Intergroup resource distribution among children living in segregated neighborhoods amid protracted conflict.

Abstract

Even after a peace agreement, children often grow up within societies characterized by division and simmering intergroup tensions. In Northern Ireland, segregated Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods occur side by side, separated by 'peace walls' or physical barriers that demarcate 'interface' areas, which have higher levels of violence compared to non-interface areas. The study explored the impact of living in interface and non-interface neighborhoods, the strength of ingroup identity, and outgroup attitudes on intergroup resource distributions of 88 children aged between 5 and 9 years old, growing up in Belfast. The findings revealed that compared to those in non-interface areas, children living in interface neighborhoods distributed more resources to an ingroup member than an outgroup member. This effect was accentuated for those children that more strongly identified with their community group, either Protestant or Catholic. At the same time, children with more positive outgroup attitudes distributed more resources to an outgroup member, but only in non-interface neighborhoods. By applying a framework that incorporates converging social and developmental processes, the study adds to a mounting body of research that aims to understand the impact of living in divided societies on children's intergroup attitudes and behaviors. The implications for promoting resource sharing across group lines within postaccord Northern Ireland are discussed.

Empathy to action: Child and adolescent out‐group attitudes and prosocial behaviors in a setting of intergroup conflict

“…Therefore, longitudinal data are needed to unravel the direction of these effects. Secondly, the measure of out‐group prosocial behavior was fairly simple, as relevant for this age group; future research could adapt other forms of assessment and/or self‐report measures (O'Driscoll et al, ; Taylor et al, ). Thirdly, parental opt‐in consent was at the lower end (Totura, Kutash, Labouliere, & Karver, ), which is common in economically marginalized areas; although there were no indicators of systematic bias in these participation rates, future research may explore more active ways to recruit families.…”

“…Future research could replicate these studies in neighborhoods that are not economically marginalized, are more heterogeneous, or in the 6% of integrated schools (Northern Ireland Department of Education, ). This approach would shed light on how these processes may generalize across Northern Ireland (O'Driscoll et al, ).…”

“…For example, 7–9‐year‐old children with favorable perceptions of immigrants were more willing to help immigrant children following a natural disaster (Vezzali, Cadamuro, Versari, Giovannini, & Trifiletti, ). Extending this pattern of findings, among 5–9‐year‐old children in Northern Ireland, more positive attitudes toward the former rival related to sharing more resources with out‐group members (O'Driscoll et al, ). Similarly, adolescents’ attitudes toward conflict‐related groups were predictive of their out‐group prosocial behaviors one year later (Taylor et al, ).…”

Out-group prosocial giving during childhood: The role of in-group preference and out-group attitudes in a divided society

“…Moreover, examining children from Jewish and Arab-Muslim backgrounds in this context of protracted conflict will shed light on whether the same process predicts prosocial giving for members of both majority and minority groups. Understanding factors that promote positive behaviors across group lines among children may inform peacebuilding initiatives within Israel and other historically divided societies (O'Driscoll, Taylor, & Dautel, 2018;Taylor et al, 2014).…”

“…However, children also display selectivity in prosociality (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2010) and may distribute resources strategically in favor of their ingroup in order to improve their group's position or solidify links with group members (Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach, 2008). Although increasingly able to weigh both egalitarian concerns and group dynamics in their resource allocation decisions with age , OUTGROUP PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 6 children still tend to give more resources to ingroup members when an egalitarian response is unavailable or when facing competitive intergroup dynamics (O'Driscoll et al, 2018).…”