Examining Patterns in Youths' Reasoning about Social Inclusion

• In Event: Moral judgments in intergroup contexts

Abstract

Introduction: Although students with disabilities are increasingly educated amongst their typically developing peers, they may still find themselves on the periphery of social activities. The role of typically developing peers has emerged as a key factor in promoting the social inclusion of adolescents with disabilities (Bottema­Beutel et al., 2016). According to social domain theory, children and adolescents may draw upon the moral, conventional, personal, and prudential domains when making decisions about the inclusion of peers with disabilities. Research in older children has shown that some features of the context can affect children’s reasoning regarding inclusion (Bottema-Beutel & Li, 2015). In addition to context, evaluations appear to vary with age. Younger children are more likely to judge that exclusion is unacceptable, while older children begin to incorporate and coordinate other domains, such as the personal and the conventional, into their decision making (Nucci & Turiel, 2009).

Research questions: 1. Using social domain theory, do evaluations differ by context and age group? 2. Does reasoning complexity increase with age, and does it differ by context?

Methods: Participants were recruited from a summer camp coordinated through the recreation sports division of a large university in the western United States. All participants in the summer camp regularly interacted with same-age peers with a range of disabilities in an equal status framework. A total of 60 children and youth participated in this study and were divided into three age groups: 8-10, 11-13, and 14-16. Clinical interviews designed to elicit evaluations and corresponding justifications about including students with disabilities were administered and subsequently analyzed using a social domain theory approach.
Results: Preliminary analyses of the data show that while some participants condone exclusion and others do not, this difference can be attributed to the process of juggling competing considerations about maintaining relationships and upholding the expectations of a sport or social hierarchy. In addition to the evidence of domain coordination, it also is clear that acceptability of exclusion varied by context. Participants were most likely to accept exclusion in a private home context while least likely to accept exclusion in a school lunchtime context. Furthermore, differences in evaluations of exclusion emerged based on age. Participants ages 8-10 were most likely to evaluate exclusion as not alright across all contexts. Participants ages 11-13 were most likely to evaluate exclusion in one’s home as most acceptable due to justifications of this decision as falling under one’s personal jurisdiction. Finally, participants ages 14-16 were most likely to evaluate exclusion in a sport-based context as acceptable due to social conventional considerations such as effective team functioning.
Implications: Although some patterns have emerged in the development of reasoning processes by age and gender in prior literature on this topic, this study is the first to evaluate children and adolescents reasoning across the span of 8-16 years. Ascertaining a clear understanding of how typically developing children and adolescents reason about inclusion will allow researchers and practitioners to better support the development of lasting social connections between youth with and without disabilities.

Author

• Sarah Kiran Manchanda, UC Berkeley
  Presenting Author