About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 13. Moral Development

Paper #1
Children’s Willingness to Intervene Against Race-Based Discipline Disparity
Author information	Role
Christina Marlow, North Carolina State University, United States	Presenting author
Kelly Lynn Mulvey, North Carolina State University, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Race-based discipline disparities are rampant; Black children face harsher punishment than their White peers (Skiba et al., 2014). For direct forms of peer-based discrimination, youth overall are willing to intervene (Gönültaş & Mulvey, 2021). However, it is unknown whether children reason similarly about and intervene against authority-driven discipline disparities. Preliminary findings indicate that adolescents are less likely to expect they would confront teachers than peers who engage in direct discriminatory acts (Mulvey et al., in review). The current study aims to investigate children’s willingness to intervene in situations of race-based discipline disparities. We hypothesized that individuals would be less likely to expect they would directly confront a teacher than intervene in other ways. We also hypothesized that children would be more likely to say they would actively intervene when Black students were punished more harshly than White students and more likely to intervene if they rated the act as more unacceptable. 116 children (Mage = 9.51 years, SD = 0.13) and their parents were recruited online. 52.6% identified as female and 47.4% identified as male. 56% identified as White/European American and 44% as a minoritized identity. Children read vignettes where a teacher disciplined two groups of students, one all White and one all Black, differently. Participants rated the acceptability of the discipline and indicated the likelihood they would engage in different bystander responses. A RMANOVA was conducted on likelihood of intervening with the type of intervention as a within-subjects factor and race of disciplined group and participant gender as between-subjects factors. There was a significant main effect of the type of intervention on the likelihood of intervening, F(4, 436) = 10.81, p < .001, ηp2 = .09. Individuals were least likely to say they would confront the teacher directly, all but one ps ≤ .029, and most likely to say they would talk to the affected students, all but one ps ≤ .001. A series of hierarchical regressions were conducted on each of the 5 forms of bystander behavior with the participant’s demographics (age, race/ethnicity, gender), punished group race, and acceptability ratings as factors. There were no significant models for the likelihood of confronting the teacher or talking to the affected students, all ps ≥ .101. For getting help from others, age and acceptability were the only significant factors, all ps ≤ .003, such that older children said they were more likely to get help. Also, the likelihood of intervention increased when the act was more unacceptable. For doing nothing, only age was significant such that older children said they were more likely to do nothing, p = .002. Overall, children are less likely to intervene via direct confrontation of teachers, in line with prior work. Furthermore, the race of the students being discriminated against, and the race of the participant does not seem to impact children’s bystander behavior; their age and acceptability evaluations are the most significant predictors. Future interventions should highlight that bystander intervention techniques can be used in both cases of peer and teacher discrimination.

Paper #2
Children’s and Adolescents’ Bystander Reactions Towards the Exclusion of Refugees: Who and When to Help?
Author information	Role
Adam Rutland, Ph.D., University of Exeter, United Kingdom	Presenting author
Ayşe Şule Yüksel, University of Exeter & Ministry of Education, Türkiye, United Kingdom and Türkiye	Non-presenting author
Tracey Warren, University of Kent, United Kingdom	Non-presenting author
Jenna Booth, Cardiff University, United Kingdom	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Increased global migration due to intergroup conflict, climate change and the associated social-economic impacts means our schools are becoming increasingly diverse with refugees from many different countries. These refugees often encounter intergroup exclusion and prejudice within their new societies. Bystander challenging is a form of prosocial behavior that can help reduce exclusion and negative outcomes for victims. The Social Reasoning Developmental (SRD) model of social exclusion (Killen & Rutland, 2017) predicts that bystander challenging is more likely when the victim’s group is higher status rather than lower status, reflecting a societal norm, and when the descriptive peer group norm is to help the victim. To test these predictions this study examines bystander challenging among children and adolescents, with a focus on the impact of manipulating both the societal status of the refugee victim and the peer group norm of helping. The two refugee groups in this study were Ukrainian (i.e., higher status) and Syrian (i.e., lower status), since research suggests a Western societal norm which is more supportive of the former compared to the latter group (Xuereb, 2023). British children (N = 299, 8-10 years, Mage = 9.48, SD = .35) and adolescents (N = 191, 13-15 years, Mage = 14.28, SD = .05) imagined they were in a British group of peers who either excluded a Syrian or Ukrainian refugee from an afterschool cooking club. Peer group norm was manipulated by telling participants either (1) most of their group helped the victim; (2) most of their group did not help the victim, and (3) no information. Measures were taken of the participant’s active (e.g., telling the peer group that they should include the victim) or passive (e.g., ignoring what is happening) bystander reactions to the exclusion. Results showed only adolescents showed significantly less active bystander reactions when the victim was Syrian compared to Ukrainian when the peer norm was to help the refugee (see Figure 1). In addition, only adolescents showed significantly more passive bystander reaction when the victim was Syrian compared to Ukrainian when the peer norm was to help. When the victim was Syrian, adolescents were more likely to stay passive in the help condition than the other two norm conditions. When the victim was Ukrainian, adolescents were more likely to stay passive as a bystander in the no information condition than the help condition (see Figure 2). These findings show that when adolescents knew their peer group norm was to help they showed more active and less passive bystander reactions to Ukrainian compared to Syrian refugee exclusion. Amongst adolescents congruence between the societal norm (i.e., to help Ukrainian refugees more than Syrian refugees) and the peer group norm of helping was associated with more bystander challenging and less ignoring. Adolescents unlike children strategically adapted their bystander reactions to fit with both the societal norm and the peer group norm, arguably to maximize their social reputation. Strategies to reduce the social exclusion of refugees by children and adolescents, and to promote bystander reactions that challenge prejudice-based social exclusion in globalized societies, will be discussed.

Paper #3
Is it Worth the Risk? Children’s Risk Perceptions of Outgroup Inclusion When Division is Normative.
Author information	Role
Dr. Bethany Corbett, Ulster University, United Kingdom	Presenting author
Jocelyn Dautel, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom	Non-presenting author
Laura Taylor, University College Dublin, Republic of Ireland	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Prosocial actions such as helping, sharing, and comforting are well established. However, sometimes helping others requires a different type of action: taking a risk (i.e., prosocial risk-taking). Potentially, prosocial risk-taking may be implicated in behaviors that address social inequities such as civic engagement (e.g., protest involvement) or challenging norms which uphold division. This study examined the latter, by asking if children aged between 4 and 12 years (M = 8.17, SD = 1.57) perceived outgroup inclusion in settings of division as risky. Children were recruited from Northern Ireland: a post-conflict society where >90% of children attend education that is segregated along ethno-religious lines (Catholic/Protestant). The sample was evenly split by children from majority (53.7%) and minority (46.3%) groups. In a minimal groups design, children were allocated to one of two conditions: norm of division or norm of inclusion. Conditions replicated the Northern Irish context; two groups (yellow/purple) were described as living very different/similar lives. In the norm of division condition, the groups were described as seeing each other rarely, living in different parts of the town, attending different schools, and participating in different cultural activities such as sports and music. In the norm of inclusion condition, these activities were described as shared. All children then heard about an opportunity for inclusion, where (e.g.,) the yellow group meets members of (e.g.,) the purple group. A member of the yellow group is inclusive of the outgroup, asking them to join in their activities. We predicted that participants would view inclusion less positively when it violated a norm, and that they would also expect the ingroup to also evaluate outgroup inclusion less positively in these circumstances. This pattern of findings was found for children aged 7-9-years only (ps < .001), as is consistent with developmental patterns of children’s coordination of moral and group concerns. Expectations of less positive evaluation provide an indication that children perceive risk associated with outgroup inclusion when it violates a norm. We also examined this possibility more explicitly, first, by asking children if they expected the ingroup to play with the outgroup inclusive child the following week. An expectation of ingroup reprisal was indicated by the 7-9-year-olds, who thought it was less likely that the group would play with this child when their actions had violated a norm (p < .001). To further examine children’s expectation of risk in these circumstances we asked, “what do you think would happen next (open-ended response”? Children expected negative outcomes more often when a norm was violated. The nature of the risk identified differed by minority (outgroup rejection) and majority (ingroup reprisal) group status, in ways consistent with group differences in power and status within the hierarchical status quo (X2 (1) = 4.80, p = .022, Cramer’s V = .34). Justifications for all ratings were also obtained and explored according to social domain theory (e.g., moral and group-based reasoning).

⇦ Back to session