Rebecca S. Bigler

Developmental Intergroup Theory: Explaining and Reducing Children's Social Stereotyping and Prejudice

Social stereotyping and prejudice are intriguing phenomena from the standpoint of theory and, in addition, constitute pressing societal problems. Because stereotyping and prejudice emerge in early childhood, developmental research on causal mechanisms is critical for understanding and controlling stereotyping and prejudice. Such work forms the basis of a new theoretical model, developmental intergroup theory (DIT), which addresses the causal ingredients of stereotyping and prejudice. The work suggests that biases may be largely under environmental control and thus might be shaped via educational, social, and legal policies.

The Use of Multicultural Curricula and Materials to Counter Racism in Children

Intervention programs designed to reduce racial stereotyping and prejudice among children using multicultural curricula and materials are reviewed. Specifically, the theoretical assumptions that have guided the development of multicultural programs for countering racism among children and the empirical limitations that characterize extant intervention studies are outlined. The failure to design more effective programs is attributed to a lack of breadth andsophistication in the theoretical models and empirical research on which intervention strategies have been based. Specific recommendations for expanding and evaluating the impact of multicultural curricula and materials are presented.

Children's perceptions of gender discrimination

Children (N = 76; ages 5-10 years) participated in a study designed to examine perceptions of gender discrimination. Children were read scenarios in which a teacher determined outcomes for 2 students (1 boy and 1 girl). Contextual information (i.e., teachers past behavior), the gender of the target of discrimination (i.e., student), and the gender of the perpetrator (i.e., teacher) were manipulated. Results indicated that older children were more likely than younger children to make attributions to discrimination when contextual information suggested that it was likely. Girls (but not boys) were more likely to view girls than boys as victims of discrimination, and children with egalitarian gender attitudes were more likely to perceive discrimination than were their peers.

Language at work: Children's gendered interpretations of occupational titles

A large literature has shown that childrens beliefs and aspirations about occupations reflect cultural gender stereotypes. One channel that may create or sustain occupational stereotypes is language. Two studies were designed to examine whether children interpret occupational titles as gender specific or gender neutral. In Study 1, children (6- to 11-year-olds, N = 64) were asked directly if various job titles could be used for both men and women doing the job. In Study 2, children (6- to 10-year-olds, N = 51) were shown pictures of men and women engaged in job activities and asked which one(s) showed someone who could be called a(n)__. Titles were linguistically unmarked for gender (e.g., doctor), strongly marked (e.g., policeman), or weakly marked (e.g., postmaster). Marked titles were given in masculine and feminine forms. Findings reinforced past work showing that marked titles are exclusionary, revealed that some children harbor confusions about even unmarked titles, and demonstrated the mediating role of individual differences in attitudes. Implications for the changing lexicon and for educational programs are discussed.

Effects of minority status in the classroom on children's intergroup attitudes.

Three studies examined the effects of relative group size on the development of childrens intergroup attitudes. The studies employed a novel group paradigm in which elementary school children attending a summer school program were assigned to larger (i.e., majority) or smaller (i.e., minority) novel groups in their classroom (denoted by colored tee-shirts). In each study, relative group size was situated within a different classroom context. Study 1 examined the effects of relative group size when teachers made functional use of the novel groups and were themselves members of the novel groups. Study 2 examined the effects of relative group size in the absence of functional use. Study 3 examined the effects of relative group size when the classroom environment contained implicit messages about group status. In each study, childrens intergroup attitudes (e.g., trait ratings, group evaluations) were assessed following several weeks in the classroom. The effect of relative group size on in-group bias was complex, varying as a function of (a) the relative size and salience of groups, (b) the measure used to assess intergroup attitudes, (c) group status (higher or lower), and (d) childrens age.

An experimental study of the correlates and consequences of perceiving oneself to be the target of gender discrimination.

An experimental methodology was used to test hypotheses concerning the effects of contextual, cognitive-developmental, and individual difference factors on childrens views of whether they have been the target of gender discrimination and the possible consequent effect of such views on two forms of state self-esteem: performance and social acceptance. Children (N=108, 5-11 years of age) completed theory of mind and gender attitude measures and a drawing task. Next, children received feedback that was designed to appear either gender biased (discrimination condition) or nonbiased (control condition). Childrens attributions for the feedback and state self-esteem were assessed. As expected, children reported having been the target of gender discrimination more often in the discrimination condition than in the control condition. Older and more cognitively advanced children made fewer attributions to discrimination than their peers. Perceptions of discrimination were associated with higher performance state self-esteem and, among egalitarian children, lower social state self-esteem.

A meta-analysis of children's memories for own-sex and other-sex information

Gender schema theories predict that memories will be biased toward information associated with ones own sex. Meta-analyses were performed on the association between a childs sex and memories for (1) items depicting stereotypically masculine and feminine actions, characteristics, or objects, and (2) male and female characters. Same-sex biases were evident in memories for masculine and feminine items, especially after a delay and when the memory task was recall, and in memories for male and female characters. The same-sex bias in memory for male characters was larger when the characters were not engaged in gender-stereotyped activities. The implications of these results for gender schema theories and for the preparation of educational materials are discussed.

Reasons for Skepticism About the Efficacy of Simulated Social Contact Interventions

Crisp and Turner (May–June 2009) argued that imagining intergroup interactions reduces intergroup prejudice. They argued that the procedure is remarkably effective, with “significant potential application for policymakers and educators seeking to promote tolerance for social diversity” (p. 238). We believe that such interventions, although appealing to many individuals, are problematic and that the authors’ conclusions are overly optimistic. We believe that simulated contact interventions are highly unlikely to produce meaningful attitude change. Simulated contact interventions are appealing, we suspect, in large part because they require so little effort or cost. Consider the case of anti-African-American prejudice in the United States. Simulated contact interventions do not require individuals to live in racially integrated neighborhoods or to send their children to integrated schools. Such interventions do not require financial or emotional investment in communities of color or require individuals to learn about and appreciate African American history or culture. Such interventions do not require the forging of actual bonds of friendships with African Americans, nor do they require individuals to imagine themselves seeking social contact with African Americans who differ from themselves in dress, manner, or values. Simulated contact interventions demand of prejudiced persons only that they pretend that they would engage in a one-time conversation with a single outgroup member who inhabits their same social world and actively seeks contact with them. Such efforts are shallow in our view. The appeal of this form of intervention may have colored the assessment of its effectiveness. We believe that there is little reason to be optimistic about the ability of simulated contact to reduce prejudice meaningfully. The first basis for skepticism concerns past work. The literature on social stereotyping and prejudice reduction is enormous; it spans multiple countries, disciplines, and decades. If a single point might be gleaned from this vast literature, it is that prejudice reduction is exceedingly difficult to achieve and maintain via shortterm intervention. The literature is littered with unsuccessful attempts and includes studies that have failed to find effects of extended contact (Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009). A second basis for skepticism is that interventions often produce effects among only a subsample of participants (see Bigler, 1999). This is true of our own published interventions and is evidenced in studies of actual and simulated contact (e.g., Liebkind & McAlister, 1999; Stathi & Crisp, 2008). For example, in Study 1 of Turner, Crisp, and Lambert’s (2007) article, participants in the simulated contact group were significantly less biased than participants in the control group. The standard deviations reveal, however, that there was considerable variability in the simulated contact condition (SD 3.40) compared with the control condition (SD 1.66). This suggests that a significant portion of the simulated contact participants ended the procedure with intergroup bias levels equal to or greater than those of participants in the control condition. A third basis for skepticism is that the intervention literature relies heavily on self-report measures of attitudes. Crisp and Turner (2009) claimed that simulated contact has the strong potential to induce individuals to engage in cross-group contact. Nonetheless, these interventions typically fail to include even a single measure of intergroup behavior. Cameron, Rutland, Brown, and Douch (2006) did, however, examine the effect of intervention on “intended behavior.” They asked children how much they would like to interact with a refugee child and reported no significant effect of treatment condition. A fourth basis for skepticism is that when successful interventions include multiple measures of prejudice, they routinely produce significant effects for only a subset of the measures employed. Results reported by Turner et al. (2007) are illustrative. In Study 1, the authors examined the ingroup and outgroup preferences of participants who had been assigned to imagined contact versus control conditions. Participants were instructed to imagine interacting with an elderly person, yet there was no significant effect of condition on participants’ attitudes toward interacting with an elderly person; instead, there was an effect of treatment condition on interest in interacting with a young person. A fifth basis for skepticism is that, as acknowledged by Crisp and Turner (2009), the effects of simulated social contact have never been shown to be lasting. Outcome measures are typically given immediately (Stathi & Crisp, 2008) or within days of the intervention (Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Cameron et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2007). The broad intervention literature indicates that longterm assessments typically show decreases in effects. We expect the same to be true of imagined contact interventions. A sixth reason for skepticism is that the statistically significant effects reported in intervention studies are often practically unimportant. Participants’ attitudes rarely approximate nonbiased attitudes at posttest. Crisp and Turner (2009) cited Liebkind and McAlister (1999) as having reduced prejudice among Finnish children, but their intervention and control groups showed bias scores of 55.29 and 55.51, respectively, on a scale of 17 to 85, with a midpoint of 51. Stathi and Crisp (2008) reported that their use of an imagined contact intervention (Study 1) significantly increased the number of positive traits participants perceived themselves to share with the outgroup; the control and experimental groups projected only 2.60 and 3.68 traits, respectively, of 10 possible onto the outgroup. Furthermore, we are unconvinced that the small effects of imagined contact interventions are not the product of demand characteristics. Simulated social contact interventions are highly transparent in that they explicitly promote intergroup contact. If participants in these studies had been asked to estimate the experimenters’ outgroup attitudes (rather than the hypothesis of the study), we predict that they would have reported the experimenters to have positive views. Thus, subtle pressure to match the experimenters’ views appears present. In sum, we are deeply skeptical about the ability of imagined contact interventions to reduce prejudice. A single, brief, imaginary encounter with an outgroup member is unlikely to reverse or erase the psychological mechanisms that create prejudice.

Internalized Sexualization and Its Relation to Sexualized Appearance, Body Surveillance, and Body Shame among Early Adolescent Girls.

Sexually objectifying messages about girls and women are common in U.S. popular culture. As a consequence of exposure to such messages, girls may develop “internalized sexualization,” or internalization of the belief that sexual attractiveness to males is an important aspect of their identity. We hypothesized that internalized sexualization is associated with behavioral and psychological consequences, including sexualized clothing use, body surveillance, and body shame. In two studies of early adolescent girls (total N = 330, age range = 10-15), we found that girls with higher levels of internalized sexualization wear more sexualized clothing (Study 1) and show higher levels of body surveillance and body shame (Study 2) than girls with lower levels of internalized sexualization.

Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Measurement Of Children's Sex Typing

Many reviewers of the literature on childrens sex typing have remarked on the failure of researchers to attend carefully to methodological issues when designing measures of sex typing. In the present article, the importance of conceptually and operationally distinguishing among (a) the target of sex typing (i.e., self vs. others), (b) the form of sex typing (e.g., knowledge vs. attitudes), and (c) the domain of sex typing (e.g., occupations, activities, etc.) is emphasized. Several other methodological issues in measurement design, including the independence and comparability of masculine and feminine items, are also discussed. Finally, newly developed measures of sex typing designed to address these conceptual and methodological issues are described.