The Role of Intimacy in Interracial Peer Inclusion and Exclusion in Childhood

• In Event: Invisible but Powerful: Children’s Social and Moral Reasoning Shapes and Mitigates Intergroup Power Imbalances

Abstract

Inclusion and exclusion from social groups, such as race, are highly salient experiences in childhood with important consequences across the lifespan (Killen & Rutland, 2011). Individuals who experience childhood social exclusion may experience compromised well-being through stress, sleep disorders, and low academic achievement (Rivas-Drake et al., 2014). Cross-race friendships contribute to a reduction in exclusionary attitudes and behavior, but often decline with age across childhood (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). A key component of friendships in childhood is intimacy which reflects an emotional bond. Aboud et al. (2003) found that while mutual cross-race friendships did not differ from same-race friendships in friendship functions such as loyalty, these friendships differed in terms of intimacy. Very little research has studied intimacy in children’s cross-race friendships, particularly in contexts involving decisions about social inclusion and exclusion. The current study filled this gap by examining the role of intimacy in children’s evaluations and predictions of same-race and cross-race peer inclusion and exclusion.

Children between the ages of 6 and 12 years (N = 219, MAge = 9.18 years, SDAge = 1.901; 51.1% female) were recruited from the United States. The participant sample consisted of Black children (n = 67; MAge = 9.47 years, SDAge = 1.94) and White children (n = 152; MAge = 9.05 years, SDAge = 1.88). Participants completed a 30-minute interview where they were presented a vignette about characters organizing a movie night (low intimacy scenario) and a sleepover party (high intimacy scenario). Intimacy was defined as a composite of 1) interacting in private or public space, 2) physical closeness and 3) time spent together (Sternberg, 1986).

Participants predicted whether the group would include a same-race or cross-race peer from the low and high intimacy scenarios. Participants were also presented with a White target child and a Black target child and told that each target child included a same-race peer due to: 1) parental preference, 2) peer preference, 3) racial in-group similarity and 4) outgroup dislike and were asked to evaluate how “okay” or “not okay” it was to include the peer for these different reasons.
Participants evaluated same race inclusion due to parental preference more positively when the target child was Black than when the target child was White, F(1, 215) = 10.65, p = .001.
Additionally, there was a significant difference in participant’s inclusion predictions in the high intimacy scenario F(1, 218) = 15.33, p < .001. Participants’ predicted same-race inclusion as more likely than cross-race inclusion (see Figure 1). Participants’ also predicted cross-race inclusion more in the low intimacy scenario than in the high intimacy scenario F(1, 218) = 5.25, p = .023. No racial differences in inclusion predictions were found in the low intimacy scenario F(1, 218) = 1.97, p = .162.

Overall, the findings indicate children view interracial inclusion as less likely in intimate than in non-intimate contexts, and parental preferences may provide a source of bias regarding friendship choices. The results will be discussed in the context of the importance of promoting cross-race friendships in childhood.

Authors

• Katherine Verity Luken Raz, University of Maryland - College Park
  Presenting Author

• Melanie A. Killen, University of Maryland - College Park