No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2019
Abstract
We argue that adopting a sociocultural lens to the origins of intergroup bias is important for understanding the nature of attacking and defending behavior at a group level. We specifically propose that the potential divergence in the development of in-group affiliation and out-group derogation supports De Dreu and Gross's framework but does indicate that more emphasis on early sociocultural input is required.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Bennett, M., Barrett, M., Karakozov, R., Kipiani, G., Lyons, E., Pavlenko, V. & Riazanova, T. (2004) Young children's evaluations of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi-national study. Social Development 13(1):124–41. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-9507.2004.00260.x.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, D., Deeb, I., Segall, G., Ben-Eliyahu, A. & Diesendruck, G. (2010) The development of social essentialism: The case of Israeli children's inferences about Jews and Arabs. Child Development 81(3):757–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01432.x.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1999) The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues 55(3):429–44. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00126.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. & Caporael, L. R. (2006) An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In: Evolution and social psychology, ed. Schaller, M., Simpson, J. & Kenrick, D., pp. 143–61. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Buttelmann, D. & Böhm, R. (2014) The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science 25:921–27. doi: 10.1177/0956797613516802.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K. & Tomasello, M. (1998) Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63(4):i–vi, 1–143.Google Scholar
Chas, A., Betancor, V., Delgado, N. & Rodríguez-Pérez, A. (2018) Children consider their own groups to be more human than other social groups: Evidence from indirect and direct measures. Social Psychology 49(3):125–34.Google Scholar
Chen, E. E., Corriveau, K. H., Lai, V. K. W., Poon, S. L. & Gaither, S. E. (2018) Learning and Socializing Preferences in Hong Kong Chinese Children. Child Development 89(6):2109–17. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13083.Google Scholar
Costello, K. & Hodson, G. (2014) Explaining dehumanization among children: The interspecies model of prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology 53(1):175–97. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12016.Google Scholar
Dore, R. A., Hoffman, K. M., Lillard, A. S. & Trawalter, S. (2014) Children's racial bias in perceptions of others' pain. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 32(2):218–31. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12038.Google Scholar
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S. & Carey, S. (2011) Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development 82(3):793–811. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01577.x.Google Scholar
Gaither, S. E., Chen, E. E., Corriveau, K. H., Harris, P. L., Ambady, N. & Sommers, S. R. (2014) Monoracial and biracial children: effects of racial identity saliency on social learning and social preferences. Child Development 85(6):2299–316. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12266.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L. & Corriveau, K. H. (2011) Young children's selective trust in informants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366(1567):1179–87. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0321.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H. & Jaswal, V. K. (2018) Cognitive Foundations of Learning from Testimony. Annual Review of Psychology 69(1):251–73. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E. & Spelke, E. S. (2007) The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104(30):12577–80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705345104Google Scholar
Margie, N. G., Killen, M., Sinno, S. & McGlothlin, H. (2005) Minority children's intergroup attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23(2):251–70. doi: 10.1348/026151005X26075.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, N. & Over, H. (2017) Young children are more likely to spontaneously attribute mental states to members of their own group. Psychological Science 28(10):1503–509. doi: 10.1177/0956797617710724.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2007) 'Like me': A foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science 10(1):126–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00574.x.Google Scholar
Misch, A., Over, H. & Carpenter, M. (2016) I won't tell: Young children show loyalty to their group by keeping group secrets. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 142:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.016.Google Scholar
Over, H. (2016) The origins of belonging: Social motivation in infants and young children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:20150072. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0072.Google Scholar
Over, H. & McCall, C. (2018) Becoming us and them: Social learning and intergroup bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 12(4):e12384. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12384.Google Scholar
Renno, M. P. & Shutts, K. (2015) Children's social category-based giving and its correlates: expectations and preferences. Developmental Psychology 51(4):533–43. doi: 10.1037/a0038819.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M. & Mandalaywala, T. M. (2017) The development and developmental consequences of social essentialism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 8(4):1437. doi:10.1002/wcs.1437.Google Scholar
Segall, G., Birnbaum, D., Deeb, I. & Diesendruck, G. (2015) The intergenerational transmission of ethnic essentialism: How parents talk counts the most. Developmental Science 18(4):543–55. doi: 10.1111/desc.12235.Google Scholar
Shutts, K., Kinzler, K. D., Katz, R. C., Tredoux, C. & Spelke, E. S. (2011) Race preferences in children: Insights from South Africa. Developmental Science 14(6):1283–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01072.x.Google Scholar
Skinner, A. L. & Meltzoff, A. N. (2019) Childhood Experiences and Intergroup Biases among Children. Social Issues and Policy Review 13(1):211–40. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12054.Google Scholar
Smyth, K., Feeney, A., Eidson, R. C. & Coley, J. D. (2017) Development of essentialist thinking about religion categories in Northern Ireland (and the United States). Developmental Psychology 53(3):475–96. doi: 10.1037/dev0000253.Google Scholar
Target article
Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups
Related commentaries (28)
A note on the endogeneity of attacker and defender roles in asymmetric conflicts
Advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members have motivations similar to those of defenders and attackers, but their psychological characteristics are fundamentally different
Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict
Behavioural inhibition and valuation of gain/loss are neurally distinct from approach/withdrawal
Between-group attack and defence in an ecological setting: Insights from nonhuman animals
But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children
Collective action problems in offensive and defensive warfare
Do people always invest less in attack than defense? Possible qualifying factors
Emotions in attacker-defender conflicts
Functional sex differences and signal forms have coevolved with conflict
Identity leadership: Managing perceptions of conflict for collective action
Levels of analysis and problems of evidential support in the study of asymmetric conflict
Matching pennies games as asymmetric models of conflict
Moral rigidity as a proximate facilitator of group cohesion and combativeness
Reasons to strike first
Resolving attacker-defender conflicts through intergroup negotiation
Symmetric conflicts also allow for the investigation of attack and defense
The attack and defense games
The attack and defense mechanisms: Perspectives from behavioral economics and game theory
The evolutionarily mismatched nature of modern group makeup and the proposed application of such knowledge on promoting unity among members during times of intergroup conflict
The importance of raiding ecology and sex differences in offensive and defensive warfare
The multiple facets of psychopathy in attack and defense conflicts
The political complexity of attack and defense
Toward the need to discriminate types of attackers and defenders in intergroup conflicts
Towards the elucidation of evolution of out-group aggression
Unraveling the role of oxytocin in the motivational structure of conflict
Using political sanctions to discourage intergroup attacks: Social identity and authority legitimacy
Using the research on intergroup conflict in nonhuman animals to help inform patterns of human intergroup conflict
Author response
Asymmetric conflict: Structures, strategies, and settlement