Kelly Lynn Mulvey

Social exclusion in childhood: a developmental intergroup perspective

Interpersonal rejection and intergroup exclusion in childhood reflect different, but complementary, aspects of child development. Interpersonal rejection focuses on individual differences in personality traits, such as wariness and being fearful, to explain bully-victim relationships. In contrast, intergroup exclusion focuses on how in-group and out-group attitudes contribute to social exclusion based on group membership, such as gender, race, ethnicity, culture, and nationality. It is proposed that what appears to be interpersonal rejection in some contexts may, in fact, reflect intergroup exclusion. Whereas interpersonal rejection research assumes that victims invite rejection, intergroup exclusion research proposes that excluders reject members of out-groups to maintain status differences. A developmental intergroup social exclusion framework is described, one that focuses on social reasoning, moral judgment, and group identity.

Development of Intra- and Intergroup Judgments in the Context of Moral and Social-Conventional Norms.

Children and adolescents evaluated group inclusion and exclusion in the context of generic and group-specific norms involving morality and social conventions. Participants (N = 381), aged 9.5 and 13.5 years, judged an in-group members decision to deviate from the norms of the group, whom to include, and whether their personal preference was the same as what they expected a group should do. Deviating from in-group moral norms about unequal allocation of resources was viewed more positively than deviating from conventional norms about nontraditional dress codes. With age, participants gave priority to group-specific norms and differentiated what the group should do from their own preference about the groups decision, revealing a developmental picture about childrens complex understanding of group dynamics and group norms.

When Does the In-Group Like the Out-Group? Bias Among Children as a Function of Group Norms:

Research indicates that in-group favoritism is prevalent among both adults and children. Although research has documented that individuals do not consistently display an in-group bias, the conditions under which out-group preference exists are not well understood. In this study, participants (N = 462) aged 9 to 16 years judged in-group deviant acts that were either in line with or counter to a generic norm shared by both groups. The findings demonstrated, for the first time, that children preferred out-group over in-group deviance only when the in-group peer’s deviance was in line with the generic norm and a threat to their group’s identity. Participants justified their disapproval of these deviants by focusing on the need for group cohesion and loyalty, while they signified their approval by spotlighting the need for autonomy. Our findings suggest that children’s intergroup attitudes are influenced by how the behavior of their peers matches different levels of group norms.

Extending Social Domain Theory with a Process-Based Account of Moral Judgments

Social domain theory (SDT) provides a model for how individuals identify, evaluate, and coordinate domains of social knowledge when judging socially relevant actions. To date, little research has focused on the cognitive processes that underlie these capacities. Utilizing principles from the literature on SDT and the hierarchical competing systems model, we examine the extant research with a new focus on the process by which domain coordination takes place. We argue for an integrated approach to social cognition that recognizes the cognitive processes involved in domain coordination.

Race‐Based Humor and Peer Group Dynamics in Adolescence: Bystander Intervention and Social Exclusion

Adolescents’ evaluations of discriminatory race‐based humor and their expectations about peer responses to discrimination were investigated in 8th‐ (M age = 13.80) and 10th‐grade (M age = 16.11) primarily European‐American participants (N = 256). Older adolescents judged race‐based humor as more acceptable than did younger adolescents and were less likely to expect peer intervention. Participants who rejected discrimination were more likely to reference welfare/rights and prejudice and to anticipate that peers would intervene. Showing awareness of group processes, adolescents who rejected race‐based humor believed that peers who intervened would be more likely to be excluded. They also disapproved of exclusion more than did participants who supported race‐based humor. Results expose the complexity of situations involving subtle discrimination. Implications for bullying interventions are discussed.

The development of stereotyping and exclusion

This article reviews the developmental science literature on stereotyping and exclusion, with a focus on gender, race, and ethnicity. Stereotyping of others, which is defined as the attribution of traits to individuals based on group membership, is often used to justify exclusion of others in social group contexts. This review includes a focus on the links between these two constructs. Research on stereotyping and exclusion has drawn on several theoretical traditions, including social domain theory, social identity developmental theory, and subjective group dynamics theory, which are also discussed in the context of the research findings. Key findings on stereotyping include categorization and classification in relationship with decreased in-group bias, and the role of stereotypes in encoding information. Findings on exclusion include the use of available information to make judgments, preferences for in-group members who are normative and out-group members who are deviant, the increased importance, with age, of group functioning in exclusion decisions, and decreased negative evaluation of in-group members who partake in exclusionary behaviors. Though little research has explicitly studied the links between stereotyping and exclusion from groups, this review describes the current literature in both areas and suggests future directions for research. Copyright

Evaluations of intergroup resource allocations: The role of theory of mind

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between childrens social cognitive skills and their evaluations of resource allocations in intergroup contexts (N=73, 3-6years of age). Participants evaluated three snack-time resource allocation scenarios (self-disadvantaged, self-advantaged, and other-disadvantaged) in either a school ingroup or outgroup context. They evaluated the acceptability of the resource allocation and provided reasoning about their evaluation. Participants who had false belief theory of mind (FB ToM) competence were more likely than participants who did not have FB ToM to evaluate inequality as unacceptable. In addition, participants without FB ToM evaluated unequal allocations to another child as more okay in an outgroup condition than participants with FB ToM. Participants reasoned about their allocations differently depending on the context. Results reveal the importance of FB ToM for recognizing unfair resource allocations, especially in intergroup contexts.

Challenging gender stereotypes: Theory of mind and peer group dynamics

To investigate the social cognitive skills related to challenging gender stereotypes, children (N = 61, 3-6 years) evaluated a peer who challenged gender stereotypic norms held by the peers group. Participants with false belief theory of mind (FB ToM) competence were more likely than participants who did not have FB ToM to expect a peer to challenge the groups stereotypes and propose that the group engage in a non-stereotypic activity. Further, participants with FB ToM rated challenging the peer group more positively. Participants without FB ToM did not differentiate between their own and the groups evaluation of challenges to the groups stereotypic norms, but those with ToM competence asserted that they would be more supportive of challenging the group norm than would the peer group. Results reveal the importance of social-cognitive competencies for recognizing the legitimacy of challenging stereotypes, and for understanding ones own and other group perspectives.

What works to address prejudice? Look to developmental science research for the answer.

Developmental perspectives on prejudice provide a fundamental and important key to the puzzle for determining how to address prejudice. Research with historically disadvantaged and advantaged groups in childhood and adolescence reveals the complexity of social cognitive and moral judgments about prejudice, discrimination, bias, and exclusion. Children are aware of status and hierarchies, and often reject the status quo. Intervention, to be effective, must happen early in development, before prejudice and stereotypes are deeply entrenched.

Children’s and Adolescents’ Expectations about Challenging Unfair Group Norms

Youth often hold group norms that perpetuate inequality. One way these norms can be changed is by challenging these norms by choosing to include new members into these groups who hold morally just norms. In the current study, children’s and adolescents’ inclusion decisions and social reasoning about challenging group norms through inclusion were investigated. The sample included 9–10 (children) and 13–14 year-olds (adolescents) (N = 673, 54.4% female). Participants supported including challengers into groups holding norms supporting relational aggression and unequal allocation of resources, but they were less likely to support including a challenger into a physically aggressive group. Age-related differences and gender differences were found: children and female participants were more likely to include challengers than were adolescents and male participants. The findings indicate that youth support including new members who would challenge morally questionable group norms, but that their support depends on the specific norm the group holds.