Reducing an in‐group bias in preschool children: the impact of moral behavior

Abstract

How impressionable are in-group biases in early childhood? Previous research shows that young children display robust preferences for members of their own social group, but also condemn those who harm others. The current study investigates children's evaluations of agents when their group membership and moral behavior conflict. After being assigned to a minimal group, 4- to 5-year-old children either saw their in-group member behave antisocially, an out-group member act prosocially, or control agents, for whom moral information was removed. Children's explicit preference for and willingness to share with their in-group member was significantly attenuated in the presence of an antisocial in-group member, but not a prosocial out-group member. Interestingly, children's learning decisions were unmoved by a person's moral behavior, instead being consistently guided by group membership. This demonstrates that children's in-group bias is remarkably flexible: while moral information curbs children's in-group bias on social evaluations, social learning is still driven by group information.

Children's neural processing of moral scenarios provides insight into the formation and reduction of in‐group biases

“…As mentioned previously, children's group biases are malleable and capable of attenuation when presented with bias-incongruent social or moral information (Hetherington et al, 2014;Wilks & Nielsen, 2017). That bias attenuation was associated with this LPP effect, but not P2 or N2, is consistent with a deliberate evaluation account of attitude change rather than an implicit, evaluative conditioning one.…”

“…The first was to identify the mechanism underlying bias attenuation in response to observing "bias-incongruent" moral acts (in-group harmful actions and outgroup helpful actions) with greater frequency than expected, "biascongruent" ones (in-group help and out-group harm) (Hetherington et al, 2014;Wilks & Nielsen, 2017). The first was to identify the mechanism underlying bias attenuation in response to observing "bias-incongruent" moral acts (in-group harmful actions and outgroup helpful actions) with greater frequency than expected, "biascongruent" ones (in-group help and out-group harm) (Hetherington et al, 2014;Wilks & Nielsen, 2017).…”

“…The strength of children's in-group bias is affected by a variety of individual dispositional and environmental factors (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997;Howard, Carrazza, & Woodward, 2014), and can be substantially attenuated with exposure to counter-stereotyped individuals (Gonzalez, Steele, & Baron, 2017;Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). A recently identified factor influencing the formation and maintenance of intergroup bias is the observable moral character of group members (Hetherington, Hendrickson, & Koenig, 2014;Wilks & Nielsen, 2017). A recently identified factor influencing the formation and maintenance of intergroup bias is the observable moral character of group members (Hetherington, Hendrickson, & Koenig, 2014;Wilks & Nielsen, 2017).…”

Early Testimonial Learning

“…Macdonald, Schug, Chase, and Barth (2013) showed that 4-year-olds did not preferentially endorse the labels provided by a previously reliable out-group member over those of an unreliable in-group member, even though group membership was randomly assigned and bore no social significance. Hetherington, Hendrickson, and Koenig (2014) explored the specific influences of group membership and moral behavior on children's social preferences and learning decisions. They assigned 4-and 5-year-old children to arbitrary groups and found that preschoolers' preferences for and willingness to share with an in-group member were substantially reduced when she behaved antisocially, but they still preferred to learn from the antisocial in-group member as opposed to a neutral out-group member.…”

Evaluations of moral and conventional intergroup transgressions

“…This research has documented that children (as early as preschool age) affiliate with groups and begin to exhibit ingroup preferences and, at times, outgroup negativity in both authentic and minimal group contexts (Aboud, 1988;Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011;Kinzler & Spelke, 2011). Much of the research investigating this intersection has focused narrowly on the moral domain in intergroup contexts (Hetherington, Hendrickson, & Koenig, 2014;Rhodes & Chalik, 2013), without also considering the conventional domain (Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2014;Turiel, 1983). Much of the research investigating this intersection has focused narrowly on the moral domain in intergroup contexts (Hetherington, Hendrickson, & Koenig, 2014;Rhodes & Chalik, 2013), without also considering the conventional domain (Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2014;Turiel, 1983).…”