Children's and adolescents’ evaluations of peers who challenge their group: The role of gender norms and identity

Abstract

In-group members who challenge group norms (hereon "challenger peers") often are evaluated less positively by their peers compared to those who adhere to group norms.In the present study children (n = 118, M age = 10.01) and adolescents (n = 132, M age = 13.32; total n = 269) were inducted into a gender-based group who endorsed an activity norm. Participants evaluated a challenger peer who was either cisgender or transgender. Adolescent girls, compared to girls in childhood, individually evaluated a challenger peer more positively while perceiving their group would be less positive than they themselves would be. In contrast, boys in both childhood and adolescence individually evaluated a challenger peer less positively and believed their group also would. These effects were independent of the challenger peer's gender identity, suggesting that in the context of evaluating a challenger to a stereotypical gender norm, adherence to the norm can take primacy over gender identity.

How are gender counter-stereotypical adolescents evaluated by their peers? Investigating the backlash effect in French schools

“…Gender stereotypes and their consequences have been frequently studied in social psychology, and their prevalence in adolescence has been the subject of much research (Brown & Stone, 2016;Verniers et al, 2015). A large amount of work in developmental psychology has also investigated questions regarding gender stereotypes, such as their acquisition and use through childhood and adolescence (Blakemore, 2003;Charafeddine et al, 2020;McGuire et al, 2021). Researchers have also shown interest in how adolescents perceive others in relation to gender stereotypes.…”

Socioeconomic status biases among children and adolescents: The role of school diversity and teacher beliefs in Nepal

“…As a consequence, positive contact, which is needed to foster positive attitudes (e.g., Juvonen et al, 2019), may have been limited. Another potential explanation for the non‐significant difference between younger participants from high SES backgrounds in mixed and high SES schools may be that, during late childhood and early adolescence, group boundaries increasingly gain in salience, rendering in‐group affiliations to be an important and rigid part of group identity which can increase the display of in‐group biases (Horn, 2003; McGuire et al, 2021; Rutland et al, 2015). Thus, younger participants may have benefitted less from intergroup contact experiences than older participants.…”

“…Hence, we assumed that older adolescents from social majority (i.e., high SES) groups would benefit more from contact experiences in mixed SES schools as compared with younger participants, expecting higher inclusion in mixed SES as compared with high SES schools. In contrast, we assumed that younger participants from high SES backgrounds in late childhood and early adolescence would be more susceptible for group biases (McGuire et al, 2021; Rutland et al, 2015), focusing more on group concerns and expecting less peer inclusion. More specifically, we anticipated that their biases would be harder to change even when attending mixed SES schools.…”