Group status, group bias, and adolescents' reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts

This study investigated how social group status and group bias are related to adolescents' reasoning about social acceptance. Ninth and eleventh-grade students (N = 379) were asked to make judgments about the inclusion of individuals in school activities based on their peer crowd membership. Th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of behavioral development 2006-05, Vol.30 (3), p.208-218
Main Author: Horn, Stacey S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescents
Bias
Educational Environment
Grade 11
Grade 9
Group Dynamics
High School Students
Judgments
Logical Thinking
Membership
Moral reasoning
Moral Values
Peer Relationship
Peer relationships
Reference Groups
School Activities
Social Behavior
Social Status
Social Values
Student Attitudes
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study investigated how social group status and group bias are related to adolescents' reasoning about social acceptance. Ninth and eleventh-grade students (N = 379) were asked to make judgments about the inclusion of individuals in school activities based on their peer crowd membership. The results of the study revealed that both participants' and the targets' social reference group status were related to adolescents' judgments about participation in school activities. Overall, high status group members were chosen more than low status group members to participate in school activities. Adolescents who identified themselves with high status groups, however, were significantly more likely to choose a high status target than adolescents identifying with low status groups or those listing no group at all. Further, these adolescents were more likely than adolescents who identified themselves with low status groups or listed no group to use conventional reasoning and less likely to use moral reasoning when justifying their judgments.
ISSN:0165-0254
1464-0651
DOI:10.1177/0165025406066721