Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

PROTOCOL: Universal Preschool‐ and School‐based Education Programmes for Reducing Ethnic Prejudice and Promoting Respect for Diversity among Children Aged 3‐11: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2016; The Campbell Collaboration; Volume: 12; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/cl2.164

1891-1803

Ciara Keenan, Paul Connolly, Clifford Stevenson,

Racial and Ethnic Identity Research

Campbell Systematic ReviewsVolume 12, Issue 1 p. 1-45 PROTOCOLOpen Access PROTOCOL: Universal Preschool- and School-based Education Programmes for Reducing Ethnic Prejudice and Promoting Respect for Diversity among Children Aged 3-11: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Ciara Keenan, Ciara KeenanSearch for more papers by this authorPaul Connolly, Paul ConnollySearch for more papers by this authorClifford Stevenson, Clifford StevensonSearch for more papers by this author Ciara Keenan, Ciara KeenanSearch for more papers by this authorPaul Connolly, Paul ConnollySearch for more papers by this authorClifford Stevenson, Clifford StevensonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 March 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.164Citations: 4AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat BACKGROUND The Problem Abrams (2010: p.8) describes prejudice as an outcome of categorisation based on a 'bias which devalues people because of their perceived membership of a social group'. Prejudice is most often understood to be a negative attitude (antipathy), directed towards an out-group. The preconceived opinions which build to produce prejudice are extremely variable both in nature and presentation and are generally believed to be composed of three major elements: 1) a cognitive component (belief); 2) an affective component (dislike/distaste); and 3) a behavioural component (action) (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). Fiske, Cuddy & Glick (2007) propose that the well-documented keywords of 'stereotyping', 'prejudice' and 'discrimination' reflect these cognitive, affective, and behavioural reactions to people from another group, respectively. Ethnic prejudice is a particular form of prejudice characterised by negative attitudes towards other ethnic groups. An 'ethnic group' refers to any social group that regards itself as distinctive, and that is also regarded by others as distinctive, due to sharing common ancestral, social, cultural and/or national backgrounds that are passed on from one generation to the next (Jenkins, 2008). The signifiers that mark ethnic difference are varied and can include: language, religion, distinct cultural practices, birthplace, shared history and/or skin colour. Where an ethnic group is signified, at least in part, by skin colour then that group can also be referred to as a 'racial group'. Whilst 'race' is therefore a distinct strand of the wider notion of ethnicity, this is not to deny the specific experiences of particular racial groups. The notion of ethnicity and the term ethnic group are therefore used simply to refer to the general processes by which differences emerge between particular social groups; the precise ways in which this happens, and the specific experiences of those involved and how this impacts upon their lives and social worlds, will differ and can only be understood in context (Donald & Rattansi, 1992).1 The demonstration of prejudice towards an ethnic group may be explicit or implicit, intended or unintended and can range from overt acts of violence and name calling through to routine social exclusion and a wide range of subtle and often unintended practices based upon stereotypical beliefs (Anas, 2002). Among the detrimental effects of suffering social exclusion as a child are: a lack of motivation to flourish in school (Hartley & Sutton, 2013; Ogbu 2003,); psychological instability such as anxiety and depression (Juvonen & Graham, 2001); and challenging relationships with peers (Spradlin & Parsons, 2007). Moreover, a child who is consistently excluded by classmates or peers may ultimately find it difficult to establish relationships (Abrams & Killen, 2014). Whilst some prejudices may be subtle and/or unintentional, they can nevertheless have serious and damaging consequences for members of minority ethnic groups (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore & Hill, 2006). Some of the consequences of ethnic prejudice include: ethnic segregation and the social inequalities borne from this (Anas, 2002); the labelling of students from particular ethnic groups in school and their subsequent allocation to lower streams and sets and their consequent underachievement (Woolfe, Cave, Greenhalgh & Dacre, 2008); discrimination in the workplace (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004); and consequent negative health outcomes (Loring & Powell, 1988). Moreover, the behavioural consequences of prejudice are not only damaging to the social growth of those subject to it, but also potentially debilitating to the perpetrators. Being a person who consistently discriminates may lead to group or individual avoidance and this, in turn, can deprive a perpetrator of the possibility of rich and valuable intergroup relationships and may inhibit their broader social development (Baerveldt, Duijn, Vermeij & Van-Hemert, 2004). Respect for Diversity Ethnic prejudice, and an understanding of the many debilitating outcomes which arise from it, place an important responsibility on educationalists to move beyond a focus on simply reducing prejudice to a more proactive and preventative stance of building an awareness of and respect for ethnic diversity (Freed, 1993). Whilst challenging existing stereotypes and the prejudiced attitudes and behaviours that arise from these is important, this notion of respect for diversity therefore requires more than this. In particular, it can be understood as comprising at least two key strands. The first is a focus on increasing awareness and understanding of other ethnic groups and thus on recognising the legitimacy of other ethnic identities and of the variations and diversities that exist within each of these. The second is an emphasis on developing a broader value base that is committed to social justice and thus actively engaged in combating inequalities and divisions. Critically, this includes not just challenging individual manifestations of prejudice and discrimination but also understanding and working to address the wider, more ingrained and often institutionalised processes and practices that tend to reinforce and sustain ethnic inequalities and divisions (Bloch, Neal & Solomos, 2013). The recognition of this need to move beyond a simple commitment to non-prejudice has been characteristic, to varying degrees, of many approaches that have been variously labelled intergroup contact, multiculturalism, anti-racism and critical multiculturalism which will be discussed further in this background review (May, 1999). Ethnic Prejudice and Young Children Within the context of diversity and with particular regard to prejudice acquisition in children, a large body of research has provided clear and consistent evidence that children are able to recognise racial differences from two years old and display ethnic prejudices based upon these from as early as three years of age (Aboud, 1989; Aboud & Levy, 2000; Milner, 1983). This body of work dates back to the 1920s and most of it has focused on young children's attitudes towards 'race'. Unfortunately, there is much less research on children's attitudes towards ethnic groups categorised by non-visible signifiers such as nationality, culture or religion. One exception to this is the work of Bar-Tal (1996) that has explored this phenomenon of ethnic prejudice in the absence of physical cues within the Israeli context by studying when Jewish children are first able to distinguish between themselves and 'an Arab', which cues they rely on to make the distinction and the outcomes of this early categorisation. The author reports that children are able to understand the concept of 'an Arab' from 2.5-3 years old and to view them as being different from Jews at this same developmental age. When questioned about the characteristics of an Arab, children tended to describe them in broad and negative terms including labelling them as 'murderers' and 'killers'. The important point that Bar-Tal noted in relation to this was that such conceptions of Arabs as a distinct group and the projection of negative attitudes and prejudices towards them did not rely upon Jewish children believing they were physically different. Indeed, and for the most part, Jewish children at this age when asked to draw an Arab and a Jewish child were not able to distinguish between them. It was only by the age 5-6 that the children were likely to begin recognising visible cues stereotypically indicative of an Arab. These older children relied on cues such as language, clothing and facial hair while admitting that some had only ever seen an Arab on television. Similarly, Connolly, Kelly & Smith (2009) found that Catholic and Protestant children in Northern Ireland were also able to develop an understanding of the ethnic divisions that exist between the two majority ethno-religious traditions, and to attribute negative attitudes towards the other, from the age of three. By the age of six, their research estimated that about a third of children were aware of the ethnic divide and identified with one of the two main traditions, whilst one in six expressed overtly sectarian attitudes towards those from the other tradition without prompting. Further research by Connolly, Muldoon & Kehoe (2007) of 10-11 year olds demonstrated how the children's levels of understanding of ethnic difference had become more sophisticated with age and how in-group preferences were a more significant influence on friendships choices than out-group prejudices. More generally, research has shown that it is erroneous to assume that prejudice in children is simply an innocent imitation of their adult guides. Aboud (1989), for example, reports that prejudice may be an example of the child's own personal preference and that it is an age-related level of functioning. Moreover, a number of qualitative, ethnographic studies of children at the beginning of primary/elementary school have clearly demonstrated the active role that they can play in appropriating, re-working and adapting racist discourses to suit their own peer-group relationships (see Troyna & Hatcher, 1992; Connolly, 1998; Feagin & Van Ausdale, 2013). Moreover, adult behaviour is widely accepted within the psychological literature to be consequential of the social experiences and learning established in childhood (Bandura, 1969). Continuing on from this, some researchers have suggested that children who exclude others based on prejudicial views are more likely to become adults with similar embedded ideologies based on those biases and unfair stereotypes acquired during childhood (Abrams & Killen, 2014). Overall, there are three broad types of explanation that have been put forward for the development of these patterns of ethnic prejudice among children: the first emphasises internal processes (cognitive); the second focuses on external factors through inter-personal interactions (social learning); and the third also places an emphasis on external factors but seeks to locate the acquisition of prejudice within wider societal dynamics (ecological). It is worth briefly outlining each of these in turn. Cognitive Explanations Cognitive explanations for the development of prejudice go some way to increasing our understanding of how these attitudes can arise from an automatic and often universal habit of mind (Fiske & Russell, 2010). This approach studies the underlying thought processes that can instigate and maintain bias. Research in this field has suggested how some social behaviours are not malleable by conscious control and do not entail much cognitive reasoning. Lippmann (1922) introduced the term stereotype to describe this cognitive component of prejudice. Arguments that researchers provide concerning the persistence of prejudices are that although we can teach an understanding of the importance of diversity, it is cognitively much easier to stereotype and compare differences (Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2007). It is reported that the discrepancy between what people say (explicit) and how they behave (implicit) reflects simple cognitive processes that do not rely on much conscious thought. To put it simply, it is easier to rely on stereotypes to make quick decisions regarding the actions of another person (Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2007; Olson & Zanna, 1993) and this may go some way to explain why prejudice is still a stubborn and repetitive factor in todays advanced society. Allport (1979: 20) observed that: 'The human mind must think with aid of categories … Categories are the basis for normal prejudgement. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it.' Many researchers believe that stereotypes are born from one of two sources. The first source is through an acceptance of a real difference between groups and in being so it is actually a correct representation, such as men as a whole are physically stronger than women. It is this process of stimuli simplification in the context of categorisation which allows the perceiver to depend and fall back on previous information. It becomes a stereotype however when a person applies the group level characteristic to individual members of groups, thus assuming for example that a person is strong because they are a man or that they are invariably going to be weaker because they are female. In addition, the second source of stereotyping arises when beliefs are formed quite independent of observable group differences. This faulty generalisation will often lead to the perceiver making a quick judgement across many additional facets (Hilton & VonHippel, 1996). It is important to note that humans vary immensely in how they exhibit and feel prejudices. Individual differences in how much someone will accept/endorse a prejudiced attitude suggests that being prejudiced is an inherent personality trait. It has been found that individuals who are likely to exhibit prejudiced tendencies towards an ethnic out-group are also more likely to develop and exhibit prejudices towards other social groups as well, whether defined in terms of disability or gender for example (Son-Hing & Zanna, 2010). In this regard, inner state theory of prejudice suggests that individuals with a very strict upbringing by critical parents were most likely to develop an authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). Entrenched authoritarian personality traits were consequently found to create a tendency for individuals to be prejudiced; being more likely to be hostile to those who hold, in their view, inferior status, but also more obedient to those with elevated status. Authoritarian personality types are believed to be fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs and fairly traditional, upholding long-established values. This personality type was also more likely to categorise people into "us" and "them" groups while seeing their own group as superior. Finally, it is important to note that there is also considerable evidence that minority group members can also harbour prejudice towards majority group members. However, much of this prejudice could be described as reactive, reflecting anticipation of being discriminated against by majority group members (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). As has been highlighted, inherent cognitive and social-cognitive abilities such as personality, classification skills, categorical structures and perspective taking are notable contributors to inter-group attitude development in children. An awareness of one's own ethnicity, a perception of their groups' elevated status and the ability to highlight stereotypical differences between themselves and others in turn could predispose that child to develop a negative attitude or prejudice towards those people who are in a different category (Allport, 1954; Quadflieg, Mason & Macrae, 2010). Socialisation and Group Process Explanations In contrast to the explanations outlined above that tend to focus on internal, cognitive processes, a second set of theories of prejudice tend to focus on the influence of externally-oriented inter-personal processes. For example, one strand of social psychology has been concerned with understanding the predictability of people in favouring their in-group while displaying negative bias towards the out-group (Brown, 1995); especially where mere membership of a group can influence equality and fairness, even in cases where the separation between groups is meaningless (Tajfel, Bilig, Bundy & Flament, 1971). In this respect, social reflection theory suggests that people adopt attitudes and stereotypes about groups that correspond to the relative power and status held by those groups. Any negative attitudes and thoughts about ethnic groups are thus thought to simply reflect the structure of society (Sayers, 1983). One theory emerging from this is based on the widely accepted belief that humans possess a desire to increase self-esteem by viewing themselves in a positive light (Crisp & Turner, 2010). Since part of their personal identification is directly influenced by the groups to which they belong, it is believed that there is a general predisposition to make biased decisions which will value more highly the characteristics of the in-group. It is suggested that there is also a tendency to make comparisons related to superiority between groups often to the detriment of the out-group (Brown, 1995). However, the study by Connolly, Muldoon & Kehoe (2007) mentioned earlier is an example of how it would be erroneous to assume that in-group preferences will inevitably lead to out-group prejudice. While they showed that children will actively engage in in-group activities they found little evidence that this led to any notable intended prejudice towards the out-group. In this sense they found that in-group preference was not reflective or indicative of prejudiced attitudes on the part of the children involved. Crucially however, the unintended outcomes of in-group preference, in relation to social exclusion and divisions, can still have negative consequences for the out-group. Maass & Schaller (1991) offer some explanations for this general trend. They propose that participants approach the task with an inherent belief that the group to which they belong is more favourable (in-group). However, and as highlighted above, this in-group preference does not automatically lead to out-group derogation. This belief of the in-group being better will however increase effort from the participant and elicit greater pride in their group. This finding is presented in a study by Rabbie & Horwitz (1969) where chance allocation meant that one arbitrary group would receive a prize while the other would not. Even in this random context, subjects displayed significant bias in positive trait evaluations even when their team lost'. It is suggested that negative and competitive relationships between groups will be more likely to produce prejudice and discrimination whereas inter-group interdependence and cooperative interaction that leads to successful outcomes reduces intergroup biases (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood & Sherif, 1954). The most prominent theoretical concept to be developed from social learning explanations is the inter-group contact theory. This theory, also known as the 'contact hypothesis', is based on the work of Gordon Allport (1954). The contact hypothesis is based on the idea that positive contact and relationships between children from differing ethnic groups will lead to reduction in prejudice and increased respect for diversity. The traditional contact hypothesis outlines specific conditions that need to be in place between groups in order for inter-group contact to lead to prejudice reduction, such as the groups: sharing equal status; working towards common goals; working cooperatively; and having support for the initiative from those in authority. By strengthening bonds between groups through contact it is proposed that there should be an increase in appreciation and understanding that, in turn, should diminish prejudice and promote respectful attitudes through friendship (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Intergroup Conflict and Societal Explanations The third set of theories of prejudice acquisition are those that tend to explain prejudice by reference to broader structural and sociological factors rather than individual psychological processes. Rather than focusing on the causes of prejudice being intrinsic – whether being due to the effects of an individual's cognitive functioning or perceptions emerging directly from inter-personal encounters – the focus here is on extrinsic factors. In this sense, such theories tend to emphasise structural inequalities and power relations as evident in employment, housing and education (Williams & Collins, 2001; Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) and also reflected and reinforced through the media and popular political discourses that can tend to demonise and develop moral panics surrounding particular minority ethnic groups (Bloch, Neal & Solomos, 2013). Whilst prejudice may reflect particular cognitive processes and/or be the result of experiences gained through inter-personal encounters, such explanations tend to be unable to account for why it tends to be certain ethnic groups that are targeted and for the consistency of the negative attitudes that others tend to hold towards them. In this sense, it is contended that ethnic prejudice among children can only be fully understood against the wider sets of societal processes and structures – informed by economic, political and social changes – that tend to create inequalities between ethnic groups and thus generate and sustain ethnic divisions and conflicts (Troyna, 1993; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000). The key point for advocates of an ecological approach to understanding prejudice is that such negative attitudes and behaviours are unlikely to be addressed fully until the wider societal contexts that give rise to ethnic inequalities and divisions are also addressed (Tomlinson, 2008). As such, researchers adopting this more sociological perspective tend to emphasise the need to address broader structural factors that create and sustain inequalities and divisions, within the school and beyond, as well as dealing directly with children's attitudes (Troyna, 1987, 1993; Dixson & Rousseau, 2006). How interventions might reduce prejudice and promote respect for diversity Interventions aimed at prejudice reduction amongst children have a long history from 1954 after the integrative school systems movement (Brown Vs Board of Education) began in the United States, for example, and from the 1970s in the UK following significant levels of postwar immigration (Tomlinson, 2008). This history, coupled with the complexity of ethnic prejudice, has led to a diverse range of interventions based upon a number of differing theoretical perspectives. We would suggest that there are five broad types of intervention that have arisen with the aim of reducing ethnic prejudice and promoting respect for diversity. These five types are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that any educational intervention may be informed by two or more of these types. What distinguishes the five types of approach are their differing underlying assumptions regarding the nature of prejudice acquisition. As such, each of the five types of approach can be understood as being underpinned by one or more of the three types of explanation of prejudice acquisition mentioned above (cognitive, socialisation and societal). It is worth briefly discussing each of these in turn. Cognitive Development Approaches The first type of approach aimed at reducing prejudice and promoting respect for diversity derive from the cognitive explanations of prejudice acquisition outlined above. As discussed, complex cognitive features such as stereotyping and prejudice can be derived from the innate human tendency to categorise. Some ways to counteract the rigid thinking pattern caused by categorisation are to: redefine the group; change the linguistic descriptors of the group; challenge the memory recall of what this group means; and/or change the group membership. An outline of some of these techniques will be discussed briefly. Some researchers have suggested that introducing people with multiple dimensions rather than as a single category can lead to a reduction in intergroup bias (Crisp, Stone & Hall, 2006). This is known as the multiple categorisation model and in essence will describe a person with multiple labels rather than just one. Instead of simply belonging to a gender group female/male, for example, the person may be reclassified across many dimensions: female, Chinese, young, astrologist, golfer. Another popular model is known as the common in-group identity model. Within this people are reclassified as belonging to one larger, overarching group. For example, schoolchildren belonging to the categories 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' could be reclassified as being Christian. It has also been suggested that the use of non-neutral group labels such as 'us' and 'them' are a linguistic catalyst to unconsciously instigate intergroup biases. In a study conducted by Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman & Tyler (1990) participants had these words linked to previously neutral stimuli. The application of the words 'us' and 'them' lead to participants showing tendencies to bias and a propensity to elicit corresponding evaluative material from semantic memory, particularly negative trait memories when prompted by the word 'them' and positive trait memories when prompted by the word 'us'. A crossed categorisation model was developed by Doise (1978) that suggests that one categorisation tends to be primary and so adding another dimension should lead to intergroup differences weakening. Findings from further researchers demonstrated that bias was virtually eradicated if the participants shared membership of at least one group, however, bias increased against those who shared no common categories (Brown & Turner, 1979; Diehl, 1990; Vanbeselaere, 1991). Brown (1995) suggested that these findings may be useful and significant to policy makers, as in theory the results show that the arrangement of social situations to contain two or more categories should encourage the persistent prejudices along any of these dimensions to be reduced. These briefly outlined studies also show that whilst the complexities of groups and the importance of these categories have real implications for understanding and interpreting the efficacy of crossed categorisation programmes, there is a need to test the models with a greater focus on the conditions in which crossed categorisation works best. One major criticism surrounding interventions based on intentional category change is presented by Park & Judd (2005) who emphasise that it is neither feasible nor helpful to attempt to eliminate social categories. They point out that there is very little evidence to suggest that stronger group boundaries leads to an increase in out-group hostility and so weakening group boundaries would do little to alleviate the outcomes of prejudice. They state a more useful approach would be to promote inter-group harmony based on a respect for diversity and inclusion. Socio-Emotional Development Approaches A second approach to reducing prejudice that also derives from broadly intrinsic explanations of prejudice focuses on promoting healthy socio-emotional development. It is believed that through this, a child will be better able to understand the perspectives of others and thus empathise with them. It is believed that this, in turn, would make these children less likely to be prejudiced or to discriminate or exclude others (Bischof-Kohler, 1991). Interventions that fall into this category are based on elements that attempt to increase children's own emotional self-awareness, their ability to recognise and regulate their own emotional states and a greater appreciation of, and thus empathy for others. By focusing on the development of empathy, children are expected to be more able to take on the viewpoint of the other person and react to the emotional behaviour of that person, thus reducing prejudices and encouraging a greater respect for diversity. In this regard, higher rates of empathy in children have been found to be indicative of pro-social attitudes in behaviour whereas low rates were associated with anti-social behaviour (Stephan & Finlay, 1999). Moreover, increasing empathy has been shown to lead to a promotion of more positive inter-group relations. One approach is the 'jigsaw classroom', based on similar principles to the contact theory in that when children work closely together they will learn to take on the perspective of the other and foster friendships which will increase empathy scores in those children (Bridgeman, 1981). Explanations for the success of empathy as a method for reducing prejudice and encouraging respect for diversity has been suggested to be due in part to its tendency to reduce perceived differences and threat. Stephen & Finlay (1999) suggest that it may also be due to the adoption of cognitive dissonance. Festinger (1962) hypothesised that an individual who behaves in ways that are opposed to their own pre-held beliefs will experience feelings of discontent and negativity. Inherently individuals will then strive to solve the negative feeling of dissonance and may alter their attitudes to better suit their behaviours. This decision to change will be more likely