dress codes. With age, participants gave priority to group-specific norms and differentiated what the group should do from their own preference about the group's decision, revealing a developmental picture about children's complex understanding of group dynamics and group norms.

Social exclusion in childhood: a developmental intergroup perspective.

Interpersonal rejection and intergroup exclusion in childhood reflect different, but complementary, aspects of child development. Interpersonal rejection focuses on individual differences in personality traits, such as wariness and being fearful, to explain bully-victim relationships. In contrast, intergroup exclusion focuses on how in-group and out-group attitudes contribute to social exclusion based on group membership, such as gender, race, ethnicity, culture, and nationality. It is proposed that what appears to be interpersonal rejection in some contexts may, in fact, reflect intergroup exclusion. Whereas interpersonal rejection research assumes that victims invite rejection, intergroup exclusion research proposes that excluders reject members of out-groups to maintain status differences. A developmental intergroup social exclusion framework is described, one that focuses on social reasoning, moral judgment, and group identity.

What works to address prejudice? Look to developmental science research for the answer.

Developmental perspectives on prejudice provide a fundamental and important key to the puzzle for determining how to address prejudice. Research with historically disadvantaged and advantaged groups in childhood and adolescence reveals the complexity of social cognitive and moral judgments about prejudice, discrimination, bias, and exclusion. Children are aware of status and hierarchies, and often reject the status quo. Intervention, to be effective, must happen early in development, before prejudice and stereotypes are deeply entrenched.

Exclusión social y cultura: El papel de las normas de grupo, identidad de grupo y justicia / Social exclusion and culture: The role of group norms, group identity and fairness

Este artículo revisa la literatura sobre la exclusión social en la infancia y la adolescencia, con un enfoque sobre la exclusión basada en la cultura en la que las normas, la identidad y la justicia son factores importantes. La investigación reciente ha examinado las opiniones del niño acerca de la imparcialidad de la exclusión en diferentes contextos sociales, identificando los factores que contribuyen a legitimar o rechazar la exclusión de los miembros de los grupos externos. En todas las culturas, los factores de importancia son el sexo, la raza, la etnia y la cultura. Se revisan los resultados actuales y se apuntan las posibles áreas de investigación (AU)

This paper reviews the literature on social exclusion in childhood and adolescence, with a focus on exclusion based on culture in which norms, identity, and fairness are salient factors. Recent research has examined children’s views about the fairness of exclusion in different social contexts, identifying the factors that contribute to legitimizing or rejecting the exclusion of members of out-groups. Across cultures, factors of relevance include gender, race, ethnicity, and culture. We review current findings and point to areas for new research (AU)

The development of stereotyping and exclusion.

This article reviews the developmental science literature on stereotyping and exclusion, with a focus on gender, race, and ethnicity. Stereotyping of others, which is defined as the attribution of traits to individuals based on group membership, is often used to justify exclusion of others in social group contexts. This review includes a focus on the links between these two constructs. Research on stereotyping and exclusion has drawn on several theoretical traditions, including social domain theory, social identity developmental theory, and subjective group dynamics theory, which are also discussed in the context of the research findings. Key findings on stereotyping include categorization and classification in relationship with decreased in-group bias, and the role of stereotypes in encoding information. Findings on exclusion include the use of available information to make judgments, preferences for in-group members who are normative and out-group members who are deviant, the increased importance, with age, of group functioning in exclusion decisions, and decreased negative evaluation of in-group members who partake in exclusionary behaviors. Though little research has explicitly studied the links between stereotyping and exclusion from groups, this review describes the current literature in both areas and suggests future directions for research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.