Major
Psychology
Research Abstract
What factors contribute to children’s exclusion of in-group members? Past research indicates that children and adolescents are often not willing to exclude in-group members, but might be more willing if in-group members challenged moral group norms (Hitti, Mulvey, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2013). Additionally, it has been found that while children are more likely to help an in-group member but are willing to help an out-group member if they are in need (Sierksma, Thijs, and Verkuyten, 2015). Less is known about exclusion of in-group members who help out-groups in ways that come at a cost to one’s own group. The current study examined evaluations of excluding an in-group member who helps an out-group equally, a little, and a lot when the in-group had varying levels of need for a necessary resource
This study examined 174 responses from children (4th graders) and adolescents (8th graders) (M = 11.10, SD = 1.94), using three vignettes in which each group had varying levels of need for water: 1) both groups need the same, 2) in-group needs more water, and 3) out-group needs more water. Each participant received a scenario in which an in-group member either helped the out-group by distributing found water in ways such that he/she: 1) helped each group equally; 2) helped the out-group less than the in-group; and 3) helped the out-group more than the in-group. Three linear regression model were analyzed, for each need level, with approval of exclusion (“How okay or not okay do you think it is that the group decides that they do not want Sam in the group anymore?”, 1 = Really Not Okay, 6 = Really Okay) as the dependent variable. Predictors in the model were in-group bias and approval of the helping act (“How okay or not okay was it for Sam to do what he did?”, 1 = Really Not Okay, 6 = Really Okay). In-group bias was assessed as the difference of scores between how important participants thought it was give water to their in-group versus outgroup (1 = Really Not Important, 6 = Really Important).
The findings indicated the main predictor of approval of exclusion was participants’ approval of the helping act, controlling for age, gender, and in-group bias. Additionally, in-group bias was also predictive of exclusion only when both groups had equal need and when the in-group had low need. Overall, participants did not approve of excluding their in-group member (Equal Need: M = 1.94, SD = 1.09; In-group Low Need: M = 1.83, SD = 1.03; In-group High Need: M = 1.97, SD = 1.14).
While overall children and adolescents were not approving of excluding an in-group member who helped an out-group, whether participants approved of the act predicted their approval of exclusion. While children and adolescents are more likely to exclude a peer based on that peers behavior, in-group bias can play a role in low stakes situations. This study can be expanded to understand when children and adolescents may exclude others in contexts of actual groups, such as those based on race/ ethnicity, gender, SES, and sexual orientation.
Faculty Mentor/Advisor
Dr. Aline Hitti
Included in
Children’s evaluations of excluding an in-group member who help an out-group
What factors contribute to children’s exclusion of in-group members? Past research indicates that children and adolescents are often not willing to exclude in-group members, but might be more willing if in-group members challenged moral group norms (Hitti, Mulvey, Rutland, Abrams, & Killen, 2013). Additionally, it has been found that while children are more likely to help an in-group member but are willing to help an out-group member if they are in need (Sierksma, Thijs, and Verkuyten, 2015). Less is known about exclusion of in-group members who help out-groups in ways that come at a cost to one’s own group. The current study examined evaluations of excluding an in-group member who helps an out-group equally, a little, and a lot when the in-group had varying levels of need for a necessary resource
This study examined 174 responses from children (4th graders) and adolescents (8th graders) (M = 11.10, SD = 1.94), using three vignettes in which each group had varying levels of need for water: 1) both groups need the same, 2) in-group needs more water, and 3) out-group needs more water. Each participant received a scenario in which an in-group member either helped the out-group by distributing found water in ways such that he/she: 1) helped each group equally; 2) helped the out-group less than the in-group; and 3) helped the out-group more than the in-group. Three linear regression model were analyzed, for each need level, with approval of exclusion (“How okay or not okay do you think it is that the group decides that they do not want Sam in the group anymore?”, 1 = Really Not Okay, 6 = Really Okay) as the dependent variable. Predictors in the model were in-group bias and approval of the helping act (“How okay or not okay was it for Sam to do what he did?”, 1 = Really Not Okay, 6 = Really Okay). In-group bias was assessed as the difference of scores between how important participants thought it was give water to their in-group versus outgroup (1 = Really Not Important, 6 = Really Important).
The findings indicated the main predictor of approval of exclusion was participants’ approval of the helping act, controlling for age, gender, and in-group bias. Additionally, in-group bias was also predictive of exclusion only when both groups had equal need and when the in-group had low need. Overall, participants did not approve of excluding their in-group member (Equal Need: M = 1.94, SD = 1.09; In-group Low Need: M = 1.83, SD = 1.03; In-group High Need: M = 1.97, SD = 1.14).
While overall children and adolescents were not approving of excluding an in-group member who helped an out-group, whether participants approved of the act predicted their approval of exclusion. While children and adolescents are more likely to exclude a peer based on that peers behavior, in-group bias can play a role in low stakes situations. This study can be expanded to understand when children and adolescents may exclude others in contexts of actual groups, such as those based on race/ ethnicity, gender, SES, and sexual orientation.
