Group status, outgroup ethnicity and children's ethnic attitudes

Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237 – 251

Group status, outgroup ethnicity and children’s ethnic attitudes Drew Nesdale a,*, Kevin Durkin b, Anne Maass c, Judith Griffiths a a

School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, PMB50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Southport, Queensland QLD 9726, Australia b Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia c Departmento Di Psicologia Dello Sviluppo E Della, Universita’di Padova, Venice, Italy

Abstract This study tested predictions drawn from social identity development theory (SIDT; [Nesdale, D. (1999a). Social identity and ethnic prejudice in children. In: P. Martin, & W. Noble (Eds.). Psychology and society (pp. 92 – 110). Brisbane: Australian Academic Press; Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett, & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self. London: Psychology Press]) concerning the development of young children’s ethnic attitudes. Children aged 5, 7, and 9 years (N = 149) participated in a minimal group study in which they were randomly assigned to a team that had higher or lower drawing ability than a competitor team (social status). In addition, the competitor team was revealed to be comprised of children with the same (i.e., Anglo-Australian) or different (i.e., Pacific Islander) ethnicity as their own team (outgroup ethnicity). The children subsequently rated their liking for, and similarity to, the ingroup and the outgroup, and the extent to which they wished to change groups. The results indicated that children’s liking for the ingroup was unaffected by age and outgroup ethnicity, whereas liking for the outgroup increased with age and was greater for same than for different ethnicity children. The children’s attitudes toward changing groups were determined by status. The extent to which the findings provide support for SIDT is discussed. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ethnic attitudes; Social identity development; Ingroup – outgroup; Prejudice; Social motivation

1. Introduction Beginning in the 1930s, a vast amount of research has addressed the development of children’s ethnic prejudice (i.e., their feelings of dislike or hatred toward members of ethnic outgroups), together with related issues, such as the acquisition of ethnic awareness, ethnic self-identification, and ethnic * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-7-555-28878; fax: +61-7-555-28291. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Nesdale). 0193-3973/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.02.005

238

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

stereotyping (see reviews by Aboud, 1988; Brown, 1995; Davey, 1983; Nesdale, 1999a, 2001). Based mainly on the ethnic preference and trait attribution techniques, research has revealed that children can differentiate among people based on physical cues (e.g., skin color) from a very early age and certainly by around 4 years, their ethnic awareness enables them to distinguish explicitly among members of different ethnic groups. There is also extensive evidence that from 4 years onwards, children from the ethnically dominant group can accurately identify their own ethnic group membership (via skin color) and that they reveal increasingly strong ingroup bias in their choices up to 6–7 years of age. Similarly, trait attribution studies have consistently revealed that dominant group children display an increase in ingroup positivity/outgroup negativity in their trait attributions up to 6–7 years of age. Beyond this age, however, some studies have revealed an increase in ingroup positivity/outgroup negativity, whereas other studies have revealed a decrease, while still others have reported a stabilization of affect (see reviews by Aboud, 1988; Nesdale, 1999a, 2001). A number of explanations have been proposed to account for such findings. For example, Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) claimed that excessively harsh disciplinary measures by parents prompted an aggressive response that was displaced onto weaker targets, such as members of ethnic minority groups. In contrast, a more commonly accepted view is that children simply learn their ethnic attitudes and behaviors from parents and peers in the same way that they are assumed to learn other social behaviors (e.g., Allport, 1954; Rosenfield & Stephan, 1981). Yet another approach argues that the development of children’s ethnic attitudes depends upon children’s perceptual –cognitive processes (e.g. Aboud, 1988; Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997). For example, the socio-cognitive theory (ST) of Aboud (1988) and Aboud and Doyle (1996a,b) contends that most, if not all, children display ethnic prejudice by 5–7 years of age and that there is no strong evidence that parents or peers influence children’s prejudice. Instead, ST proposes that children’s prejudice reflects their developing perceptual– cognitive processes and that whether or not children’s prejudice is maintained or reduced after 7 years depends upon cognitive attainments, such as concrete operations. Increasing cognitive abilities allow the child to attain greater insight into the characteristics that differentiate individuals instead of responding to them simply as category members. Consequently, ST predicts that children’s attitudes toward ethnic outgroups become more positive with increasing age, whereas their attitudes toward the ingroup become less positive, as the two groups are viewed in an increasingly similar way. Although a detailed review of each of these approaches, and the extent to which each is supported by research, is beyond the scope of the present paper, it is fair to say that each approach can account for at least some of the extant findings, but that there are other findings that remain a challenge (see reviews by Aboud, 1988; Brown, 1995; Nesdale, 2001). Accordingly, other researchers have recently considered the extent to which social motivational considerations might have an influential impact on children’s ethnic attitudes (e.g., Milner, 1996; Nesdale, 1999a,b, 2004; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Vaughan, 1987). Central to this approach is the assumption that children in multicultural communities begin to develop an awareness of which community groups are better off and more highly regarded than others from 3–4 years onwards, and that they make comparisons between their own standing as a member of one group versus other ethnic groups (Davey, 1983; Goodman, 1946; Milner, 1996; Radke & Trager, 1950; Vaughan, 1987). Furthermore, the findings of ethnic preference studies (see Nesdale, 2001), as well as minimal group studies (e.g., Nesdale & Flesser, 2001), suggest that children prefer to be members of higher rather than lower status groups. Indeed, whereas dominant group children rarely misidentify their ethnic group, some research has found that some members of lower status minority groups (e.g., black, native, and Hispanic Americans) will misidentify with the dominant (e.g., white American) cultural

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

239

group (e.g., Asher & Allen, 1969; Greenwald & Oppenheim, 1968; Hunsberger, 1978; Morland, 1966; Teplin, 1976; but see Branch & Newcombe, 1986; Vaughan, 1987, for evidence that this tendency may vary with social context and developmental factors). Consistent with this approach, Nesdale (1999a, 2004) and Nesdale and Flesser (2001) have proposed social identity development theory (SIDT) to account for the development of children’s ethnic attitudes. Drawing upon social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), SIDT proposes that ethnic prejudice is the end point of a process that involves four sequential phases (undifferentiated, ethnic awareness, ethnic preference, and ethnic prejudice). These phases vary in terms of the social motivations and behaviors that characterize them, and the events that precipitate changes from one phase to the next. Of central importance to the present discussion is SIDT’s distinction between the ethnic preference and ethnic prejudice phases. According to SIDT, by 4 or 5 years of age, children in multiethnic communities are typically in the ethnic preference phase. They are aware of which ethnic groups are better off and more highly regarded than others and they prefer to be members of high rather than low status groups because they derive social self-esteem from group membership and group status. Importantly, SIDT argues that ethnic preference does not instigate an automatic focus on the outgroup with accompanying outgroup prejudice. Instead, it is considered to involve a focus on, and ongoing concern for, the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup, which is revealed in ingroup favoring responses (see also Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001). Thus, whereas children in the ethnic preference phase will always prefer their own group over other groups, they may still like other groups, but just not as much as they like their own group. In contrast, ethnic prejudice implies a new focus on an ethnic outgroup(s), in addition to the child’s ongoing concern for the ingroup. Instead of merely liking an outgroup member less than ingroup members, prejudice means that the outgroup members are disliked or hated. According to SIDT, ethnic prejudice would normally be unlikely to occur in children younger than 6–7 years because their social motives and knowledge, and their cognitive abilities, would not have reached the requisite level of development to support a feeling of outgroup dislike or hatred. However, whether ethnic prejudice actually emerges and crystallizes in children beyond this age depends upon three factors. First, prejudice is likely to develop to the extent that children identify with their social group. Second, prejudice is likely to emerge when it is shared and expressed by (i.e., is normative to) members of the child’s social group. Third, prejudice development becomes likely when there is a conflict of interest between the ingroup and an ethnic outgroup that is marked by a belief among the ingroup members that their status or well-being is threatened in some way by members of the outgroup. On this basis, children (and adults) may never display ethnic prejudice because the group with which they identify does not foster prejudice towards ethnic minority groups, and/or the context is one in which interethnic relations are harmonious, and/or because some superordinate group goal dominates the interest of distinct ethnic groups. A number of recent intergroup studies have provided support for SIDT predictions, particularly in relation to the ethnic preference phase. For example, Bigler et al. (1997) revealed that the random assignment of 6- to 11-year-old children to groups (e.g., ‘‘red’’ group, ‘‘green’’ group) at a summer camp prompted ingroup favoritism in the children in both groups, regardless of age and gender. 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 ingroup versus the outgroup to participate in a field trip (Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al., 1997). Bigler et al. also reported that children with higher levels of self-esteem showed higher levels of intergroup stereotyping.

240

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

In addition, other intergroup studies have addressed these issues by utilizing the minimal group paradigm in which the participants are randomly assigned membership in one of several groups that have only a brief existence (Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). The advantage of this technique to research on children’s intergroup attitudes is that their responses can be examined in relation to the members of their (new) ingroup, as well as to members of outgroups, rather than simply to an ‘individual’ represented by a doll or photograph, as occurs in the ethnic preference and trait attribution research. In addition, the minimal group paradigm allows researchers to simulate different motivational states that are likely to arise in intergroup settings. Finally, and most importantly, the experimental manipulation of the intergroup setting allows for causal inferences to be drawn, an advantage that is not afforded to correlational designs. Findings from minimal group studies have revealed that when social comparisons and competitiveness between groups are emphasized (cf., Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al., 1997), ingroup favoritism increases (Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981; Yee & Brown, 1994). For example, Vaughan et al. (1981) emphasized intergroup comparison in a minimal group study with 7- and 11-year-old children who had also been randomly assigned to groups. They found that the children allocated rewards to ingroup and outgroup participants so as to maximize the difference between the groups, in favor of the ingroup. In other research, Nesdale and Flesser (2001) randomly assigned 5- and 8-year-old children to teams that supposedly varied in drawing ability, in order to manipulate social status. Their results indicated that even the 5-year-old children were sensitive to the status of their social group, that they liked their group more, and saw themselves as being more similar to the ingroup members, when their group had high versus low status. In addition, low-status group members sought to change their group membership, while high-status members did not. As in studies of adults (e.g., Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995; Ellemers, Doosje, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1992; Snyder, Lassagard, & Ford, 1986), participants’ liking and similarity ratings of ingroup and outgroup members were influenced by whether the participant had an opportunity to change groups. Several independent investigations, then, have yielded results that are consistent with the SIDT view that ingroup preference and outgroup prejudice are intra- and intergroup processes that reflect children’s social motivations to identify with a particular ingroup, and the relationship between members of that group and other groups. However, to further test the SIDT account of the development of children’s ethnic prejudice, a range of issues needs to be addressed, some relating to children’s attitudes in the ethnic preference phase whereas others concern the transition from ethnic preference to ethnic prejudice. The present study addressed three issues concerning children’s ethnic attitudes in the ethnic preference phase. First, the limited findings presently available are mixed with respect to SIDT’s assumption that even young children unequivocally prefer to be members of high-status groups rather than low-status groups. At least two studies have addressed this issue directly. Yee and Brown (1994) gave 3- to 9-year-old children bogus scores on a competitive task in order to place them in a fast (i.e., high status) versus slow team (i.e., low status). However, contrary to SIDT, the children’s liking ratings of their own team and a competitor team were uninfluenced by the ingroup team’s status—liking was determined by group membership. In contrast, as noted above, Nesdale and Flesser (2001) found that group status impacted on the children’s liking for the ingroup, as predicted by SIDT. In particular, children in the high-status group expressed greater liking for their group than did children in the low-status group. Importantly, children in the low-status group experienced more liking for their ingroup than they did for the higher status outgroup, even when social mobility was possible (i.e., the children believed that changing groups

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

241

was possible). Together, these findings emphasize the need for further research addressing the impact of group status on liking, particularly in relation to the outgroup. Second, the evidence to date in support of SIDT has primarily been based on experiments in which the focus has been on contrived or invented groups. An important test of the validity of the theory will be its ability to predict outcomes in contexts involving authentic ethnic group membership. Accordingly, the standard minimal group paradigm was adapted in the present study to allow the participants to respond to children who were members of the same or differing ethnicity to themselves. Third, children’s ethnic attitudes were investigated in relation to their ages. As noted above, according to socio-cognitive theory (Aboud, 1988), children’s intra- and intergroup attitudes change after acquiring concrete operational thinking, becoming less positive to the ingroup and more positive to the outgroup. In contrast, SIDT emphasizes social–motivational factors rather than age, on the basis that once children are in the ethnic preference stage, their likes and dislikes will reflect intra- and intergroup relations, and that these processes are largely independent of cognitive developmental status. Accordingly, to test these competing views, the present study included samples of 5-, 7-, and 9-year-old children. In summary, the present research was designed to provide a further test of SIDT by examining 5-, 7-, and 9-year-old children’s attitudes toward members of particular ethnic groups that differed in status. As in the research by Nesdale and Flesser (2001), the study used a minimal group paradigm in which each participant was first arbitrarily allocated to a same-ethnicity (in this case, white Caucasian AngloAustralian) team for an intergroup drawing competition. The children were then led to believe that their team had performed better or worse on a preliminary drawing task than their competitor team (the status manipulation). In addition, to manipulate outgroup ethnicity, the outgroup competitor team was revealed (via photographs) to be comprised of Anglo-Australian (white Caucasian) children or Pacific Islander (brown skin, curly hair) children. Before participating in the purported main drawing competition, the children were asked to rate how much they liked the ingroup and the outgroup, how similar they felt themselves to be to the members of the ingroup and outgroup, and the extent to which they wished to change teams. Consistent with SIDT, it was anticipated that the children would indicate greater liking for, and feel more similar to, the ingroup than the outgroup, and that this effect would be enhanced when the ingroup had high versus low status. It was also anticipated that the children would be less disposed towards changing groups when the ingroup had high versus low status. In addition, and central to the present research, was the potential impact of the variation of outgroup ethnicity on the children’s attitudes. Consistent with SIDT, it was anticipated that the different-ethnicity outgroup would be liked less, and would be seen as more dissimilar, than the same-ethnicity outgroup. The basis for this prediction was that the co-incidence of the group and ethnic boundaries would serve to accentuate the difference between the ingroup and the ethnically different versus ethnically similar outgroup. On this basis, it was further assumed that the children would be less disposed towards moving to the different- versus sameethnicity outgroup. An important point to be emphasized, however, is that in the absence of ingroup norms favoring outgroup prejudice and/or threat from the outgroup, SIDT would predict that the participants would reveal less liking, rather than dislike for the outgroup, regardless of its ethnicity. That is, the participants were expected to reveal ethnic preference rather than ethnic prejudice towards members of the outgroup. Finally, although ST (Aboud, 1988) would predict more positive responses towards the outgroup members as the age of the children increased, no such effects were expected based on SIDT.

242

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

2. Method 2.1. Participants The sample consisted of 150 Anglo-Australian children; 51 from School Years 1 and 2 (M age = 5.7 years, range = 5.04–6.11); 57 from School Years 3 and 4 (M age = 7.9 years, range = 7.06–9.07), and 42 from School Years 5 and 6 (M age = 9.7 years, range = 9.0–12.0). The numbers of boys and girls were approximately equal at each age level. The children were all from two elementary schools that served the same lower–middle class community, and participated only after parental approval had been obtained. An information sheet was provided to each parent indicating that the research was concerned with children’s knowledge of, and attitudes towards, their participation in groups, as well as intergroup relationships. Parents were informed that the children would be asked to role-play their participation in a group. Approval for their child’s participation in the study was received from 72% of the parents who were approached. The main study was a 3 (Age: 5- versus 7- versus 9-year-olds)  2 (Social Status: high versus low)  2 (Outgroup Ethnicity: same versus different)  2 (Target Group: ingroup versus outgroup) mixed-factorial design. The last factor refers to whether the targets were in the same group as the participant or the opposing group and was a within-participants variable; all other variables were between-participants factors. At each age, approximately equal numbers of boys and girls were randomly assigned into the Status  Outgroup ethnicity conditions. 2.2. Procedure The study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 was designed to produce a set of photos of sameethnicity (Anglo-Australian) and different-ethnicity (Pacific Islander) children to the participants in the main study. Pacific Islander children were chosen because they are clearly physically different (i.e., facial features, skin color, and hair texture) to Anglo-Australian children. Pacific Islander people typically have lower socioeconomic status than Anglo-Australian people and this is known by AngloAustralian children as young as 5 years (Griffiths, 2004). However, the relationship between the two peoples has not been characterized by disharmony. In particular, it has not been marked by negative stereotypes, prejudice, or disputes. Accordingly, separate samples of 5-year-old (n = 35), 7-year-old (n = 35), and 9-year-old (n = 30) children from a school near to the schools used in the main study were selected for this purpose. A headand-shoulders photo was taken of each child. In each sample, there were equal numbers of males and females and equal numbers of Anglo-Australian and Pacific Island children. All children wore the same school uniform and the photos were taken against the same background. To maintain consistency in expression, children were requested to look straight at the camera and not to smile. The photos were taken using a digital camera and were printed on 80 gsm white paper. Each photo was 150  110 mm and pasted onto 200  200 mm white cardboard squares. A second sample (n = 50) of approximately equal numbers of males and females in each of the age groups were shown the photos corresponding to their age and gender group. The children were asked to indicate the gender, age, and ethnic group of the child in the photo. They were also asked to rate the child in the photo in terms of attractiveness on a four-point scale (not at all, a little attractive, quite attractive, very attractive). Photos were discarded if the gender and age could not be determined by the peer group,

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

243

if they could not be placed consistently into a single ethnic category, or if the photo subject was consistently rated ‘‘not at all attractive’’ or ‘‘very attractive’’. The resulting set of photos (n = 60) used in the main study consisted of five photos in each Age  Gender  Ethnic Group combination, which were matched in terms of clothing, background, facial expression, and attractiveness, but which differed in age, gender, and ethnicity. In Phase 2, all students in School Years 1–6 from the two participating schools were asked by their teachers to do a drawing of themselves on a 145  210 mm piece of paper. The children were told that during the next week, some visitors would look at their drawings, if their parents had given permission. In Phase 3, 1 week after Phase 2, the children whose parents had given permission to participate were tested individually away from the classroom by the fourth author. Prior to the commencement of each individual testing session, an instant head-and-shoulders photo was taken of the child. Each child was asked to pretend that he or she was going to participate in a drawing competition. The participant was told that an artist had judged all the children’s drawings and the children had been put into groups for the competition. To commence the status manipulation, the children in the high-status condition were told, ‘‘The artist has looked at your drawing and thinks your picture is excellent’’. In contrast, the children in the low-status condition were told, ‘‘The artist has looked at your drawing and thinks your picture is ok’’. The drawing task was chosen as one in which all children could reasonably be expected to have some experience and one in which it is routine for the products to be offered up for evaluation by others. From the preschool years onwards, children find skill mastery highly motivating (Jennings, 1991). Research into the development of social comparisons has found that even quite young children spontaneously evaluate themselves against their peers, initially on the basis of simple assertions of ability superiority, size, or possessions (Chafel, 1986). Children were then told that they had been put in a team ‘‘of drawers just like you’’. The children were then asked to pin their photograph on a board between the photos of the other two same-aged members of their (ingroup) team. The children were also asked what color they wanted their team to be known as, and this was written beside the team. The sheet of paper covering half the board was then removed to reveal the photos of the three members of the other (outgroup) team and the color chosen by that team was written beside it on the board. To complete the status manipulation, the experimenter advised the children in the high-status condition that the members of the other team ‘‘were judged to be ok drawers so your team’s drawings were better than theirs’’. In contrast, children in the low-status condition were told that the members of the other team ‘‘were judged to be excellent drawers so your team’s drawings were not as good as theirs’’. In each case, a gold star was placed near the photos of the high-status team to reinforce their excellence and provide a continuing visible reminder of the distinction between the groups. Competitive primes have been found to be one of the most potent elicitors of intergroup bias among young children (Spielman, 2000). To manipulate outgroup ethnicity, the photos of the outgroup members revealed them to be either of the same (i.e., Anglo-Australian) or different (i.e., Pacific Islander) ethnicity to the participant. No mention was made of the outgroup’s ethnicity. Thus, comparison of the children’s responses between conditions differentiated only by the ethnicity of the outgroup provides a test of whether the variable was salient to the participants. The placement of the ingroup on the top or bottom half of the board was counterbalanced, as was the status of the group. The children were then directed to a response booklet that contained a series of five-point unipolar and bipolar scales. Each scale comprised five pictures of animals or faces that were

244

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

graded in size from the smallest to the largest (unipolar), or with the largest pictures at the two end points and the smallest in the middle (bipolar). Each point on each scale was labelled appropriately. A single bipolar scale was used to check the status manipulation (‘‘Which team are the better drawers?’’). Two bipolar scales of sad to happy faces measured how much the children liked the other members of their team, and the members of the other team (‘‘I don’t like them a lot–I like them a lot’’). Two bipolar scales measured the degree of perceived similarity and dissimilarity with members of their own team and the other team (‘‘I am a lot different–I am a lot the same’’). Unipolar scales were used to measure willingness to change teams (‘‘How much do you want to change teams?’’ and ‘‘How much do you think the children from the other team want to be in your team?’’). Prior to responding to the questions, the children were shown several example questions and were given practice in using the unipolar and bipolar scales. When the children were comfortable with the task, they tackled the set of questions, with the younger children and those in need receiving assistance as required from the researcher. When children had completed the response measures, they were given their own photo, thanked for their participation in the ‘‘pretend game,’’ and returned to the classroom.

3. Results 3.1. Preliminary analyses Exploratory data analyses were first carried out on the children’s scores on each of the five-point scales to ensure that they met the distributional requirements of analysis of variance (ANOVA). The data were then examined for gender effects and, in their absence, the subsequent analyses were summed over the gender variable. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test ( p < .05) was used to assess the significance of differences between pairs of cell means. An independent samples t test was used to analyze the data from the status manipulation check. The findings revealed that, consistent with the intended manipulation, children in the high-status condition (M = 4.46, SD = .68) thought that they were better drawers than did the children in the low-status condition (M = 2.50, SD = 1.219), t(148) = 12.196, p < .001. 3.2. Main findings 3.2.1. Liking The children’s ratings of how much they liked the targets in the ingroup and outgroup were analyzed in a 3 (Age)  2 (Status)  2 (Outgroup Ethnicity)  2 (Target Group) ANOVA, with the last factor manipulated within participants. This analysis yielded five significant effects. The main effect for age group approached significance, F(2, 138) = 2.98, p < .054, g2 = .04, which was qualified by a significant Age  Status interaction, F(2, 138) = 6.62, p < .01, g2 = .09. Comparison of the cell means revealed that liking for the target children was greater when the participants had high versus low status at age 5 years, (M = 3.90, SD = 1.06 and M = 3.18, SD = 1.44, respectively), but was not significant at 7 years (M = 3.64, SD = 1.02 and M = 4.03, SD = .81, respectively), or at 9 years (M = 3.86, SD = .74 and M = 4.02, SD = .76, respectively).

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

245

The analysis also yielded a significant main effect for target group, F(1, 138) = 73.00, p < .001, g2 = .35, which was qualified by two significant interactions, including a significant Age  Target Group interaction, F(2, 138) = 9.72, p < .001, g2 = .12. Comparison of the cell means indicated that the 5-yearold children liked the ingroup members more than the outgroup members, (M = 4.27, SD = 1.15 and M = 2.82, SD = 1.47 for ingroup and outgroup members, respectively), as did the 7-year-olds, (M = 4.12, SD = .91 and M = 3.56, SD = .98, respectively) and 9-year-olds (M = 4.21, SD = .72 and M = 3.67, SD = .79, respectively). However, whereas there was no difference between the children of different ages in their liking for the ingroup members, analysis of cell means indicated that the 5-year-old children liked the outgroup members (M = 2.82, SD = 1.47) significantly less than the 7- and 9-year-old children, whose ratings did not differ (M = 3.56, SD = .98 and M = 3.67, SD = .79, for the two ages, respectively). The analysis also revealed a significant Outgroup Ethnicity  Target Group interaction effect, F(1, 138) = 5.60, p > .02, g2 = .04. Comparison of the cell means revealed that the children’s liking for the members of their same-ethnicity ingroup was unaffected by the members of the outgroup having the same (M = 4.16, SD = 1.03) or different ethnicity (M = 4.24, SD = .87). However, the children liked the outgroup significantly less when it was composed of children with different (M = 3.16, SD = 1.19) versus the same ethnicity (M = 3.52, SD = 1.16). Whereas the children liked the outgroup less than the ingroup, they liked the outgroup even less when the children had differing versus same ethnicity. 3.2.2. Similarity The children’s ratings of how similar they thought they were to the children in the ingroup and the outgroup were analyzed in a 3 (Age)  2 (Status)  2 (Outgroup Ethnicity)  2 (Target Group) ANOVA, with the last factor manipulated within participants. This analysis revealed two significant effects. There was a significant main effect for target group membership, F(1, 138) = 14.76, p < .001, g2 = .10, which was qualified by a significant Outgroup Ethnicity  Target Group interaction, F(1, 138) = 13.82, p < .001, g2 = .09. Comparison of the cell means indicated that when the members of the ingroup (M = 2.77, SD = 1.26) and the outgroup (M = 2.76, SD = 1.18) were of the same ethnicity, the children felt equally similar to them. However, when the members of the ingroup and outgroup were of the same versus differing ethnicity, respectively, the children felt more similar to the members of the ingroup (M = 2.92, SD = 1.29) than they did to the outgroup (M = 1.97, SD = 1.23). 3.2.3. Changing own team The children’s ratings of how much they would wish to change teams were analyzed in a 3 (Age)  2 (Status)  2 (Outgroup Ethnicity) ANOVA. This analysis revealed two significant effects. There was a significant main effect for age, F(2, 138) = 6.34, p < .005, g2 = .08, indicating that the 5-year-olds (M = 1.50, SD = 1.22) were less disposed to changing groups than were either the 7-year-olds (M = 2.04, SD = 1.36) or 9-year-olds (M = 2.40, SD = 1.21), who did not differ from each other. There was also a significant effect for group status, F(1, 138) = 16.45, p < .001, g2 = .11, which revealed that children in the low-status group (M = 2.36, SD = 1.51) were keener to change groups than were children in the highstatus group (M = 1.55, SD = .94). 3.2.4. Other children changing teams The children’s ratings of how much they felt the children in the other team would want to be in their team were analyzed in a 3 (Age)  2 (Status)  2 (Outgroup Ethnicity) ANOVA. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for status, F(1, 138) = 17.92, p < .001, g2 = .12, which was qualified by a

246

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

significant Age  Status interaction, F(2, 138) = 5.77, p < .01, g2 = .08. Comparison of the cell means revealed that whereas the youngest children’s ratings of the wishes of the outgroup to change teams were unaffected by their own high versus low status (M = 3.23, SD = 1.82 and M = 3.28, SD = 1.72, respectively), the 7-year-old children with high versus low status (M = 4.21, SD = .74 and M = 2.61, SD = 1.40, respectively) and the 9-year-old children with high versus low status (M = 3.95, SD = 1.33 and M = 2.74, SD = 1.42, respectively) believed that the children in the other low-status team would prefer to be in their high-status team.

4. Discussion The aim of the present study was to provide a further test of the adequacy of SIDT in accounting for the development of children’s ethnic attitudes. Whereas previous intergroup studies have considered the impact of social identity processes on children’s intra- and intergroup attitudes, these studies have typically engineered or contrived new groups, rather than engage members of existing social (e.g., ethnic, religious, etc.) groups (e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al., 1997; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Vaughan et al., 1981; Yee & Brown, 1994). The present study extended the use of the minimal group paradigm by directly manipulating both ethnicity and social status. The findings are important because they shed further light on the development of young children’s ethnic attitudes, as well as the viability of the explanation provided by SIDT. First, the present results confirm the findings of other studies (e.g., Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Vaughan et al., 1981; Yee & Brown, 1994) in underscoring the importance of group membership in determining the liking of young children for ingroup versus outgroup members. As in the previous studies, the mere assignment of a child to a group of unknown other children in the present study enhanced their liking for the ingroup members, in comparison to outgroup members. Moreover, the findings indicated that the children liked their ingroup more than the outgroup at 5, 7, and 9 years of age. Second, one of the most important findings in this study was the significant Outgroup Ethnicity  Target Group interaction effect on liking scores. The children’s liking for their ingroup was unaffected by the ethnicity of the outgroup, but children liked the outgroup significantly less when it comprised members of different ethnicity compared with the same ethnicity to their own. This result is consistent with the assumptions of SIDT that children are sensitive to intergroup relations and that they are more likely to discriminate among others based on distinguishing characteristics, such as ethnicity, when the context promotes intergroup comparison. The ethnicity difference apparently sharpens and accentuates the category difference, with the effect that different-ethnicity outgroup members are liked less than same-ethnicity outgroup members. On this point, it is also noteworthy that the children were responsive to the outgroup’s ethnicity without any cueing whatsoever, even at 5 years of age. Third, it is also important to note that the children’s ratings of the outgroup were cast in the liking half of the bipolar scale, where the points on that part of the scale were clearly labelled so as to indicate liking (see also Aboud & Mitchell, 1977; Nesdale, 1999b). That is, the children revealed less liking rather than dislike for the outgroup, regardless of its ethnicity. Because the children’s group had not established a norm of ethnic prejudice, and there was no explicit threat from the outgroup in the present situation, these results would be as predicted by SIDT. According to SIDT, under the present circumstances, the children would actually be in the ethnic preference rather than the ethnic prejudice phase. Of course,

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

247

whether SIDT assumptions concerning the factors that prompt ethnic prejudice rather than ethnic preference are correct, remains to be tested in future research. Fourth, the analysis of liking scores also revealed a significant Age  Target Group interaction, which indicated that children are sensitive to intergroup relations even at 5 years of age. Indeed, the youngest children actually liked the outgroup less than did the 7- and 9-year-old children, although the latter groups also liked the outgroup significantly less than their ingroup. Thus, the findings here are consistent with SIDT to the extent that children consistently liked the ingroup more than the outgroup. However, SIDT does not predict age differences, and there was an increase with age in liking for the outgroup. This latter finding is consistent with ST, but the absence of any reduction in ingroup positivity with age is not (Aboud, 1988). It appears that younger children are prone to greater wariness of outgroups than are the 7- and 9-year-olds, but this is manifest in lower liking scores rather than in clear dislike (i.e., the scores are still marginally above the midpoint of the scale). Furthermore, this effect was independent of outgroup ethnicity. Hence, on balance, the evidence appears to favor an interpretation that social identity processes operate throughout this age range, with younger children tending to display less positive affective reactions towards members of outgroups, other things remaining equal. That said, the explanation for the age effect remains unclear. There are several possible explanations. It may be, as claimed by ST (Aboud, 1988), that the increase in liking for outgroup members reflects older children’s increasing abilities to differentiate and respond to people as individuals, rather than respond to them as category members. If so, however, this did not influence their responses to ingroup members. Alternatively, it is possible that the effect reveals older children’s increasing abilities to respond to outgroup members, particularly members of ethnic minority groups, with increasing empathy (Nesdale, Maass, Durkin, & Griffiths, 2004). Yet a third possibility is that the age effect reflects the older children’s increasing abilities to self-regulate the expression of less positive intergroup attitudes in accordance with internalized normative beliefs about what comprises acceptable intergroup behaviour (Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2003). However, while each of these suggestions appears to have some plausibility, their resolution will require further research. Fifth, given that the results relating to the status manipulation were not as predicted, the relationship between the present results and those obtained by Nesdale and Flesser (2001) requires attention. Recall that, as predicted by SIDT, Nesdale and Flesser found that children as young as 5 years liked their ingroup more than a competitor outgroup, but that ingroup members were liked more when the ingroup had high versus low status. In addition, the children considered themselves to be more similar to the ingroup than the outgroup, and they sought to change groups when their group had low versus high status. Consistent with these findings, the present results indicated that children always liked the ingroup more than the outgroup, and this was so at each age level. However, whereas Nesdale and Flesser found that group status exerted a considerable interactive influence on the children’s liking ratings, it exerted little influence on their liking in the present study. Instead, the children’s liking was based on the interactive influence of group membership and outgroup ethnicity. Although the basis for this difference in findings between the two studies is not clearcut, one possibility is that a procedural difference between the Nesdale and Flesser (2001) study and the present experiment may have had an impact on the liking results in the present study. Whereas the Nesdale and Flesser study conveyed group membership via children’s unsophisticated drawings of themselves, authentic and age-appropriate photos were used to convey group membership in the present study. One possible effect of this change may have been that the impact of group status on liking was greatly reduced. Interestingly, the only other study with children that manipulated status in an intergroup context

248

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

(i.e., Yee & Brown, 1994) also failed to record status effects when photos were used to convey group membership. Perhaps the faces of actual children, rather than drawings, captured the attention of the children in the present study (i.e., these people are my group) to the extent that the relative status of the two groups was less salient to them. That said, however, the status information was certainly processed by the children and it did influence their preferences concerning changing groups. These speculations make clear that more research will need to be directed at resolving the extent to which, and under what circumstances, intergroup status impacts on children’s intergroup attitudes. Sixth, the predictions of SIDT with respect to perceived similarity received partial support. It was expected that the children would feel more similar to the ingroup than the outgroup, particularly so when the ingroup had high status. This should have been reflected in a significant Target Group  Status interaction on similarity ratings, which was not obtained. However, as expected, children saw themselves as more similar to members of the ingroup than to the outgroup. Furthermore, a significant Target Group  Outgroup Ethnicity interaction revealed that outgroup ethnicity had no impact upon similarity ratings when the targets were ingroup members but it did have a substantial impact when the targets were outgroup members. That is, consistent with SIDT, ethnicity became much more salient when the situation promoted intergroup comparison. It is important to note that liking was not based simply on similarity. Although the children rated themselves as being similar to the same-ethnicity ingroup and outgroup members, and as different from the different-ethnicity outgroup members, this was not straightforwardly reflected in the liking results. Significantly, the liking results also reflected the important interactive impact of ingroup versus outgroup membership. Seventh, whereas the children’s liking was influenced by ethnicity but not group status, the reverse was the case in relation to the children’s group preference responses. That is, the children’s preference for the group in which they wanted to be a member was influenced by the status of the group, but not by the outgroup’s ethnicity. The children in the high-status group were less willing to change groups compared to those in the low-status group, although neither group was particularly keen to change groups. The children also believed that the children in the outgroup would have reciprocal preferences. Thus, as the children increased in age, those in the high- versus low-status group considered that the children in the other (i.e. low versus high status, respectively) group would want to be in their team. Interestingly, although the children’s own preferences and their predictions of the likely preferences of the members of the other group were not directly compared, there appeared to be a trend towards the predicted preferences of the outgroup being higher than those of the participants. Presumably, such a trend would be a further reflection of the children’s bias towards their ingroup (i.e., ‘‘of course they would want to be members of such a good group as mine’’). In summary, the present findings are consistent with the main tenets of SIDT. As anticipated, the results confirmed that children as young as 5 years are sensitive to status differences between groups and that they wish to be members of the high- versus low-status group. In addition, the findings also confirmed the importance of group membership—that children like the members of their ingroup more than outgroup members. Most importantly, the findings revealed that they like an outgroup even less when it is composed of members who have a different ethnic background. Furthermore, the fact that children did not actually reveal dislike towards the different-ethnicity outgroup members, was also consistent with SIDT’s proposal that the transition from ingroup preference to an active dislike for an ethnic outgroup depends on the presence of other factors, such as intergroup threat or conflict. As noted above, however, the present findings also revealed age differences that provided some support

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

249

for ST (Aboud, 1988), although there are also alternative explanations that might account for such results. It should also be acknowledged, of course, that the present study, like most in its field, is limited to an investigation of children from a majority culture. We cannot assume that the pattern of findings reported here would necessarily be replicated on samples of children drawn from minority groups, and it will be important for future research to investigate this issue. For example, children growing up in minority groups may be sensitized to status issues in different ways (cf. Branch & Newcombe, 1986; Vaughan, 1987), and this may well impact upon their responses to tasks that manipulate ethnic salience and intergroup comparisons. Some consideration also needs to be given to the extent to which the findings obtained using the present minimal group paradigm would generalize to intergroup relations outside the experimental situation. There are good grounds for concluding that the present results provide a realistic picture of intergroup processes involving young children. For example, although the children’s involvement in their ‘group’ was certainly fleeting, the situation actually captured the main elements of an intergroup scenario—the children were members of a particular group, they were aware that there was another group in the social environment, and there was a potential conflict of interest between the groups (i.e., the intergroup drawing competition) which would have promoted intergroup comparison. As would be expected under these circumstances, the children responded by favoring their ingroup over the outgroup and by seeing themselves as more similar to the ingroup than the outgroup. Moreover, it is also noteworthy that the present findings are entirely consistent with other research in which children have been assigned to groups, but their participation in those groups lasted for days or weeks (e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al., 1997). Consequently, it seems reasonable to conclude that the present results provide a good approximation to the effects that would be revealed in authentic intergroup relations of longer duration and of greater import to the participants, although the effects obtained in the latter circumstance would perhaps be of even greater magnitude because of the greater emotional investment in real-world competitive relations. Finally, it is now critical that future research addresses the issue of the transition between the ethnic preference and ethnic prejudice phases, as proposed by SIDT. Questions of focal concern relate to the specification of the factors that instigate the transition, as well as the nature of the changes in children as they move from one phase to the other. The ultimate viability of SIDT as an account of the development of children’s prejudice will depend upon the outcome of this research. In addition, of course, this research will be critically important to researchers and practitioners (e.g., teachers, counsellors, and social policymakers) seeking to develop effective interventions to counteract prejudice and to provide support for the recipients of prejudice. Although there are important research issues still to be addressed, the present findings, together with related research, already make clear that intra- and intergroup processes, even in children as young as 5 years of age, will need to be a major focus of such developments.

References Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Aboud, F., & Doyle, A. (1996a). Does talk of race foster prejudice or tolerance in children? Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28(3), 161 – 170.

250

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

Aboud, F., & Doyle, A. (1996b). Parental and peer influences on children’s racial attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 371 – 383. Aboud, F. E., & Mitchell, F. G. (1977). Ethnic role taking: The effects of preference and self-identification. International Journal of Psychology, 12, 1 – 17. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Asher, S. R., & Allen, V. L. (1969). Racial preference and social comparison processes. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 157 – 167. 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 categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530 – 543. Branch, C. W., & Newcombe, N. (1986). Racial attitude development among young Black children as a function of parental attitudes: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Child Development, 57, 712 – 721. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice. Its social psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups and outgroup: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 118 – 128. Chafel, J. A. (1986). A naturalistic investigation of the use of social comparisons by young children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19, 51 – 61. Davey, A. (1983). Learning to be prejudiced. London: Edward Arnold. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410 – 436. Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. J., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123 – 140. Goodman, M. (1946). Evidence concerning the genesis of interracial attitudes. American Anthropologist, 48, 624 – 630. Greenwald, H. J., & Oppenheim, D. B. (1968). Reported magnitude of self-misidentification among Negro children—Artifact? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 49 – 52. Griffiths, J. (2004). The development of ethnic identity in young immigrant children. Unpublished manuscript, Griffith University at Queensland, Australia. Hunsberger, B. (1978). Racial awareness and preference of White and Indian Canadian children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1(2), 176 – 179. Jennings, K. D. (1991). Early development of mastery motivation and its relation to the self-concept. In M. Bullock (Ed.), The development of intentional action: Cognitive, motivational, and interactive processes. Contributions to human development, vol. 22 ( pp. 1 – 13). Basel, Switzerland: S. Krarger. Milner, D. (1996). Children and racism: Beyond the value of the dolls. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities. Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel ( pp. 246 – 268). Oxford, UK: Butterworth. Morland, J. K. (1966). A comparison of race awareness in Northern and Southern children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 36, 22 – 31. Nesdale, D. (1999a). Social identity and ethnic prejudice in children. In P. Martin, & W. Noble (Eds.), Psychology and society ( pp. 92 – 110). Brisbane, Queensland: Australian Academic Press. Nesdale, D. (1999b). Developmental changes in children’s ethnic preferences and social cognitions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 501 – 519. Nesdale, D. (2001). The development of prejudice in children. In M. A. Augoustinos, & K. J. Reynolds (Eds.), Understanding prejudice, racism, and social conflict ( pp. 57 – 73). 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). London: Psychology Press. Nesdale, D., & Flesser, D. (2001). Social identity and the development of children’s group attitudes. Child Development, 72, 506 – 517. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., & Griffiths, J. (2004). Empathy, social self-esteem and children’s ethnic attitudes. Unpublished manuscript, Griffith University at Queensland, Australia. Radke, M. J., & Trager, H. G. (1950). Children’s perceptions of the social roles of Negroes and whites. Journal of Psychology, 29, 3 – 33.

D. Nesdale et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 25 (2004) 237–251

251

Rosenfield, D., & Stephan, W. G. (1981). Intergroup relations among children. In S. S. Brehm, & S. Kassin (Eds.), Developmental social psychology ( pp. 271 – 297). New York: Oxford University Press. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2003, August). Self-presentation and intergroup attitudes in children. Paper presented at the XIth European conference on developmental psychology, Milan, Italy. Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M. A., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382 – 388. Spielman, D. A. (2000). Young children, minimal groups and dichotomous categorization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1433 – 1441. Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorisation and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149 – 178. 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 Publishing. Teplin, L. A. (1976). A comparison of racial/ethnic preferences among Anglo, Black and Latino children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(4), 702 – 709. Vaughan, G. M. (1987). A social psychological model of ethnic identity development. In J. S. Phinney, & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialisation: Pluralism and development ( pp. 72 – 91). London: Sage. Vaughan, G., Tajfel, H., & Williams, J. A. (1981). Bias in reward allocation in an intergroup and an interpersonal context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 37 – 42. Yee, M. D., & Brown, R. (1994). The development of gender differentiation in young children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 183 – 196.