Children's and Adolescents' Expectations of Bystander Reactions to Social Exclusion in Intergroup and Intragroup Contexts

• In Event: How Intergroup-related and Social-cognitive Factors Shape Bystanders' Responses to Bias-based Bullying and Exclusion Across Three Countries

Abstract

Young people experience different kinds of social exclusion, resulting in negative outcomes (Killen & Rutland, 2011; Killen et al., 2013). Intragroup exclusion is someone being left out of a group by another member of that group, whereas intergroup exclusion is someone from one group excluding someone from an outgroup. Bystander peers who challenge social exclusion can help reduce it (Polanin et al., 2012). Research reveals that prosocial bystander intentions decrease with age, depending on the group membership of the excluder or victim (Palmer et al., 2015). Most research on bystander responses focuses on intergroup aggression but not intergroup exclusion. This study addresses this gap by investigating children's and adolescent's expectations of prosocial bystander reactions to social exclusion in both intergroup and intragroup contexts. This study examines their expectations of challenging exclusion in the context of immigration. To explore this is important and pertinent considering the current socio-political climate and controversial rhetoric around immigration.
340 British children (n =155, Mage =8.97, SD =.92) and adolescents (n =185, Mage =13.24, SD =.92) from an ethnically diverse area in the UK read a scenario in which either a British or an immigrant peer was excluded from a school club by either British or immigrant peers. They were then told about a peer from the excluding group who thought that the group should include the excluded child in the club. Participants were asked the likelihood of this peer challenging exclusion (1=really not likely, 6=really likely). Their expectations of prosocial bystander reactions were examined across two intergroup (i.e. British peers excluding an immigrant victim or immigrant peers excluding a British victim) and two intragroup (i.e. British peers excluding a British victim or immigrant peers excluding an immigrant victim) contexts. Participants also justified their expectation in an open-ended "why?" question.
Results revealed that with age, participants were less likely to expect the peer to challenge the exclusion (Madolescents=3.28, SD=1.4, Mchildren=4.51, SD=1.7), p <.001). Adolescents were also less likely to expect the peer to challenge exclusion when it was an intergroup context (M=3.03, SD=1.5) compared to when it was an intragroup context (M=3.51, SD=1.4, p=.04), whereas there was no difference for children (intergroup, M=4.62, SD=1.7; intragroup, M=4.40, SD =1.7, p<.05 (see Figure 1). Additionally, results showed that adolescents, but not children, referred to group functioning more when reasoning about their evaluations for the intergroup context compared to when it was an intragroup context (p<.007).
These results demonstrate a developmental shift from childhood to adolescence in the expectation of prosocial bystander reactions in different group contexts. Crucially, adolescents showed an awareness of group dynamics and differentiated between the social exclusion contexts (i.e. intergroup vs intragroup). Results emphasize how the group membership of the victim and excluder is important for prosocial bystander decision making in social exclusion and how adolescents become more adept at weighing up different concerns to inform their decision-making. These findings and their implications for bystander research will be discussed from a developmental intergroup perspective on bystander responses and social exclusion (Palmer & Abbott, 2017).

Authors

• Ayşe Şule Yüksel, University of Exeter
  Presenting Author

• Sally Barbara Palmer, University Of Exeter
  Non-Presenting Author

• Adam Rutland, University Of Exeter
  Non-Presenting Author