No abstract

This study assessed predictions drawn from social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner) concerning the acquisition of young children's intra- and intergroup attitudes and cognitions. In a minimal group study, 5- and 8-year-old children (N = 258) were arbitrarily assigned to teams that varied in their drawing ability (social status). In addition, the study varied the extent to which the children believed they could change teams (social mobility) and whether the team had additional positive qualities beyond their drawing skill (social change). The children subsequently rated their liking for, and similarity to, the ingroup and the outgroup and the extent to which they wished to change groups. Consistent with SIT and research with adults, the results indicated that children as young as 5 years of age were sensitive to the status of their social group, and that ingroup status has important implications for both their desire to remain group members as well as their perceived similarity to other group members. The extent to which the findings provide support for SIT and the intergroup similarities between adults and children are discussed.

To assess predictions from social identity development theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004) concerning children's ethnic/racial prejudice, 197 Anglo-Australian children ages 7 or 9 years participated in a minimal group study as a member of a team that had a norm of inclusion or exclusion. The team was threatened or not threatened by an out-group that was of the same or different race. Consistent with SIDT, prejudice was greater when the in-group had a norm of exclusion and there was threat from the out-group. Norms and threat also interacted with participant age to influence ethnic attitudes, although prejudice was greatest when the in-group had an exclusion norm and there was out-group threat. The implications of the findings for SIDT are discussed.

The effects of social group norms (inclusion vs. exclusion vs. exclusion-plus-relational aggression) and school norms (inclusion vs. no norm) on 7- and 10-year-old children's intergroup attitudes were examined. Children (n = 383) were randomly assigned to a group with an inclusion or exclusion norm, and to 1 of the school norm conditions. Findings indicated that children's out-group attitudes reflected their group's norm but, with increasing age, they liked their in-group less, and the out-group more, if the group had an exclusion norm. The school inclusion norm instigated more positive attitudes toward out-group members, but it did not moderate or extinguish contrary group norms. The use of school norms to counteract the effects of children's social group norms is discussed.

Drawing from social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), an experiment was carried out to determine the extent to which children's attitudes towards bullying could be moderated by in‐group norms and perceived threat to group distinctiveness. The study investigated the responses of 120 male primary school students aged 10‐13 years from five schools. The children read a story about a popular in‐group and an unpopular out‐group which involved the manipulation of three variables: the norms of the in‐group (bullying vs. fairness); distinctiveness threat (out‐group similarity vs. out‐group difference); and the behaviour of the in‐group character towards the out‐group character (bullying vs. helpful). It was predicted that a perceived threat to group distinctiveness, represented by similarity between the in‐group and the out‐group, and salient group norms that prescribed either bullying or fairness, would moderate the acceptability of bullying behaviours. Two story response measures were analysed: in‐group character liking and whether the in‐group character would be retained as a group member following his behaviour. The strongest support for social identity theory was revealed in the retention of in‐group character variable. The in‐group character was much more likely to have been retained as a group member when he behaved in accordance with group norms. Evidence was also found that bullying was more acceptable when directed at an out‐group member who was similar and therefore possibly represented a threat to the in‐group.