Normativity and friendship choices among ethnic majority- and minority-group children

Abstract

Two-hundred-and-fifty-eight White British (ethnic majority) and British South Asian (minority) children (5, 9 and 13 years old) chose potential friends from descriptions of peers who had traits and preferences that were either consistent (normative) or inconsistent (deviant) with ethnic group membership. White children chose peers from the ethnic ingroup. Younger Asian children (5 years) more often selected an outgroup peer, although ingroup choices increased with age (9 and 13 years). Normativity and strength of ethnic identification did not affect choices. However, children who selected an outgroup child tended to have more cross-ethnic friendships than those who did not. The implications for theories of group dynamics and intergroup contact are discussed.

Keywords

contact hypothesis developmental subjective group dynamics (DSGD)ethnic identity friendship peer

Ethnicity is among the earliest social categories that children use to evaluate others (Aboud & Amato, 2001). Research has consistently identified a tendency for children to play and interact more often with same-ethnic than cross-ethnic peers from preschool (Finkelstein & Haskins, 1983) into childhood (Leman & Lam, 2008). This ethnic ingroup favoritism intensifies with age (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003) to the extent that, during adolescence, cross-ethnic friendships are found to be the exception rather than the norm (Kao & Joyner, 2004). This increasing ethnic “cleavage” in relationships is a concern because social contact between individuals from different ethnic groups has been identified as an important and beneficial influence on positive ethnic group attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Additionally, heterogeneous ethnic contexts appear to be good at promoting positive attitudes at least in part because they make possible more cross-ethnic friendships between children (Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009). If the number of children’s cross-ethnic friendships diminishes with age, then opportunities for contact are likely to diminish which, in turn, may negatively impact ethnic attitudes and relations.

As children get older, the ways in which they understand the concept of ethnicity changes too (Quintana, 1998), and this influences reasoning about peers from their ethnic ingroup as well as the outgroup (Nesdale, 1999). Although there are some variations for different ethnic groups, children generally show a preference for their ethnic ingroup over outgroups when asked to make evaluations or identify who they like (e.g., Davis, Leman, & Barrett, 2007). From around 10 years onwards, children not only continue to regard conformity to ingroup norms as important, they also begin to differentiate between ingroup members who support or violate these norms (Rutland, Abrams, & Cameron, 2006). Indeed, children evaluate ingroup members who display characteristics that are inconsistent with the stereotype of their ethnic group (i.e., deviant) more negatively than members from other ethnic groups (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Ferrell, 2007). Children’s evaluations of outgroup deviants (i.e., members of outgroups who do not conform to outgroup norms) are often notably positive (Abrams, Rutland, Ferrell, & Pelletier, 2008).

It is clear that as children develop, information about group normativity—how closely an individual behaves or makes judgments that correspond to group norms—is an increasingly important factor in their attitudes towards and evaluations of others. However, it remains unclear how far ethnic-group normativity influences children’s friendship and playmate choices. The present study addressed this gap in research in the area. Specifically, it examined how ethnic group memberships and information about normativity influence the friendship choices of British white (majority) and British South Asian (minority) group children in three age groups: 5, 9 and 13 years.

Ethnic group preferences

Ample research in developmental psychology has explored how ethnicity influences children’s evaluations and liking of peers (Nesdale, Maass, Griffiths, & Durkin, 2003; Verkuyten, 2007). Studies using a variety of methods, such as trait stereotype measures (Enesco, Navarro, Paradela, & Guerrero, 2005), social distance-type tasks (Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006), interviews (Nesdale, 2001) and forced-choice measures (Kowalski, 2003), have consistently shown that children from ethnic majority or dominant groups in different cultures display greater preference for members of their own ethnic group. However, a rather different picture emerges for ethnic minority-group children’s intergroup attitudes. In early research in the field (Clark & Clark, 1947) 3- to 7-year-old African American children often exhibited a positive outgroup bias; that is, they displayed preference for a white doll over a brown doll. Subsequent research (e.g., Vaughan, 1978) suggested that minority children’s ethnic ingroup attitudes may respond positively to broader social changes and initiatives to tackle prejudice. However, more recent research still suggests ongoing patterns of outgroup bias among ethnic minority children (e.g., Kurtz-Costes, DeFreitas, Halle, & Kinlaw, 2011) or less pronounced ingroup bias in ethnic minority group children and adolescents (Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006; Verkuyten, 2007).

Levels of ingroup bias may differ for ethnic majority and minority children because they reflect perceptions of the social status differences between ethnic groups (Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006; Verkuyten, 2007). From as early as three years of age, children are aware of which social groups are perceived to possess greater status in society (Enesco et al., 2005). In addition, children report that they would prefer to be members of higher than lower status groups (Nesdale et al., 2003). Hence, minority children’s perceptions of their lower status may make it more problematic for them to positively differentiate their ethnic ingroup from the majority (higher status) outgroup, or it may have negative consequences for self-esteem or processes of ingroup identification.

Ethnic group friendships

A further strand of research has explored the influence of ethnicity on children’s friendships. Studies on this topic have documented the presence of ethnic cleavage in children’s friendship and playmate choices. Children’s friendships have been found to delineate along ethnic lines from early childhood (Finkelstein & Haskins, 1983) and clear ethnic differentiation characterizes friendships from middle childhood (Boulton, 1996) through to adolescence (Kao & Joyner, 2004). Thus, children tend to play with ethnic ingroup peers more frequently than with outgroup peers (Davey & Mullin, 1982; Leman et al., 2011) and form more friendships from within their ethnic group than outside it (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). This is the case both for ethnic majority and ethnic minority group friendships.

However, it is important to note that when offered a choice of potential playmate, ethnic minority group children typically demonstrate less ingroup bias than majority children (Leman & Lam, 2008). Thus it may be that ethnic cleavage is a consequence primarily of majority group children’s choices to form more friendships with their ethnic ingroup, and that minority group children are left to establish more friendships among themselves.

The present study examined how ethnicity influences majority and minority group children’s friendship choices. A “pen pal” task was developed to explore age differences in children’s preference for peers who belonged to either the white British majority-group or the British South Asian minority-group. In the task, children were provided with information about potential pen pals’ traits, interests and activities; this information is important for children’s judgment of friendship potential (McGlothin & Killen, 2005).

The first set of hypotheses concerned the effect of ethnic ingroup preference in children’s friendship choices. Based on previous evidence on children’s interethnic attitudes (e.g., Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006), we anticipated that ethnic majority-group children would display consistent ingroup favoritism in their choice of pen pal, whereas ethnic minority-group children would show less pronounced ingroup preference. That is, white children would consistently choose the white pen pal over the South Asian pen pal, while Asian children would be equally likely to nominate the white or South Asian pen pal.

Normativity in children’s group preferences

Ethnic stereotyping emerges from as early as 3 years of age and is used by children to reason about inclusion and exclusion of peers (Mulvey, Hitti, & Killen, 2010). Children are aware of the negative attributes associated with different ethnic groups (Enesco et al., 2005) and use them as a basis for evaluating outgroup members (Mulvey et al., 2010). However, with age, children develop a tacit understanding of the ways groups typically work. Some researchers have called this “group nous” or the ability, aside from intelligence, cognitive or other social knowledge, to understand the importance of intragroup dynamics (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrell, 2009). As they develop children, therefore, begin to comprehend the subtle social implications of ethnic group membership, such as its influence on social relations and intergroup attitudes (Quintana, 1998). Consequently, older children do not solely differentiate between ingroup and outgroup members, but also show preference for particular individuals within their group who provide the greatest support of the ingroup’s norms (Rutland et al., 2006). Indeed, research has shown that from around 10 years of age, children evaluate ingroup members who do not fit as normative members of the ethnic ingroup (i.e., ingroup deviants) more harshly than deviant outgroup members (Nesdale 1999). This phenomenon is known as the “black sheep effect” (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988).

In order to account for children’s attitudes towards deviant behavior, Abrams and colleagues set out the developmental subjective group dynamics (DSGD) model. The DSGD model holds that evaluations of specific individuals in an intergroup context, defined as the interaction with members of the outgroup, reflect children’s desire to enhance a positive social identity and to sustain the validity of ingroup norms (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003). Hence, children engage in differential evaluation, that is, they hold more favorable attitudes towards specific individuals who provide relatively greater support for the ingroup (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Marques, 2003). Ingroup deviants are evaluated harshly because they represent a threat to the ingroup consensus and the positive distinctiveness of the group. Conversely, outgroup deviants may validate ingroup norms indirectly because they undermine the outgroup consensus and are therefore rated more favorably than non-conformist ingroup members.

The DSGD model has garnered support from studies on children’s evaluations of peers from the ingroup and outgroup in summer schools (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron & Marques, 2003), and minimal intergroup settings (Abrams et al., 2008) as well as in attitudes towards groups supporting different soccer teams (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron , 2003). These studies have indicated an early (6–7 years) global preference for the ingroup over the outgroup, after which the black sheep effect emerges whereby older children focus more on intragroup aspects when making evaluations. Thus, rather than just showing greater preference for all ingroup members over outgroup members, older children favor particular individuals whose behavior provides greater support for the validity of the ingroup (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Marques, 2003). Awareness of group dynamics emerges with age but can be affected by other factors too. For instance, studies have supported a further tenet of the DSGD model, the SGD identification hypothesis, which predicts that the black sheep effect is more pronounced among children who are more strongly affiliated with their group (Abrams et al., 2009). Therefore, older children who identify more strongly with their group tend to evaluate deviant ingroup members more harshly than outgroup deviant members.

Normativity and friendship choices

DSGD has provided an important theoretical framework for understanding the development of children’s group understanding. However, the DSGD model has not been extended to the realm of children’s friendship choices or ethnic understanding, and previously has focused on understanding evaluations (liking and disliking) of members of in- and outgroups. This is something of an omission in research, because children’s friend and playmate choices have a clear impact on opportunities for cross ethnic contact which, in turn, can affect subsequent intergroup relations. A further aim of the present study was to test the predictions of the DSGD model by applying it to the domain of children’s friendship choices. In order to assess the influence of deviance on children’s friendship preferences, children completed the pen pal activity, in which they were asked to select potential friends from ethnic normative and non-normative (deviant) descriptions of white and South Asian peers.

Based on the DSGD model, the second hypothesis predicted that older children (9 years and 13 years) would demonstrate a black sheep effect in their pen pal choices; that is, more white children would select the South Asian deviant pen pal than the white deviant pen pal, and more South Asian children in the older age groups would select the white deviant pen pal compared to the South Asian deviant pen pal. The third hypothesis predicted that children who affiliate more strongly with their ethnic group would exhibit a more pronounced black sheep effect in their pen pal selections. That is, white children who selected the South Asian deviant pen pal would have a higher strength of ethnic identification than white children who selected the white deviant pen pal. Similarly, South Asian children who selected the white deviant pen pal will show stronger ethnic identification than South Asian children who selected the South Asian deviant pen pal.

Cross-ethnic friendships

While research has shown that social categories, such as ethnicity, and children’s friendship preferences, are strongly associated, this relationship is complex and often dependent on context. Children’s interethnic attitudes are significantly influenced by their social experience with members of the outgroup. For instance, ethnic minority and majority-group children who attend more ethnically diverse schools show less intergroup bias and demonstrate more favorable judgments regarding the potential of cross-race friendships, compared to children who attend ethnically homogenous schools (e.g., McGlothin & Killen, 2010). Moreover, contact with outgroup members is significantly related to greater preferences for cross-ethnic friendships. Jugert, Noack, and Rutland (2011) investigated the friendship preferences of ethnic minority and majority-group children in a longitudinal study during their first year in an ethnically heterogeneous secondary school and found that intergroup contact significantly predicted greater preferences for cross-ethnic friendships. Jugert and colleagues (2011) suggested that while children may initially use ethnicity as a criterion for friendship formation, contact may allow children to become more familiar with outgroup members and therefore to focus on other dimensions, such as activity preferences, in making friendship choices.

Research has demonstrated that intergroup contact, often in the form of cross-group friendships, is a powerful predictor in the reduction of prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Indeed, cross-ethnic friendships have been found to predict more positive outgroup attitudes in middle childhood and adolescence (Aboud et al., 2003; Vervoort, Scholte, & Scheepers, 2011). This is because cross-group friendships meet Allport’s (1954) conditions for optimal contact: equal status, authority, support, cooperation and acquaintance potential. Moreover, Crystal, Killen, and Ruck (2008) showed that the number of cross-ethnic friends among 9 to 15 year old ethnic majority and minority group children was significantly associated with more negative evaluations of interracial exclusion. However, recent longitudinal investigations have revealed that the number of cross-ethnic friendships at the beginning of the academic year predicted positive outgroup evaluations only among ethnic-majority children, and not among ethnic-minority children (Feddes et al., 2009). The influence of cross-ethnic friendships on outgroup evaluations was shown to be partially mediated by perceived social norms about cross-ethnic friendship relations (Feddes et al., 2009). Hence, ethnic majority children’s perceptions of whether ingroup peers consider it normative to have an outgroup friend are an important mediator of the friendship-attitude relationship.

The present study also aimed to examine the association between the number of children’s cross-ethnic friends and their pen pal choices. On the basis of the literature demonstrating the positive influence of cross-ethnic friendships on outgroup attitudes (Aboud et al., 2003; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), our final hypothesis predicted that children who selected the outgroup pen pal would have more cross-ethnic friends than children who chose the ingroup pen pal. Consequently, white children who chose the South Asian pen pal would have more South Asian friends than white children who selected the white pen pal, and South Asian children who selected the white pen pal would have more white friends than South Asian children who picked the South Asian pen pal.

Method

Participants

Participants were 258 children (125 boys, 133 girls) including 64 5 year olds (M = 5.38 years, SD = 0.49), 73 9 year olds (M = 8.10 years, SD = 1.01) and 121 13 year olds (M = 12.5 years, SD = 0.55). The sample included 145 white (European) and 113 South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani) children, see Table 1 for a full breakdown of participant age, ethnicity and gender. Data from the most recent Census indicate that the South Asian group is the largest ethnic minority group (3.6%) with the white (European) majority constituting 92.1% of the population (United Kingdom Government, Office for National Statistics, 2005). Children attended five different schools in the Greater London area, selected because they represented a moderately socially ethnically heterogeneous population. Participating children lived close to the school in similar areas of the city, and children from the different ethnic groups shared broadly the same socio-economic status (lower-middle). Consent to participate was secured from teachers, parents and from all children themselves. These schools had comparable ethnic (heterogeneous, with approximately 50% from ethnic majority and minority groups, respectively) and socioeconomic (lower- and middle-class) intakes.

Table 1.

Number of participants (and percentage in each age group) by age group, gender, and ethnicity.

	White (European)		South Asian
Age group	Girls N (%)	Boys N (%)	Girls N (%)	Boys N (%)
5 years	21 (32.8)	17 (26.6)	15 (23.4)	11 (17.2)
9 years	24 (32.9)	22 (30.1)	10 (13.7)	17 (23.3)
13 years	33 (27.3)	28 (23.1)	30 (24.8)	30 (24.8)

Design

The study employed a 2 (participant’s ethnic group: white vs south Asian) × 3 (participant’s age: 5 vs 9 vs 13 years) between-subjects design with 2 (target child’s ethnicity: white vs south Asian) × 2 (target’s normativity: normative vs. deviant) within subjects measures. The dependent variables were strength of ethnic identification, the number of South Asian and white friends, and the pen pal nomination. A further set of analyses explored gender differences in responses, because some previous research has identified ethnicity × gender differences in children’s interactions (e.g., Leman & Lam, 2008). However, we found no significant differences associated with gender in the present study.

Procedure

The study was carried out in two sessions to minimize the possibility of an association between the variables assessed on the questionnaire and the friendship choices on the pen pal task. At the first testing session, children completed an initial questionnaire including an ethnic identification measure and friendship measures. One week later, children completed the pen pal task.

Measures

In the first session, participants were given a questionnaire. In the older age groups, participants completed this independently as a paper and pencil-measure. In the younger age group, a researcher assisted the child in completing the questionnaire when necessary. The questionnaire requested demographic information including two indices of ethnicity. Participants were asked to identify their familial country of origin. They were also asked to self-report ethnicity from a list of categories adapted from the 2011 UK Census (United Kingdom Government, Office for National Statistics, 2009). Only participants who defined themselves as South Asian (Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, Other Asian background) or white (white British) were included in the present analyses. The questionnaire also assessed ethnic identification.

Ethnic identification

Barrett’s (2009) Strength of Identification Scale (SoIS) was used to assess children’s degree of identification with their ethnic group. Participants were asked to write down which ethnic label best described them: South Asian (including Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi), white or European, African, Caribbean, Mixed, or Other. The modified version of the scale consisted of four items regarding children’s pride in their ethnicity, the internalization of their ethnic identity (the feelings associated with others’ negative evaluations of one’s own ethnic group), and the importance of being a member of their ethnic group. Responses were indicated on a five-point scale where schematic “smiley” faces indicated possible responses (e.g., for the pride item, responses ranged from “not at all proud” to “extremely proud”). For each item, a score from 1 to 5 was possible (in which 1 = low identification and 5 = high identification).

Same- and cross-ethnic friends

This measure was based upon a scale used in Feddes et al.’s (2009) longitudinal investigation on the effects of direct and extended friendships and intergroup attitudes. Although the measure of extended cross-ethnic friendships was found to be reliable in Feddes et al.’s (2009) study (α = 0.75), it was difficult to administer and hence was not included in the present study. Instead, in the present application of the scale, the number of children’s cross-ethnic friends was measured by asking children to write down the names of their three best friends. Children were also asked to indicate each friend’s ethnicity, by selecting one option from several ethnic categories: White/Caucasian, South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), African-Caribbean, or Other. For the purpose of the present investigation, only nominations for white and South Asian friends were included in the analysis, that is, the number of white children’s South Asian friends and the number of South Asian children’s white friends. The number of cross-ethnic friends was calculated by adding the number of nominated outgroup friends, resulting in to a score ranging from 0 to 3.

Pen pal nominations

The pen pal task, that was given to participants in the second testing session, sought to examine children’s friendship choices. Participants were shown pictures of four unfamiliar children of the same age and gender and were asked to select one as a potential pen pal. Two of the target children (potential pen pals) were white, and two were South Asian. Each pen pal was described in terms of traits and behaviors that were either consistent or inconsistent with the norms typically associated with their ethnic group (see Table 2 for details). These traits and behaviors were adapted from those developed in previous research (Davis, Leman, & Barrett, 2007) and described categories including name, religion (or religious beliefs), family-orientation, academic attitude, favorite food, and best friend’s name. The same number of positive and negative traits was selected for each pen pal. Categories were the same for each gender except boys were informed of male pen pal’s favorite sport while girls were told about female pen pal’s favorite music. Hence, for each ethnic group there was a normative ingroup and a normative outgroup member (those who were described in terms of stereotype-consistent or normative information) and an ingroup and an outgroup deviant (those represented by non-normative information).

Table 2.

Attributes assigned to each potential pen pal by ethnicity and normativity.

		South Asian pen-pal	White pen-pal
Normative	Name (f/m) Religion Family orientation Academic attitude Favorite food Best friend’s name (f/m)	Samira/Samir Muslim Spending lots of time with family is important Likes to work hard at school Chicken curry Shivani/Ashok	Holly/David Christian Doing own thing is important Likes to play sport at school Fish and chips Olivia/Mark
Deviant	Name (f/m) Religion Family orientation Academic attitude Favorite food Best friend’s name (f/m)	Sarah/James Not at all religious Doing own thing is important Likes to play sport at school Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding Charlotte/Martin	Nassim/Franca Buddhist Spending lots of time with family is important Likes to work hard at school Chinese food Deepika/Kamran

Results

Pen pal choices

Ethnicity

The first hypothesis tested whether children’s choices of pen pal reflected ingroup preference. A specific prediction was that ingroup preference would be more pronounced for ethnic majority group children compared with ethnic minority group children. This hypothesis was supported across the sample, χ²(1, N = 258) = 31.13, p < .001, φ = .35. Whereas 124 of 145 white participants chose a white pen pal (85.5%), only 52 of 113 South Asian participants chose a South Asian pen pal (46.0%).

Exploring ingroup preference in different age groups revealed a more complex picture. Specifically, there was no association between child’s ethnicity and pen pal choice in the youngest age group (5 years) because both South Asian (90.9%) and white (86.8%) children at this age opted for a white pen pal, χ²(1, N = 64) = .14, p > .05. In contrast, among the older age groups, there was a significant association between participant and target (pen pal) ethnicity. Among 9-year-olds, 59.3% of South Asians and 91.3% of white children selected the white pen pal, χ²(1, N = 73) = 10.70, p < .001, φ = .38. Among the oldest age group (13 years), slightly more South Asian Asian participants made an ingroup choice, and fewer (46.7%) selected the outgroup, white, pen pal, compared with 78.3% white children who chose an ingroup, white, pen pal, χ²(1, N = 121) = 11.74, p < .001, φ = .31.

Ethnic normativity

The second hypothesis anticipated age differences in children’s choices of pen pals who were normative and deviant ethnic ingroup members. We predicted that younger children (5 years) would fail to distinguish between deviant and normative ingroup members in their choices of pen pal, whereas older children (9 and 13 years) would pick a normative over a deviant ingroup pen pal. Bearing in mind the ethnic differences in pen pal selection, separate chi square analyses were conducted assessing the association between participant ethnicity and pen pal choice (i.e., South Asian normative, South Asian deviant, white normative, and white deviant).

There was no association between ethnicity and pen pal choice among the 5-year-olds. Specifically, most South Asian (63.6%) and white (64.2%) children at this age selected the white normative pen pal, compared with those who selected the white deviant pen pal (27.3% South Asian and 22.6% white children, respectively). Very few children in this age group selected the South Asian normative pen pal (9.1% South Asians and 7.5% white children). In this age group, no South Asian children selected the South Asian deviant pen pal, and only 5.7% white children made this selection.

However, at 9 years of age, there was a significant association between ethnicity and pen pal choice, χ²(3, N = 73) = 13.17, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .43. In this age group, most (51.9%) South Asian children still selected a white normative pen pal, whereas 29.6% selected a South Asian normative, 11.1% a South Asian deviant, and 7.4% a white deviant pen pal. Among white children, 76.1% selected the white normative, 15.2% the white deviant, 6.5% the South Asian deviant, and 2.2% the South Asian normative pen pal.

Finally, at 13 years, the association between ethnicity and pen pal choice also varied significantly, χ²(3, N = 121) = 13.27, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .33. Here, South Asian participants selected pen pals as follows: white normative, 33.3%; South Asian deviant, 30.7%; South Asian normative, 22.7%; white deviant, 13.3%. White participants selected: white normative, 63.0%; white deviant, 15.2%; South Asian normative, 13.0%; South Asian deviant, 8.7%.

Taken together, these findings did not suggest black sheep effects in choices of pen pal that change with age. Indeed, they do not suggest any black sheep effect in friendship selection. Rather, choices indicated marked ethnic group differences. At all ages, white children’s choices indicated strong ingroup preference. As might be expected most choices were for normative ingroup members at all ages, with slightly fewer choices of the ingroup deviant with age. South Asian children’s choices of the outgroup normative pen pal decreased steadily with age, and only the youngest South Asian children made a notable number of choices of an outgroup deviant. Older South Asian participants (9 and 13 years) chose more ingroup normative pen pals than younger children (5 years). However, among older (13 years) South Asian children, there were a higher number of choices of the ingroup deviant pen pal.

Strength of identification

A 4 (pen pal status: South Asian deviant, South Asian normative, white deviant, white normative) × 2 (participant ethnic group) × 3 (age group) between-subjects ANOVA was carried out to analyse the strength of ethnic identification in white and South Asian children who made different pen pal choices. The ANOVA revealed a significant relation between age and strength of ethnic identification, F(2, 210) = 33.05, p < .001, partial η² = 0.239. Post hoc Tukey HSD (p < .05) tests indicated that all age groups differed significantly. Five-year-olds showed the weakest identification (M = 2.39), 9-year-olds the next strongest (M = 3.39), and 13-year-olds the strongest levels of ethnic ingroup identification (M = 3.93). The age effect was qualified by an age by ethnicity interaction, F(2, 110) = 3.47, p < .05, partial η² = 0.032. Figure 1 shows age and ethnic data on identification. Post hoc independent t-tests compared South Asian and white participants identification scores in each age group. Identification did not differ by ethnicity at 5 years, but they did at both 9 years, t(59) = 2.65, p < .01, and at 13 years of age, t(115) = 4.39, p < .001. As is evident from Figure 1, in these two older age groups, South Asian children reported significantly stronger ethnic group identification than the white children.

Figure 1.

Strength of identification by age and ethnicity.

Our third hypothesis concerned the relation between strength of identification and pen pal preference. However, strength of ethnic identification was not significantly associated with differences in pen pal choices, and there was also no significant interaction between children’s ethnic group and the status of the selected pen pal.

Cross- and same-ethnic friends

Age, ethnicity and friends

Number of friends (maximum 3) was analysed in a 2 (age) × 2 (participant ethnicity) × 2 (ethnicity of friends) ANOVA, with the final factor within subjects. The ANOVA indicated a significant effect on the final factor, F(1, 252) = 25.23, p < .001, partial η² = .091, with participants reporting more white than South Asian friends. This also varied by age, F(2, 252) = 5.28, p < .01, partial η² = .040, and by participant ethnicity, F(1, 252) = 57.45, p < .001, partial η² = .180. Older and white participants reported having more white friends.

There was an interaction between age, ethnicity and the number of South Asian and white friends, F(2, 252) = 11.70, p < .001, partial η² = .085. In order to explore this interaction further, separate analyses were carried out for South Asian and white participants, examining age differences in numbers of friends. The analysis for South Asian participants revealed no differences between South Asian and white friends, but did identify an interaction between ethnicity of friend and age group, F(2, 110) = 13.03, p < .001, partial η² = .192. In contrast, for the white participants, there was no interaction with age, but the number of South Asian and white friends differed, F(1, 152) = 138.28, p < .001, partial η² = .493. Figure 2 illustrates the participant age and ethnic differences in choices of white and South Asian friends.

Figure 2.

Mean number of same- and cross-ethnic South Asian and White friends by participant age and ethnicity.

Cross- and same-ethnic friends and pen pal choice

The final hypothesis predicted participants with more cross-ethnic friends (i.e., friends from the ethnic outgroup) would select an outgroup pen pal more often than those with fewer cross-ethnic friends. An independent t-test was performed for each ethnic group, white and South Asian, to analyse the association between the number of cross-ethnic friends and pen pal choices.

A significant association between the number of cross-ethnic friends and pen pal choice was found for South Asian children, t(111) = 2.74, p < .01. South Asian children who chose a white pen pal had significantly more white friends (M = 0.70, SD = 0.97) than South Asian children who chose a South Asian pen pal (M = 0.27, SD = 0.63). There was a marginally significant relation between the number of white children’s cross-ethnic friends and their pen pal choices, t(143) = 1.88, p = 0.06. White children who selected the South Asian pen pal had more South Asian friends (M = 0.43, SD = 0.75) than white children who selected the white pen pal (M = 0.19, SD = 0.50). However, it is worth noting again that only few white children chose a South Asian pen pal (N = 21) across all age groups, and for this reason further analyses by age were not possible.

Discussion

The present study examined associations of ethnicity with the friendship choices of white and South Asian children at different ages. A pen pal task, consisting of stereotypical and counter-stereotypical descriptions of unfamiliar white majority group and South Asian minority group peers, was devised to assess children’s selections of ethnic ingroup versus outgroup members. The key research goals were to examine, (a) ethnic group preferences in children’s friendship choices, (b) the role of normativity and deviance in terms of ethnic stereotype consistency on children’s friendship preferences, and (c) the relation between the number of cross-ethnic friendships and children’s friendship (pen pal) choices. At all ages, white children consistently selected ethnic ingroup members as potential friends. The pattern of friendship preferences was more complex for South Asian children. Moreover, whether a prospective pen pal deviated from their ethnic group norms was not associated with minority or majority group children’s ingroup preferences. Lastly, the number of cross-ethnic friends was significantly associated with South Asian children’s pen pal choices, but was only marginally significant for white children’s pen pal nominations.

Our first hypothesis predicted that all children would prefer pen pals from their ethnic ingroup, but that this preference would be more pronounced for ethnic majority (white) than minority group (South Asian) children. This hypothesis was confirmed. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Kurtz-Costes, et al., 2011; Leman & Lam, 2008), majority group children showed a greater ingroup preference than minority group children. Moreover, white, majority group children showed the same ingroup preference across ages. However, the youngest South Asian, minority group children, showed a marked preference for pen pals from the ethnic outgroup. For South Asians, the choice of an ingroup pen pal increased with age (up to 13 years).

These patterns of change with age in preferences among minority group children are redolent of results from previous research (e.g., Daviset al., 2008; Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006; Lam & Leman, 2003). It seems unlikely that these age differences reflect simple underlying, age-related changes in social cognitive processes because the developmental trajectory differs for majority and minority group children. Rather, these findings are more probably linked with children’s changing knowledge or appreciation of the differences in social status that are associated with different ethnic groups, along with an increasing awareness of one’s own identity. In this respect, younger (5 years) minority children’s outgroup selections may be, in part, a consequence of a failure to recognize that a societal (majority) normative preference for the majority ingroup is not the same as an ingroup for them, as members of a minority group. Thus, compared with majority children, appreciating that a minority ingroup norm differs from a societal (majority) norm requires an additional intellectual “step” for minority group children, by virtue of their minority status.

Additional data suggest the age differences in the pen pal task may mirror ethnic differences in children’s actual friendships. Our analysis of same- and cross-ethnic friendships by age and ethnicity indicated that numbers of cross- and same-ethnic friends vary little for white majority children with age. But there is a steady increase with age in the number of South Asian (minority) children’s same-ethnic friends, and a drop in the number of their cross-ethnic friends at 13 years. These changes may be a consequence of longer-term changes and attrition in cross-ethnic friendships that arise as minority children may come to appreciate more of their own identity and experience exclusion from the majority group.

Of course, children’s friendships are often associated with many different social factors including gender, ethnicity, and social class. Importantly, in our present study, children came from different ethnic groups but shared a broadly similar socio-economic background (lower-middle class), so in the present study, social class is unlikely to be a simple confounding factor that can explain results. That is not to say that associations between class and ethnicity (and other factors) do not affect the inferences that children may make about peers from different ethnic groups, and, in turn, the friendship choices that they make. Clearly, children’s real friendship choices are highly contextualized. Nevertheless, the present study gives a strong indication that ethnicity is an influential factor in children’s friendship choices, and that this influence varies by age and ethnic group.

The second hypothesis anticipated black sheep-effects in friendship choices, such that older children (i.e., 9 and 13 years) would be more likely to select an outgroup-deviant pen pal over an ingroup-deviant pen pal. This hypothesis was not confirmed. In all age groups, white children preferred an ingroup deviant over an outgroup deviant. White children at all ages also selected a normative ingroup member over a deviant ingroup member more often.

Among South Asians, the pattern of pen pal selection again differed from the white participants. At 5 years, most South Asian children selected an outgroup (i.e., white), normative, pen pal. At 9 years- a marginal preference for a white normative pen pal remained, with the South Asian normative pen pal as the next most popular, and the white deviant pen pal as the least popular. At 13 years, however, only the white deviant pen pal was rarely selected, with around a third of participants selecting either the South Asian deviant or the white normative pen pal.

Although pen pal selections indicated different ingroup and outgroup preferences for South Asian (minority) and white (majority) children with age, they did not indicate any straightforward black sheep-type effects for either ethnic group. In fact, older South Asian children selected more ingroup deviants than ingroup normative pen pals.

These results indicate that the black sheep effect does not appear to extend to children’s friendship choices. However, numerous studies have found evidence for the effect in assessments of intergroup attitudes and liking in both adults (Marques, et al., 1988) and children from 8 years (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Marques, 2003; Rutland, et al., 2006). There are several possible explanations for the failure to find similar effects in the present study. A first possibility is that ethnicity is a complex social category and this complexity renders simple in- and outgroup effects more difficult to observe. Certainly, few studies have directly tested black sheep effects among ethnic groups (although several have noted similar phenomena, e.g., Nesdale & Brown, 2003). Many previous studies have focused on other, arguably less-familiar social categories, or on the minimal group context.

It is also possible that children placed greater emphasis on shared interests and activities in their pen pal choices, rather than taking into account normativity or non-normativity (ethnic-consistent and ethnic-inconsistent information). Indeed, McGlothin and Killen (2005) showed that children’s judgements about friendship potential are more influenced by similarities in interests and activities rather than similarity in race or ethnicity. Moreover, Turner and Brown (2007) showed in an ethnically diverse sample of 5–12-year-old children that personality traits and favourite activities were more central to children’s self-concepts than ethnicity and gender. Thus, when presenting children with ethnic group normative and non-normative information about unfamiliar peers’ traits and hobbies in a friendship choice task, children may focus on similarities in interests and activities, rather than evaluating the implications of non-normative or counter-stereotypical information on the validity the ethnic group’s norms. However, something more is required to explain the results in the present study because not only did white children tend to pick the ingroup deviant (with dissimilar interests) over the outgroup deviant, but also, South Asian children pick an outgroup member (with dissimilar interests) more often than an ingroup member at most ages.

A further possibility is that the pull of simple intergroup dynamics and is too strong to outweigh the pull of intragroup processes of deviance and normativity to affect friendship choices. Thus, while many black sheep studies suggest a lag between when children themselves conform and when they start to worry about the conformity of others, this change may be a consequence of cognitive rather than social processes because there appears to be no subsequent change in social (friendship) choices. This would suggest an important limitation for theories of intergroup dynamics (e.g., Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003) because such accounts would need to explain both differential effects of different ethnic groups as well as the failure to replicate findings from studies of liking or evaluations in the domain of friendship choices.

Additionally, if this explanation is correct, it has important implications for our understanding both of the development of children’s understanding of groups and for practical questions about improving the opportunities for interethnic contact. For instance, if older children’s more positive attitudes towards outgroup deviants do not lead to greater cross-ethnic friendships, the positive outcomes associated with cross-ethnic contact may fail to materialise. Moreover, research shows that the beneficial effects of cross-ethnic contact can endure over some period of time (Feddes et al., 2009) and can led to more cross-ethnic friendships (Jugert et al., 2011). However, children’s friendship choices might have a regressive effect on interventions to improve interethnic relations, working to limit the effectiveness of such interventions in the longer-term as children and adolescents revert to initial, ingroup friendship preferences (see also Martinovic, van Tubergen, & Maas, 2009).

Our third hypothesis, following the DSGD model (Abrams et al., 2009), predicted that children who identified strongly with their ethnic group would show a stronger black sheep effect (and, correspondingly, those who identified less strongly would show weaker effects). This hypothesis was not confirmed. Again, it may be that the pull of intergroup dynamics in the domain of friendship choices is too strong to overcome any pull of intragroup dynamics (normativity and deviance).

The results also indicated age and ethnic differences in the strength of ethnic group self-identification. As might be expected, identification with one’s ethnic ingroup increased with age as children become more aware of their own and others’ social identities. In line with previous work (e.g., Davis et al., 2007; Verkuyten, 2005) children from the minority group developed a stronger sense of identity earlier (from 9 years) than children from the majority group.

The final hypothesis concerned the relation between the ethnicity of children’s real friends and their choices of pen pal. We predicted that children who had more cross-ethnic friends would be more likely to choose a pen pal from the ethnic outgroup than those who had few or no cross-ethnic friendships. This final hypothesis was broadly confirmed: that is, South Asian children who chose a cross-ethnic pen pal were more likely to have cross-ethnic friends than those who chose a same-ethnic pen pal. This pattern was not as strongly supported among white children. Broadly speaking, these findings support research that has identified benefits of cross-ethnic contact for generating positive ethnic group attitudes and fostering further cross-ethnic relationships (e.g., Feddes et al., 2009). However, it is important to remember that very few white children chose a South Asian pen pal. Moreover, our analysis of friendships suggests that between 9 and 13 years, South Asian children gain more same-ethnic friends and lose cross-ethnic friends. This final finding adds to evidence for increasing ingroup affiliation and decreasing outgroup affiliation with age (Aboud et al., 2003). The increasing focus with age on developing ingroup friendships, and a stronger emphasis on inter- rather than intragroup dynamics in the domain of friendship choices, may both act to limit cross-ethnic contact for improving interethnic relations and relationships.

Children’s understanding of intragroup dynamics, and their evaluation of ingroup and outgroup members, advances significantly from 8 to 10 years of age (e.g., Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003). However, the present study indicates that these changes in evaluation of others are not matched by changes in children’s and early adolescents’ friendship preferences. Indeed, even at 13 years, friendship choices largely focus on intergroup dynamics (ingroup choices of pen pal) at the expense of intragroup dynamics (issues of deviance and normativity). Whether this pattern persists in adult friendship choices is an important consideration for future social psychological research. If it does, then an important question is how the mismatch between attitudes (evaluations) in terms of normativity and deviance and behavior (friendship choices) can best be explained. If friendship choices remain resistant to intragroup (intrapersonal) ethnic group factors into adulthood they may constitute a formidable barrier to improving ethnic group attitudes and relations.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aboud

F. E.

Amato

(2001). Developmental and socialization influences on intergroup bias. In Brown

Gaertner

S. L.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 65–85). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Aboud

F. E.

Mendelson

M. J.

Purdy

K. T.

(2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173.

Abrams

Rutland

Cameron

(2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and deviant in-group and out-group individuals. Child Development, 74, 1840–1856.

Abrams

Rutland

Cameron

Ferrell

(2007). Older but wilier: Ingroup accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 43, 134–148.

Abrams

Rutland

Cameron

Marques

(2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: When ingroup bias gets specific. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 155–176.

Abrams

Rutland

Ferrell

J. M.

Pelletier

(2008). Children’s judgments of disloyal and immoral peer behavior: Subjective group dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79, 444–461.

Abrams

Rutland

Pelletier

Ferrell

(2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development, 80, 224–243.

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barrett

(2009). Children’s knowledge, beliefs and feelings about nations and national groups. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

10.

Boulton

M. J.

(1996). Partner preferences of British Asian and White girls and boys on the middle school playground: Do they vary as a function of activity? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11, 25–34.

11.

Clark

K. B.

Clark

M. P.

(1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In Newcomb

T. M.

Hartley

E. L.

(Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (pp. 169–178). New York, NY: Holt.

12.

Crystal

Killen

Ruck

(2008). It’s who you know that counts: Intergroup contact and judgments about race-based exclusion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 51–70.

13.

Davey

A. G.

Mullin

P. N.

(1982). Inter-ethnic friendship in British primary schools. Educational Research, 24, 83–92.

14.

Davis

S. C.

Leman

P. J.

Barrett

(2007). Children’s implicit and explicit ethnic group attitudes, ethnic group identification, and self-esteem. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 514–525.

15.

Enesco

Navarro

Paradela

Guerrero

(2005). Stereotypes and beliefs about different ethnic groups in Spain. A study with Spanish and Latin American children living in Madrid. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 638–659.

16.

Feddes

A. R.

Noack

Rutland

(2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, 377–390.

17.

Finkelstein

N. W.

Haskins

(1983). Kindergarten children prefer same color peers. Child Development, 54, 502–508.

18.

Griffiths

J. A

Nesdale

(2006). In-group and out-group attitudes of ethnic majority and minority children. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 735–749.

19.

Jugert

Noack

Rutland

(2011). Friendship preferences among German and Turkish preadolescents. Child Development, 82, 812–829.

20.

Kao

Joyner

(2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends? Activities among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 557–573.

21.

Kowalski

(2003). The emergence of ethnic and racial attitudes in preschool-aged children. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 677–690.

22.

Kurtz-Costes

DeFreitas

S. C.

Halle

T. G.

Kinlaw

C. R

(2011). Gender and racial favouritism in Black and White preschool girls. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 270–287.

23.

Lam

Leman

P. J.

(2003). The influence of gender and ethnicity on children’s inferences about toy choice. Social Development, 12, 269–287.

24.

Leman

P. J.

Lam

V. L.

(2008). The influence of race and gender on children’s conversations and playmate choices. Child Development, 79, 1329–1343.

25.

Leman

P. J.

Macedo

A. P.

Bluschke

Hudson

Rawlings

Wright

(2011). The influence of gender and ethnicity on children’s peer collaborations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 131–137.

26.

McGlothlin

Killen

(2005). Children’s perceptions of intergroup and intragroup similarity and the role of social experience. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 680–698.

27.

McGlothlin

Killen

(2010). How social experience is related to children’s intergroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 625–634.

28.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

J.-P.

(1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.

29.

Martinovic

van Tubergen

Maas

(2009). Dynamics of interethnic contact: A panel study of immigrants in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 25, 303–318.

30.

Mulvey

K. L.

Hitti

Killen

(2010). The development of stereotyping and exclusion. Cognitive Science, 1, 597–606.

31.

Nesdale

(1999). Developmental changes in children’s ethnic preference and social cognitions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 501–519.

32.

Nesdale

(2001). Language and the development of children’s ethnic prejudice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 90–110.

33.

Nesdale

Brown

(2003). Children’s attitudes towards an atypical member of an ethnic ingroup. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 328–335.

34.

Nesdale

Maass

Griffiths

Durkin

(2003). Effects of ingroup and outgroup ethnicity on children’s attitudes towards members of the ingroup and outgroup. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 177–192.

35.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

36.

Quintana

S. M.

(1998). Development of children’s understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied & Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 7, 27–45.

37.

Rutland

Abrams

Cameron

(2006) Children’s attitudes towards nonconformists: Intergroup relations and social exclusion in middle childhood. International Journal of School Disaffection, 4, 45–52.

38.

Turner

K. L.

Brown

C. S.

(2007). The importance of gender and ethnic identities across individuals and contexts. Social Development, 16, 700–719.

39.

United Kingdom Government, Office for National Statistics. (2005). Census 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ethnicity/focus-on-ethnicity-and-religion/2006-edition/index.html

40.

United Kingdom Government, Office for National Statistics. (2009). Final Population Definitions for the 2011 – Census. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/release-calendar/index.html?newquery=*&uday=0&umonth=0&uyear=0&title=Population+Estimates+by+Ethnic+Group+%28experimental%29&pagetype=calendar-entry&lday=&lmonth=&lyear

41.

Vaughan

G. M.

(1978). Social change and intergroup preferences in New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 297–314.

42.

Verkuyten

(2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138.

43.

Verkuyten

(2007). Ethnic in-group favoritism among minority and majority groups: Testing the self-esteem hypothesis among preadolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 486–500.

44.

Vervoort

M. H. M.

Scholte

R. H. J.

Scheepers

(2011). Ethnic composition of school classes, majority–minority friendships, and adolescents’ intergroup attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 257–267.