Developmental and contextual effects on evaluations of bystanders challenging immigrant and non-immigrants peer exclusion

• In Event: Poster Session 10
  In Poster Session: PS 10 Topic -Diversity, Equity & Social Justice

Abstract

As society is seeing an increase in the number of immigrants, research shows that immigrant children and adolescents experience pervasive stigmatization (Brown & Lee, 2015) resulting in negative psychological consequences (Killen & Rutland, 2011). An effective means by which children and adolescents can challenge the exclusion of immigrants is as a bystander (i.e., a witness to social exclusion) (Palmer, Rutland, & Cameron, 2015). Yet, we know little about how children and adolescents evaluate bystanders who challenge exclusion, especially when it involves stigmatized groups and status differences. A study will be presented that examined developmental and contextual effects on how children and adolescents evaluate bystanders who challenge the exclusion of stigmatized (i.e., immigrants) and non-stigmatized (i.e., non-immigrants) newcomers to a peer group.
The Social Reasoning Developmental (SRD) perspective on social exclusion (Killen & Rutland, 2015; Rutland et al., 2010) contends that children typically evaluate intergroup exclusion negatively and are therefore likely to positively evaluate ingroup bystanders challenging the exclusion. While adolescents are more likely to differentiate between their own (positive) and their group’s (less positive) evaluations of bystanders challenging the exclusion, children typically think their group will evaluate such bystanders similarly to themselves. This is due to children’s relatively limited understanding of group dynamics (e.g., how groups might react to an ingroup dissenter) (Killen et al, 2013).
The SRD approach also maintains that from middle childhood individuals attend to contextual factors, including stigma and social status (Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; McGuire et al., 2019). Therefore, in this study we examine whether children and adolescents differentiate between their own and their group’s evaluations of bystanders who challenge the exclusion of both stigmatized and non-stigmatized newcomers.
British children (8-11 years) and adolescents (12-15 years; total N=322, 50% female) read a story about a group of British friends and a newcomer who wants to join their peer group. In the story one ingroup peer excludes the newcomer who was either from a stigmatized group (i.e., an immigrant peer) or a non-stigmatized group (i.e., another British peer moving from ‘another’ part of the country). Next, another ingroup peer (i.e., the bystander “challenger”) opposes the exclusion of the newcomer. Participants provided an individual and a group evaluation of the challenger, and reasoning for their evaluations.
In line with previous research (McGuire et al., 2019; Killen et al., 2013), results showed that when the newcomer was from a non-stigmatized group only adolescents thought their group would evaluate the challenger significantly less positively than they would (see Figure 1). However, we found this developmental trend was not present in the context involving a stigmatized immigrant peer being excluded by a British ingroup peer. In this context, both children and adolescents differentiated between their own (positive) and their group’s (less positive) evaluation of an ingroup bystander challenger (see Figure 2). Findings will be discussed in term of their implications for developmental theory on social exclusion and interventions aimed at reducing the exclusion of immigrants.

Authors

• Eirini Ketzitzidou Argyri, University Of Exeter
  Presenting Author

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

• Luke McGuire, University Of Exeter
  Non-Presenting Author

• Adam Rutland, University Of Exeter
  Non-Presenting Author