How School Norms, Peer Norms, and Discrimination Predict Interethnic Experiences Among Ethnic Minority and Majority Youth

Abstract

This research tests how perceived school and peer norms predict interethnic experiences among ethnic minority and majority youth. With studies in Chile (654 nonindigenous and 244 Mapuche students, M = 11.20 and 11.31 years) and the United States (468 non-Hispanic White and 126 Latino students, M = 11.66 and 11.68 years), cross-sectional results showed that peer norms predicted greater comfort in intergroup contact, interest in cross-ethnic friendships, and higher contact quality, whereas longitudinal results showed that school norms predicted greater interest in cross-ethnic friendships over time. Distinct effects of school and peer norms were also observed for ethnic minority and majority youth in relation to perceived discrimination, suggesting differences in how they experience cross-ethnic relations within school environments.

Intergroup Contact Attitudes Across Peer Networks in School: Selection, Influence, and Implications for Cross‐Group Friendships

“…This study uses two distinct but complementary frameworks. First, we draw from intergroup contact theory (Allport, ; Pettigrew & Tropp, ), which posits that youth will be more disposed toward intergroup contact when there are supportive norms (i.e., authority sanction) in the setting (see Tropp et al., ). Although the school investigated in this study is not implementing specific prejudice reduction approaches, it is engaged in practices that are meant to promote inclusiveness.…”

“…For example, Tropp et al. () found that adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ norms toward intergroup contact were positively related with their own intergroup attitudes, including their feelings of comfort and interest in interethnic friendships. These peer dynamics may be further complicated by broader, potentially distinct social norms of their shared context, like their school or classroom.…”

“…Peer processes, such as homophily (i.e., associating with similar others), are important for a wide range of issues during this period of life (e.g., McPherson, Smith‐Lovin, & Cook, ; Veenstra, Dijkstra, Steglich, & Van Zalk, ). Adolescents’ ICA (e.g., valuing friendships with diverse others) are likely no exception to the more general pattern of homophily, as empirical research shows that peer contexts influence youths’ understanding of ethnic/racial norms (e.g., Ramiah et al., ; Tropp et al., ). This observation has been made in numerous ethnographic accounts that find that adolescents’ understanding of ethnic/racial norms in heterogeneous schools are constructed and reinforced among peers (e.g., Lee, ; McLeod, ; Pollock, ; Rosenbloom & Way, ; Valenzuela, ).…”

Perceived peer and school norm effects on youth antisocial and prosocial behaviours through intergroup contact in Northern Ireland

“…In the last few years, there has been a movement to consider more closely the role of peer and school norms for youth. In particular, examining how perceptions of both peer and school norms differently predict outcomes including intergroup attitudes, aggressive tendencies, and interest in engaging in intergroup contact (Tropp et al ., ). This study extends this body of research by examining the differing role of peer and school norms in influencing the extent to which adolescents engage in frequent and quality contact and the consequence that this contact has on both positive and negative intergroup behaviours in the context of ethno‐religious relations in Northern Ireland.…”

“…This study extends this body of research by examining the differing role of peer and school norms in influencing the extent to which adolescents engage in frequent and quality contact and the consequence that this contact has on both positive and negative intergroup behaviours in the context of ethno‐religious relations in Northern Ireland. This is under the premise that norms influence the extent to which individuals engage or have interest in intergroup interactions (Tropp et al ., ) and that they are associated with intergroup behaviours, both positive (e.g., altruism and helping; Berkowitz, ) and negative (e.g., aggressive tendencies; Nesdale & Lawson, ).…”