Out-group prosocial giving during childhood: The role of in-group preference and out-group attitudes in a divided society

Abstract

Amid protracted conflict, children are raised in divided contexts that shape the development of their intergroup attitudes and behaviors. Social identity development theory (SIDT) suggests that in-group preference may contribute to more negative out-group attitudes and behaviors in middle childhood. In such contexts, in-group favoritism may shape resource distribution, a key indicator of prosocial behavior. This study examined the predictors of resource distribution among 387 children (age: M = 9.59, SD = 2.34) of majority (Jewish) and minority (Arab-Muslim) groups in Israel. Rooted in SIDT, a multiple-group chain mediation found that the effect of age on out-group prosocial giving was serially mediated by the child’s in-group symbol preference and negative out-group attitudes. The mediation held across both majority and minority groups, highlighting the underlying developmental process of prosocial giving across group lines in a divided society.

Keywords

Out-group prosocial behavior intergroup conflict resource distribution children Israel

Children’s prosocial behaviors may be an antecedent of peacebuilding in historically conflicted societies (Taylor, 2020; Taylor et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2019a). Yet, experimental studies demonstrate that young children are selective about with whom, and when, they engage in prosocial behavior depending on characteristics of the recipient and the situation (for a review, see Martin & Olson, 2015). For instance, children are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior when the recipient is more familiar (Young et al., 1999), has previously been kind or helpful to them or others (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2010), or is a member of their in-group (Dunham et al., 2011). Thus, understanding the mechanisms underlying prosociality is especially important in children with a history of exposure to intergroup conflict and zero-sum political narratives in their day-to-day experiences (e.g., Bar-Tal, 2007), as can be the case in divided societies such as Israel.

The current study models the predictors of out-group prosocial giving in two ethnic groups in Israel. Rooted in social identity development theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004), we examined whether, with age, in-group preference would relate to negative out-group attitudes, and if those attitudes would influence prosocial giving based on group membership. Moreover, examining children from Jewish and Arab-Muslim backgrounds in this context of protracted conflict will shed light on whether the same process predicts prosocial giving for members of both majority and minority groups. Understanding factors that promote positive behaviors across group lines among children may inform peacebuilding initiatives within Israel and other historically divided societies (O’Driscoll et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2014).

Development of Intergroup Attitudes

Children attend to social category distinctions from infancy and use social information to navigate their social worlds. By the age of four, children identify out-group individuals and display social preferences based on ethnicity (e.g., Aboud, 1988; Nesdale, 2001). However, ethnic awareness and preferences for in-group members do not necessarily develop into negative out-group attitudes (Nesdale, 2004).

SIDT suggests a developmental pathway, taking into account environmental influences, by which children’s social categorization and in-group preferences may develop into out-group prejudice in attitudes and actions. SIDT outlines four phases: (1) undifferentiated (before 3 years)—ethnic group membership is not yet salient; (2) ethnic awareness (at about 3 years)—awareness of ethnic cues emerges; (3) ethnic preference (at about 4 years)—preference of in-group over out-group appears; and (4) ethnic prejudice (at about 7 years)—sometimes negative attitudes about the out-group may emerge (Nesdale, 2004). Prejudice may develop when children not only identify with their in-group, but also when negative attitudes toward an out-group are a social norm, or when children observe tense intergroup relations or perceive threats to group status (Nesdale, Maass et al., 2005). Under such conditions, negative out-group attitudes may continue into late childhood (Nesdale, Griffith et al., 2005). This may be the case in Israel, where young children absorb conflict-supporting contents which may persist even later in life (Nasie et al., 2016).

In Israel, the ethno-religious categories “Jew” and “Arab” describe an extremely salient social dichotomy in the society due to historical and political reasons. The dichotomy also reflects socioeconomic gaps in status of the Jewish majority and the Arab minority, where the latter has, on average, lower education, employment, and wages. Consistent with SIDT, children in this region demonstrate awareness of ethnic categories at a young age, as early as age three (Bar-Tal, 1996); they also demonstrate negative stereotyping of out-group ethnic members (Slone et al., 2000).

The current study builds on the limited research that has explicitly examined intergroup relations during childhood for both minority and majority groups in conflict-affected settings (Reidy et al., 2015). Although differences have been found between minority and majority group members in terms of felt security (Taylor et al., 2017), intentions to discriminate (Ajduković & Čorkalo Biruški, 2008), and ethnic socialization within the family (Štambuk et al., 2019), children’s intergroup attitudes have been insufficiently explored in such contexts. Exposure to in-group symbols, however, has been found to differently affect out-group attitudes as a function of majority/minority group affiliation for adults (Razpurker-Apfeld & Shamoa-Nir, 2015; Shamoa-Nir & Razpurker-Apfeld, 2019a, 2019b). Although Nesdale (1999) suggested that majority group children may show stronger in-group preference compared to minority group children, SIDT does not specify if the link from in-group preference to out-group prejudice might unfold differently for minority and majority children. Therefore, we explore the role of out-group attitudes in the link from preference to prejudice for minority and majority groups in Israel. Moreover, complementing the focus of previous research largely on discrimination, we focus on intergroup prosocial behaviors.

Development of Prosocial Giving

Children have a basic motivation to be prosocial (Hay, 1994), and value equality and fairness (Tomasello & Vaish, 2013). However, children also display selectivity in prosociality (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2010) and may distribute resources strategically in favor of their in-group to improve their group’s position or solidify links with group members (Fehr et al., 2008). Although increasingly able to weigh both egalitarian concerns and group dynamics in their resource allocation decisions with age (Rutland & Killen, 2017), children still tend to give more resources to in-group members when an egalitarian response is unavailable or when facing competitive intergroup dynamics (O’Driscoll et al., 2018).

While each of these factors can be present in settings of protracted conflict, the literature linking SIDT processes, such as in-group preferences and out-group attitudes, to children’s prosocial giving has rarely been studied in these environments. Of the few studies that have explored this relationship between out-group attitudes and helping intentions, the results have been mixed. Sometimes more negative attitudes about ethnic out-groups are associated with more prosocial intentions and behaviors (e.g., Sierksma et al., 2018). Sometimes more positive attitudes about an out-group are related to helping intentions of majority children toward an immigrant (Vezzali et al., 2015) but not actual prosocial giving (Taylor & Glen, 2019). Among adolescents, a positive cross-lagged relationship from out-group attitudes and out-group prosocial behavior was found in Northern Ireland, a society of protracted conflict (Taylor et al., 2014). At times, children’s out-group attitudes do not correlate with their prosocial intentions or behaviors toward the out-group (Renno & Shutts, 2015). These discrepancies in findings lie in the diversity in children’s ages, type of prosocial task, and whether the children are raised in a setting of intergroup conflict. The current study expands on past research to explore relations among in-group preferences, out-group attitudes, and resource distribution as a prosocial behavior in a context of intergroup conflict.

Current Study

This study examined how age relates to children’s preference for in-group social, religious, and cultural symbols and the implications of that preference for intergroup attitudes and actions. Rooted in SIDT and studies in contexts of intergroup conflict (O’Driscoll et al., 2018; Tomovska et al., 2019), we hypothesized that age would relate to greater preference for in-group symbols (e.g., language, clothing, activities). Due to salience and importance of social categories in Israel, we hypothesized that this in-group preference would link to more negative out-group attitudes, and those attitudes would influence out-group prosocial giving (O’Driscoll et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2019a). Although generally children become less inclined to express explicit out-group prejudice during late childhood (for a meta-analysis see, Raabe & Beelmann, 2011), in-group preference (i.e., bias) has been shown to increase with age in a setting of protracted conflict (e.g., Merrilees et al., 2018). Therefore, we hypothesized that in-group preference and negative out-group attitudes would mediate the link from child age to intergroup prosocial behaviors during middle and late childhood. Given the context of social divide, we also examined whether this pattern of results would unfold similarly for children from majority and minority groups.

Method

Participants

The age range selected captured the potential shift in SIDT from ethnic preference, phase 3, to ethnic prejudice, phase 4. Power analyses indicated that a total sample size of 190 children would provide a power of .95 in testing hypotheses in our hypothesized model. Using WhatsApp community groups and Facebook in a region in northern Israel, we recruited 387 children: 180 Jewish (105 girls, 75 boys; M = 9.87, SD = 2.48, 97% 6–13 years old) and 207 Arab-Muslim (115 girls, 92 boys; M = 9.35, SD = 2.19, 95% 6–13 years old). Most of the children (99% Jewish, 99% Arab-Muslim) attended homogeneous educational systems and lived in their own respective communities. We received written parental consent and child assent. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (ZAC #401-2018).

Procedure

Trained researchers worked with children one-on-one in the child’s home, with at least one parent in a nearby room. Research assistants of the same ethno-religious group as the child conducted the study in the child’s mother tongue. Researchers administered tasks on laptops via Qualtrics by reading the on-screen text; children verbalized or pointed to their answer. Testing sessions lasted about 15 min and all children were given a small prize and certificate of participation. The data in this short report were part of a larger cross-cultural study that included other measures. The three tasks were always presented in the same order: in-group symbol preference, prosocial giving, and out-group attitudes. After the preference task, there was a short pause, during which children picked a sticker as an incentive.

Materials and Design

In-group symbol preference

A variety of symbols were pretested with adults; those rated as strongly representing either the Arab-Muslim background or the Jewish background were included. Thus, materials included 42 images of symbols (21 pairs; one associated with each ethno-religious background) which represented different aspects of social, cultural, and religious life (e.g., traditions, religious symbols, sports; see examples in Appendix A; adapted from Tomovska et al., 2019). Each child was presented with a random subset of 10 pairs in a randomized order. The researcher presented and labeled each of two symbols (e.g., “These are Arabic letters. These are Hebrew letters”) and asked children which they liked better. If the child chose an in-group symbol (e.g., Arab child chose Arabic letters), the item was coded 1; if the child chose an out-group symbol (e.g., Arab child chose Hebrew letters), the item was coded 0. Higher scores indicated greater in-group symbol preference.

Out-group prosocial giving

Adapted from previous work in a divided society (O’Driscoll et al., 2018), children were presented with two gender-matched cartoon stick figures wearing white T-shirts, one with a Jewish symbol and one with a Muslim symbol. Each figure was labelled with the respective religious label and a name, for example, “This girl is Muslim. Her name is Fatma.” The side of the screen each figure was presented on was randomized across children. The researcher explained that there were seven extra stickers leftover to give away to these children in Israel. Children were explicitly told that as long as all stickers were shared they could distribute the stickers in any way (e.g., all to one person or shared between) and that there was no right or wrong answers. Children dragged the stickers to their chosen figure on screen. The number of stickers given to either child could range from zero to seven. For this variable, the number of stickers given to the out-group member was recorded, with higher scores indicating greater out-group prosocial giving. This measure reveals an out-group/in-group bias in prosocial sharing.

Negative out-group attitudes

Children were presented with four cartoon stick figures (two males and two females) wearing white T-shirts with a symbol of the participant’s ethnic out-group and labelled as members of the out-group with a category label and ethnically stereotypical names (e.g., a Muslim participant would view Jewish children wearing the Star of David named Rutie, Hila, Daniel, and Avi). Children were then asked how much they (1) like the out-group children, (2) trust the out-group children, and (3) want to play with the out-group children (adapted from Nesdale et al., 2009). The three questions were presented in random order. Children responded on a 4-point scale thumbs up/down scale ranging from 0 (I like/trust/want to play with them a lot) to 3 (I do not like/trust/want to play with them at all). Scores were totaled, ranging from 0 to 9 (α = .90), with higher scores indicating more negative out-group attitudes.

Data Analytic Plan

The hypothesized models were tested using path analysis in Mplus 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011) with maximum likelihood estimation under the assumption that data are missing at random. Bootstrapped chain mediation with 1,000 replications and a 95% confidence interval was used to estimate the indirect effects. Manifest variables were used for all constructs, including child’s gender and ethnic group. Age was the primary exogenous predictor, with in-group symbol preference and negative out-group attitudes entered as sequential mediators; out-group prosocial giving was modeled as the outcome of interest. Given past research has found gender differences in prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2006), we also controlled for child gender in the following models (results were largely the same without controlling for gender). Model fit was assessed using the following guidelines: Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ .90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Three nested models were tested. First, the fully constrained model (Model 1) estimated the chain mediation for the entire sample. Second, the fully unconstrained model (Model 2) allowed all paths to be estimated freely for both ethnic groups. Third, to assess whether the processes unfolded similarly for both groups of children, a multiple group framework with a step-up approach was used (Model 3; Brown, 2006). In this procedure, the structural paths are constrained one-by-one across groups and model fit is assessed with a χ² difference test. In other words, if a path is constrained to be equal across groups and the model fit does not worsen, that constraint is retained, and the next path is tested. This comparative approach yields the most parsimonious model, while allowing for significant group differences.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for each group. Given the possible range of zero to seven, the mean of out-group prosocial giving is low for both groups (see also Appendix B). Significant correlations include the link from age to in-group symbol preference for the Arab, and from age to negative out-group attitudes for the Jewish sample; in both groups, there is a significant negative correlation between negative out-group attitudes and prosocial giving.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables (N = 387).

		Arab-Muslim (n = 207)							Jewish (n = 180)
		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1	Female	44% male, 56% female		—	.08	.10	.06	.04	42% male, 58% female		—	.07	.04	−.14	.14
2	Age	6.39	2.16		—	.25***	−.05	−.09	6.87	2.47		—	.10	−.24**	.05
3	In-group symbol preference	7.73	1.44			—	.12	−.07	8.02	1.37			—	.038	−.02
4	Negative out-group attitudes	5.33	2.86				—	−.40***	6.27	2.50				—	−.54***
5	Out-group prosocial giving	1.81	1.35						1.81	1.37					—

Note. **p < .01; ***p < .001.

First, Model 1 tested the chain mediation fully constraining all paths to be equal across Arab-Muslim and Jewish children. The proposed model was a good fit to the data (Model 1: N = 387, χ²(2) = 1.45, p = .49; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.02; SRMR = .013; RMSEA = .000 [CI: .000, .092]), and there was a significant indirect effect from child age to out-group prosocial giving, through in-group symbol preference and negative out-group attitudes. (b = −.007, 95% CI: −.014, −.001). Second, Model 2 tested the same chain mediation with a multiple group framework which allowed all structural paths to be estimated separately by group. This fully unconstrained model also had acceptable model fit (Model 2: N _Muslim = 207, N _Jewish = 180, χ²(4) = 4.99, p = .22; CFI = .99; TLI = .96; SRMR = .027; RMSEA = .036 [CI: .000, .119]) and a significant indirect effect for Arab-Muslims (b = −.018, 95% CI: −.047, −.000) but not for Jews (b = −.004, 95% CI: −.029, .003).

Third, the step-up approach was applied to Model 2. The χ² difference tests compared nested models, as each structural path was constrained to be equal across groups to examine whether there are differences in how the process unfolds for majority and minority groups. In the final model (Model 3), all structural paths, including the control variable of gender, were constrained, except for the path from negative out-group attitudes to out-group prosocial behavior. That is, when this path was constrained to be equal, there was worse model fit. Therefore, this path was estimated separately for each group and was stronger for Jewish (β = −0.55, p < .001) children compared to Arab-Muslims (β = −0.41, p < .001). The indirect effects for both groups (Arab-Muslim: b = −.009, 95% CI: −.024, −.001; Jewish: b = −.013, 95% CI: −.033, −.001) were significant in the final step-up model, which was a good fit to the data (Model 3: N _Muslim = 207, N _Jewish = 180, χ ²(10) = 10.96, p = .36; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; SRMR = .047; RMSEA = .022 [CI: .000, .083]). Moreover, Model 3 was a significantly better fit to the data that Model 1 or 2 and explained 18% and 30% of the variance in tendency to discriminate for Arab-Muslims and Jews, respectively.

Figure 1 depicts the direct and indirect structural paths for Model 3. For both groups, age was positively related to in-group symbol preference, which was related to more negative out-group attitudes. Lower negative out-group attitudes, however, were linked with greater out-group prosocial giving (i.e., a reduced sharing bias against the out-group was observed). The remaining direct effects from child age and gender to out-group prosocial giving were nonsignificant. Thus, there was support for the hypothesized chain mediation model; with age, children’s preferences, and attitudes change, which influences their bias in out-group giving.

Figure 1.

Chain Mediation Path Model (Model 3) Demonstrating the Indirect Effect of Child Age on Out-Group Prosocial Giving Through In-Group Preference and Negative Out-Group Attitudes for Arab-Muslim (n = 207) and Jewish Children (n = 180) in Israel.

Discussion

This study extends previous research on how group processes influence children’s social exclusion and resource-allocation decisions (Killen et al., 2017), in particular in groups with long-standing histories of conflict (O’Driscoll et al., 2018). Framed by SIDT (Nesdale, 2004), the current study examined whether in-group symbol preference affects out-group attitudes and willingness to give them resources. For both Jewish majority and Arab-Muslim minority children in Israel, the effect of age on out-group prosocial giving was serially mediated by the child’s in-group symbol preference and negative out-group attitudes. Consistent with previous research which found in-group prosocial favoritism by 5 years old (Dunham et al., 2011; Rutland et al., 2015), this effect is persistent across middle childhood in the current study. The multiple group analyses only revealed a difference in one path: for Jewish majority children, there was a stronger association between negative out-group attitudes to out-group prosocial giving, compared to Arab-Muslim minority children. As in other contexts of risk (O’Driscoll et al., 2018), the findings suggest that group processes may shape the development of prosocial giving (McGuire et al., 2017).

The present research was conducted in a social context characterized by risk related to social division and intergroup tension. Factors such as ethnic identification and group status may shape in-group favoritism (Verkuyten, 2007), leading eventually to prosocial behavior in favor of a child from one’s in-group over a child from the out-group (O’Driscoll et al., 2018). Examining this process across both majority and minority groups is essential in such settings (Adjuković & Corkalo Biruski, 2008). For example, there are socioeconomic gaps in the status of the Jewish majority and the Arab minority, where the latter has a larger family size and lower education, employment, and wages. Indeed, while minority group members can be expected to relate to their unique ethnic identification (Liebkind, 1989), at the same time, the lower status of minority group members may prevent them from positively differentiating their group from the majority (Ellemers et al., 1997). This partial lack of differentiation may explain why the minority in this study demonstrated a weaker relationship between negative out-group attitudes and prosocial out-group giving compared with the majority. Yet, despite this difference, the overall mediation was the same for both groups. This is consistent with a previous study with majority Dutch and minority Turkish children ages 10 to 12 that demonstrated similar effects of in-group favoritism on feelings of self-worth (Verkuyten, 2007). This finding suggests that SIDT may be capturing an underlying developmental process in a divided society.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the study’s strengths, such as including both majority and minority perspectives in the same model, there are a number of limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, the order of the tasks in this study was not counterbalanced, so the results may have been influenced by order effects. Second, despite the direction of effects in the current model being based on theory, the study tests mediation with cross-sectional data, which may bias estimates (Maxwell & Cole, 2007); testing alternative directions, or ‘reversing the arrows’, with the current design is not advised (Thoemmes, 2015). Therefore, future research should employ an experimental approach to investigate causation or a longitudinal design to make inferences about the direction of effects. Third, given the context of social division, future research could explore whether children’s perception of the broader conflict or intergroup tension (Taylor et al., 2019b), their intergroup contact (McKeown & Taylor, 2017) or characteristics of out-group counterparts in imagined contact (Razpurker-Apfeld & Shamoa-Nir, 2020) have an effect on the model. Fourth, the current study was conducted in a relatively stable environment in terms of conflict. Future research should focus on the most intense conflict in this region examining Jewish Israelis and Arab-Palestinian societies (e.g., Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem). Finally, recent research has found that compared to Arab-Christians, Arab-Muslims expressed higher intergroup anxiety and more negative stereotypes about the Jewish majority (Shamoa-Nir & Razpurker-Apfeld, 2019a; Shamoa-Nir & Razpurker-Apfeld, 2020). Therefore, replication of this study among other minorities living in Israel such as Arab-Christians or Druze should be considered.

Implications for Practice and Policy

The current findings indicate that children favor the in-group over the out-group when sharing resources. The findings also show that out-group attitudes predict out-group sharing bias. This contrasts with previous research showing that attitudes did not relate to intergroup prosociality (Renno & Shutts, 2015), suggesting that social context may play a crucial role in this relation. The existence of an ongoing intergroup conflict in Israel may have shaped the link from negative attitudes to sharing bias. This idea is reinforced by Bauer and colleagues (2014) who found that exposure to war increased both children’s in-group favoritism and out-group derogation.

Practically speaking, our findings may help promote prosocial behavior. Sharing resources with a former rival is essential to building a shared future. Therefore, identifying the processes relating to greater out-group giving and less bias against them has implications for programs aiming to improve intergroup relations. For example, conducting interventions targeting early attitudes may help to reduce bias in prosocial giving. Indeed, programs in elementary Israeli schools that emphasized social–emotional learning have shown to decrease out-group prejudice and discrimination (Berger et al., 2016). In addition, these findings may have longer-term implications for policy; that is, in conflict settings, a zero-sum mindset often prevents collaboration and cooperation. Understanding how to promote resource distribution across group lines, even among children, may not only help to improve relations between Jews and Arabs who live in Israel, but potentially, future peacebuilding initiatives between Israel and the Palestinians.

In conclusion, this article contributes to understanding the development of prosocial behaviors across group lines in a setting of protracted conflict. Despite differences in group status, the overall chain mediation rooted in SIDT held for both Jewish and Arab-Muslim children. Fitting in the growing body of work at the interface of social and developmental psychology (Killen et al., 2017), this article extends the implications to peace psychology, lending insight to how prosocial giving might be further encouraged for later peacebuilding potential (McKeown & Taylor, 2017).

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to the many families who participated, to Risa Rylander, the project coordinator for Helping Kids! (), and to the Israeli Social Cognition Laboratory.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was financially supported by DFEGCRF17-18/Taylor, GCRF-GIAA18-19/Taylor, and British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Section, Pump-priming and Dissemination Fund Application, and Zefat Academic College internal institutional grants: 76-2018/Razpurker-Apfeld and 77-2018/Shamoa-Nir.

ORCID iD

Lipaz Shamoa-Nir

Laura K. Taylor

Appendix A

Example Symbol Pairs.

Appendix B

Out-Group Prosocial Giving: Out-Group Sticker Distribution by Arab-Muslim and Jewish Children.

Number of stickers distributed to the out-group	Percentage of Arab-Muslim (n = 207)	Percentage of Jewish (n = 180)
0	25.1	28.9
1	16.4	12.8
2	18.4	11.7
3	32.9	41.7
4	6.3	5.0
5	1.0	0
6	0	0
7	0	0

Note. All seven stickers had to be distributed between out-group and/or in-group. Therefore, 0% of 7 stickers distributed to the out-group, means that all 7 stickers were distributed to the in-group.

References

Aboud

F. E.

(1988). Children and prejudice. Blackwell’s.

Ajduković

Čorkalo Biruški

(2008). Caught between the ethnic sides: Children growing up in a divided post-war community. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408090975

Bar-Tal

(1996). Development of social categories and stereotypes in early childhood: The case of “the Arab” concept formation, stereotype, and attitudes by Jewish children. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00023-5

Bar-Tal

(2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1430–1453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207302462

Bauer

Cassar

Chytilová

Henrich

(2014). War’s enduring effects on the development of egalitarian motivations and in-group biases. Psychological Science, 25(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613493444

Berger

Benatov

Abu-Raiya

Tadmor

C. T.

(2016). Reducing prejudice and promoting positive intergroup attitudes among elementary-school children in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Journal of School Psychology, 57, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.04.003

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guildford Press.

Dunfield

K. A.

Kuhlmeier

V. A.

(2010). Intention-mediated selective helping in infancy. Psychological Science, 21(4), 523–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364119

Dunham

Baron

A. S.

Carey

(2011). Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children. Child Development, 82(3), 793–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01577.x

10.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Spinrad

T. L.

(2006). Handbook of child psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Ellemers

Van Rijswijk

Roefs

Simons

(1997). Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 186–198. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232007

12.

Fehr

Bernhard

Rockenbach

(2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454, 1079–1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07155

13.

Hay

D. F.

(1994). Prosocial development. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(1), 29–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01132.x

14.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

15.

Killen

Elenbaas

Rizzo

M. T.

Rutland

(2017). The role of group processes in social exclusion and resource allocation decisions. In Rutland

Nesdale

Brown

C. S.

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents (pp. 101–123). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118773123.ch5

16.

Liebkind

(1989). The identity of a minority. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 10(1), 47–57. http://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1989.9994362

17.

Martin

Olson

K. R.

(2015). Beyond good and evil: What motivations underlie children’s prosocial behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615568998

18.

Maxwell

S. E.

Cole

D. A.

(2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23

19.

McGuire

Manstead

A. S. R.

Rutland

(2017). Group norms, intergroup resource allocation, and social reasoning among children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 53(12). 2333–2339. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000392

20.

McKeown

Taylor

L. K.

(2017). Intergroup contact and peacebuilding: Promoting youth civic engagement in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(2), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i2.769

21.

Merrilees

C. E.

Taylor

L. K.

Baird

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cummings

E. M.

(2018). Neighborhood effects of intergroup contact on change in youth intergroup bias. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(1), 77–87. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0684-6

22.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2011). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

23.

Nasie

Diamond

A. H.

Bar-Tal

(2016). Young children in intractable conflicts: The Israeli case. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(4) 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315607800

24.

Nesdale

(1999). Social identity and ethnic prejudice in children. In Martin

Noble

(Eds.), Psychology and society (pp. 92–110). Australian Academic Press.

25.

Nesdale

(2001). The development of prejudice in children. In Augoustinos

M. A.

Reynolds

K. J.

(Eds.) Understanding prejudice, racism, and social conflict (pp. 57–73). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218877.n4

26.

Nesdale

(2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In Bennett

Sani

F. S.

(Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–245). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203391099_chapter_8

27.

Nesdale

Griffith

Durkin

Maass

(2005). Empathy, group norms and children’s ethnic attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6) 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.003

28.

Nesdale

Maass

Durkin

Griffiths

J. A.

(2005). Group norms, threat, and children’s racial prejudice. Child Development, 76(3), 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00869.x

29.

Nesdale

Milliner

Duffy

Griffiths

J. A.

(2009). Group membership, group norms, empathy, and young children’s intentions to aggress. Aggressive Behavior, 35(3), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20303

30.

O’Driscoll

Taylor

L. K.

Dautel

(2018). Intergroup resource distribution among children living in segregated neighborhoods amid protracted conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(4), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000348

31.

Raabe

Beelmann

(2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta-analysis of age differences. Child development, 82(6), 1715–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01668.x

32.

Razpurker-Apfeld

Shamoa-Nir

(2015). The influence of exposure to religious symbols on out-group stereotypes. Psychology, 6(05), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.65063

33.

Razpurker-Apfeld

Shamoa-Nir

(2020). Imagined contact with strongly-identified outgroup members: Do religious trappings make the man?. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, doi:10.1111/ajsp.12412

34.

Reidy

C. M.

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Ajduković

Čorkalo Biruški

Cummings

E. M.

(2015). The political socialization of youth in a post-conflict community. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.12.005

35.

Renno

M. P.

Shutts

(2015). Children’s social category-based giving and its correlates: Expectations and preferences. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038819

36.

Rutland

Killen

(2017). Fair resource allocation among children and adolescents: The role of group and developmental processes. Child Development Perspectives, 11(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12211

37.

Rutland

Hitti

Mulvey

K. L.

Abrams

Killen

(2015). When does the in-group like the out-group? Bias among children as a function of group norms. Psychological Science, 26(6), 834–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572758

38.

Shamoa-Nir

Razpurker-Apfeld

(2019a). Investigating stereotypes towards the outgroup: The role of religious concepts and group membership. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(3), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1610657

39.

Shamoa-Nir

Razpurker-Apfeld

(2019b). Religious primes and threat-perceptions as predictors of attitudes toward Muslims in Israel. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-09509-z

40.

Sierksma

Lansu

T. A.

Karremans

J. C.

Bijlstra

(2018). Children’s helping behavior in an ethnic intergroup context: Evidence for outgroup helping. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 916–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000478

41.

Shamoa-Nir

Razpurker-Apfeld

(2020). Exposure to religious outgroups and intergroup anxiety in Israel. Israel Affairs

42.

Slone

Tarrasch

Hallis

(2000). Ethnic stereotypic attitudes among Israeli children: Two intervention programs. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 370–389.

43.

Štambuk

Taylor

L. K.

Löw

Čorkalo Biruški

Merrilees

C. E.

Ajduković

Cummings

E. M.

(2019). Parental competitive victimhood and interethnic discrimination among their children: The mediating role of ethnic socialization and symbolic threat to the in-group. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12321

44.

Taylor

L.K.

(2020). The Developmental Peacebuilding Model (DPM) of children’s prosocial behaviors in settings of intergroup conflict. Child Development Perspectives.

45.

Taylor

L. K.

Glen

(2019). From empathy to action: Can enhancing host-society children’s empathy promote positive attitudes and prosocial behavior towards refugees? Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2438

46.

Taylor

L. K

Merrilees

C. E.

Ajduković

Čorkalo Biruški

Cummings

E. M.

(2017). Complexity of risk: Mixed methods approach to understanding risk and insecurity in post-conflict settings. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(5), 585–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416684950

47.

Taylor

L. K.

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cairns

Cummings

E. M.

(2014). Political violence and adolescent outgroup attitudes and prosocial behaviors: Implications for positive intergroup relations. Social Development, 23(4), 840–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12074

48.

Taylor

L. K.

O’Driscoll

Dautel

McKeown

(2019a). Empathy to action: Child and adolescent outgroup attitudes and prosocial behaviors in a setting of intergroup conflict. Social Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12421

49.

Taylor

L. K.

Townsend

Merrilees

C. E.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Shirlow

Cummings

E. M.

(2019b). Adolescent civic engagement and perceived political conflict: The role of family cohesion. Youth & Society, 51(5), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X17697236

50.

Thoemmes

(2015). Reversing arrows in mediation models does not distinguish plausible models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 226–234. http://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351

51.

Tomasello

Vaish

(2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143812

52.

Tomovska

M. A.

Taylor

L. K.

Dautel

Rylander

(2019). Children’s understanding of ethnic group symbols: Piloting an instrument in the republic of north Macedonia. Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 26(1), 82–87.

53.

Verkuyten

(2007). Social psychology and multiculturalism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00011.x

54.

Vezzali

Cadamuro

Versari

Giovannini

Trifiletti

(2015). Feeling like a group after a natural disaster: Common ingroup identity and relations with outgroup victims among majority and minority young children. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12091

55.

Young

S. K.

Fox

N. A.

Zahn-Waxler

(1999). The relations between temperament and empathy in 2-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1189