Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Reverse Nordic Exercise Training on Measures of Physical Fitness in Youth Male Soccer Players
Previous Article in Journal
Multicultural Responsiveness with Newcomer Youth: A Counsellors’ Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Youth
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/youth5040103
youth-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Need for Social Developmental Research on Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice

by
Katelyn J. Pitcher
1,* and
Rhiannon L. Smith
2
1
Psychology Department, Cornell College, Mount Vernon, IA 52314, USA
2
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Youth 2025, 5(4), 103; https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5040103
Submission received: 9 December 2024 / Revised: 22 August 2025 / Accepted: 26 September 2025 / Published: 29 September 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Ethnic and racial bias peaks during middle childhood. The development of internal motivation to respond without prejudice (IMRWP, i.e., a desire to act according to internalized beliefs about equality) and external motivation to respond without prejudice (EMRWP, i.e., the desire to appear non-prejudicial in order to avoid social censure or rejection) may help to reduce children’s racial bias. However, IMRWP and EMRWP have almost exclusively been studied among adults. The current review seeks to situate IMRWP and EMRWP research within established developmental psychological theories in order to provide a framework for needed research in this area. We describe how peer norms may contribute to or hinder internal and external MRWP development over the course of middle childhood. We consider same- and cross-ethnicity/race friendships as possible sources of IMRWP development. Finally, we address the potential for schools to contribute to both IMRWP and EMRWP development through policies that emphasize intergroup contact and education about race and racism. Given the urgent threat that ethnic and racial prejudice poses to society, better understanding the development of motivations to respond without prejudice from early in life is critical.

1. Introduction

Ethnic and racial bias are well documented in children, especially during early and middle childhood. Children’s explicit same-race preferences increase during the pre-school years as children develop more effective social categorization skills and same-race preferences reach their peak between the ages of five and eight (Qian et al., 2019; Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). During this period, children exhibit a clear preference for playing with and befriending same-ethnicity/race peers (Husnu et al., 2018) and a same-race bias in resource allocation (Monteiro et al., 2009). White children even endorse the idea that Black people are less susceptible than White people to physical pain (Dore et al., 2014). While attempts to reduce ethnic/racial bias are commonly carried out among adults, reducing bias earlier in development may provide more significant and longer-lasting bias reduction (Hazelbaker et al., 2022). To this end, research is needed to examine factors affecting social-cognitive ethnic and racial biases and attitudes as well as how those attitudes are translated into behavior. Internal motivation to respond without prejudice (IMRWP) and external motivation to respond without prejudice (EMRWP) have been identified as factors that may contribute to less expression of ethnic/racial bias (Plant & Devine, 1998). IMRWP describes a desire to act according to internalized beliefs about equality whereas EMRWP refers to the desire to appear non-prejudicial in order to avoid social censure or rejection. Research on motivations to respond without prejudice has almost exclusively been carried out among adults (LaCosse & Plant, 2020). Few studies have investigated internal MRWP and external MRWP among children in relation to ethnic prejudice (Jargon & Thijs, 2021; Thijs et al., 2023), and only one (J. M. Hughes et al., 2016) has focused on racial prejudice, specifically. These studies found that both motivations were present by middle childhood and independently contributed to lower reported ethnic or racial bias, but the factors that contribute to IMRWP and EMRWP development in children remain largely unknown.
Prejudice refers to “derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negative affect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behavior towards members of a group on account of their membership of that group” (Brown, 1995, p. 8) and can take implicit (i.e., unintentional, unconscious, automatic evaluations) or explicit (i.e., overtly held attitudes and beliefs) forms (Aboud & Steele, 2017). Prejudice is an urgent threat to society. For example, in the US, the federal government has identified White supremacist extremism as a top domestic terror threat (National Security Council, 2021), and ethnicity- and race-based hate crimes recently reached the highest level observed in over a decade (Farrell & Lockwood, 2023). Developmental researchers can contribute to the betterment of society by studying the ways in which ethnic and racial bias develop from early in life. This paper serves as a call to action for researchers to investigate IMRWP and EMRWP as factors that influence ethnic and racial bias reduction among children. The aims of this paper are to provide a systematic review of the literature that highlights how IMRWP and EMRWP theory from adult social psychology literature can be applied to developmental research and to offer a guide for future research in this area.
We focus on how IMRWP and EMRWP may develop in peer and school contexts. Family context also is a major factor in children’s racial development (Hazelbaker et al., 2022; D. Hughes et al., 2006) and warrants its own separate review in future work. In line with previous peer relations work that differentiates between larger peer group functioning and intimate dyadic friendships (Rubin et al., 2015), we consider the broader peer group context which includes group norms as well as one-on-one friendships. This paper addresses (a) how peer groups may affect IMRWP and EMRWP development (b) the ways in which same-ethnicity/race and interethnic/interracial friendships can contribute to a stronger IMRWP, and (c) how teachers and school administrators might facilitate the development of both IMRWP and EMRWP.

2. IMRWP and EMRWP Research Among Adults

IMRWP and EMRWP have primarily been investigated in adult samples. As such, the research we review in this section focuses on adults to provide a foundation for future work on children’s development of IMRWP and EMRWP.
The push to differentiate between internal and external sources of motivation to respond without prejudice came in response to concerns that the reduction in explicit racial bias in the American population during the end of the 20th century was the result of normative social pressure rather than an actual reduction in internalized racist beliefs (Plant & Devine, 1998). Thus, some researchers argued that racial bias reduction was purely motivated by external social pressure. Plant and Devine (1998), however, argued that the existence of external sources of motivation does not automatically invalidate all internal sources, such as internalized beliefs about egalitarianism. Rather, they argued that individual differences in levels of external and internal motivation to respond without prejudice may contribute to the source of individuals’ expression of bias and susceptibility to social context. They describe IMRWP as a person’s internalized belief that racial bias is wrong and a desire to act accordingly. EMRWP refers to how susceptible a person is to social pressure to conform to an anti-bias norm.
A person’s level of IMRWP does not predict their EMRWP, or vice versa (LaCosse & Plant, 2020; Plant & Devine, 1998). As such, it is possible for a person to be both highly internally and externally motivated, only internally or only externally motivated, or not motivated at all to respond without prejudice. Butz and Plant (2009) described four profiles of IMRWP and EMRWP in individuals and the behavior patterns associated with each combination. People who have strong IMRWP but weak EMRWP are in the effective motivation group and show low levels of explicit prejudice in public and private even while under stress. On the other hand, members of the compliant motivation group have high EMRWP and low IMRWP and are primarily concerned with sources of external motivation like fear of social reprisal. They are not motivated by strong internalized anti-bias beliefs, which contributes to them showing low prejudice in public but only when an anti-bias norm is present. Additionally, they tend to show higher levels of bias in private and when under stress. People in the determined group have high EMRWP and high IMRWP, indicating that they are both internally and externally motivated. While they tend to show low bias in both private and public spaces, their ability to respond without prejudice is often impaired when under stress. Unmotivated people have low EMRWP and IMRWP and therefore are likely to respond with prejudice both in public and private. These groups and their associated levels of implicit and explicit bias were confirmed by additional work by Bamberg and Verkuyten (2021) on anti-immigrant prejudice. Overall, there is consensus that effectively motivated people not only show the lowest levels of explicit bias regardless of the social context but are also the most effective at interacting with racial outgroups (LaCosse & Plant, 2020).

3. Theories of Prejudice in Childhood

Although theories of prejudice development among children primarily concentrate on how children develop prejudice rather than factors that contribute to whether and how prejudice is expressed, these theories can contribute to an understanding of potential applications of IMRWP and EMRWP to research with children. For example, developmental intergroup theory (DIT) argues that children’s prejudices are primarily a result of environmental factors contributing to the salience of particular characteristics associated with group membership and children developing the cognitive skills required to identify salient categories (Bigler & Liben, 2007). While DIT concentrates on the presence and content of children’s biases and thus does not specifically address children’s motivations to respond without prejudice, it does offer some insight into how EMRWP may begin to develop during middle childhood. Children’s egocentrism tends to decrease as they enter middle childhood, which gives them the opportunity to recognize not only others’ biases but also to what degree expression of those biases is socially acceptable (Bigler & Wright, 2014).
Social Identity Development Theory (SIDT; Nesdale, 2004) draws in part on adult Social Identity Theory (SIT; J. C. Turner et al., 1979) to describe the development of children’s ethnic attitudes. The increasing desire to find and conform to a social group during middle childhood is a vital component in SIDT, which states that children’s likelihood of developing ethnic or racial prejudice is linked to how much they identify with their ethnic/racial in-group and whether that group upholds prejudice or equality as a norm (Nesdale, 2012). Children appear to be aware of their ethnic/racial in-group and show a clear preference for that in-group during early childhood (Rizzo et al., 2022). However, according to SIDT, that preference is based on high rates of in-group liking, not an active dislike for the out-group (Nesdale, 2011). How much children identify with their in-group may be especially likely to influence EMRWP due to children’s desire to conform to the norms of their group (in this case, the in-group’s norms about out-group exclusion). It is possible that in-group identification also may influence IMRWP by making it more likely that children will internalize the norms of their in-group.
Social-cognitive domain theory (SCDT) addresses children’s social-cognitive moral reasoning (Killen & Smetana, 2005). According to this theory, children may make social decisions, for example, about social exclusion or expressions of bias, based on moral reasoning (such as an internalized moral belief that ethnic/racial prejudice is wrong) or based on social-conventional reasoning (such as awareness of and adherence to anti-prejudice norms). Children’s internalized moral beliefs may contribute to IMRWP. For example, if children believe that excluding a peer based on the peer’s race is morally wrong, then this belief may foster an internal motivation to respond without prejudice resulting in avoidance of race-based exclusion. Because children desire to conform to social norms (Nesdale, 2004), anti-prejudice norms may influence EMRWP. These norms also may become internalized (Jargon & Thijs, 2021) and thereby influence IMRWP. Because anti-prejudice norms are moral in nature, it is worth considering whether children adhere to such norms due to personal moral convictions or normative pressures (also see Thijs et al., 2023), similar to classic ideas on the distinction between normative versus informational influence (e.g., Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). That is, children may strive to conform to anti-prejudice norms based on their desires to be liked and fit in with the group, even if they do not personally agree with the norm (normative influence), or they may conform because they are convinced that the norm is right (informational influence).
Although the theories reviewed here were not developed with IMRWP and EMRWP in mind, they point to the importance of both internal individual beliefs and external social factors in influencing children’s ethnic and racial biases and bias-based behaviors (e.g., race-based peer exclusion).

4. IMRWP and EMRWP Development in Children

Whether the group profiles observed in adults (Butz & Plant, 2009) are the same among children is unknown. Although they do not directly assess IMRWP and EMRWP, studies examining the conditions under which children express ethnic/racial bias provide some insight into the possible development of IMRWP and EMRWP among children. Despite reporting the highest rates of explicit ethnic/racial prejudice, children between the ages of six and eight will actively repress their prejudice when responding to an ethnic/racial bias measure while being watched compared to when they are left alone (FitzRoy & Rutland, 2010; Monteiro et al., 2009; Rutland et al., 2005). This change in behavior due to social accountability may be an indicator of an emerging EMRWP, as it reflects a tendency to respond without prejudice based on others’ social evaluation of the child’s behavior. Rutland et al. (2005) found that children between the ages of six and eight who had strong internalization of anti-bias beliefs reported low explicit ethnic/racial bias regardless of whether they were being watched. This finding may indicate that children at this age have developed some level of IMRWP and is in line with research among adults demonstrating that individuals with higher IMRWP express less prejudice regardless of whether they are being observed (Butz & Plant, 2009). Indeed, Thijs et al. (2023) found that between the ages of seven and 13, children who had high IMRWP also reported more positive ethnic out-group attitudes. Further research should examine whether the groups identified in adult research are present in childhood and, if so, whether these groups of children show behavior patterns similar to adults in terms of the conditions under which prejudice is expressed (i.e., in public vs. in private or under cognitive load).
The developmental trajectory of IMRWP and EMRWP is unclear. Thijs et al. (2023) found that children’s IMRWP and EMRWP were not intercorrelated, though each variable was correlated with itself over time. J. M. Hughes et al. (2016) also found that IMRWP and EMRWP were not significantly correlated among eight- to ten-year-olds. In this study, EMRWP increased with age and IMRWP was also positively correlated with age but to a lesser degree, which the authors argued might indicate that additional contextual factors like the development of egalitarian ideals and the degree to which children are educated about ethnic and racial injustice may contribute to stronger IMRWP. Although the authors do not consider this point, it also is possible that knowledge about race and racism could potentially contribute to EMRWP by alerting children to the prospect of being perceived as racist by others.

5. A Guide for Future Developmental Research on IMRWP and EMRWP

In the following sections, we describe ways in which the social contexts of peer groups, friendships, and schools may influence IMRWP and EMRWP development. The potential influences on and outcomes of IMRWP and EMRWP development among children are depicted in Figure 1. To further guide future research, we specify research questions to be addressed in future work. A summary of these research questions is presented in Table 1.

6. Peer Group Influences on IMRWP and EMRWP

By age six, children show clear awareness of people’s perceptions of them and indicate a desire to be accepted by their peers (Nesdale & Dalton, 2011). This focus on peer group acceptance coincides with a growing emphasis on group membership, be it related to social categories such as race or randomly assigned minimal groups (i.e., randomly assigned groups based on an arbitrary distinction such as shirt color; Over & McCall, 2018). Children begin to value not only their in-group’s perception of them, but also upholding group norms, which often results in them making decisions with a clear in-group bias (Nesdale, 2011). Additionally, their desire to protect in-group norms is so strong that even when groups are completely artificial and based on random assignment, children quickly develop in-group preference (Abrams et al., 2007). In this way, peer groups may hinder the development of IMRWP if making biased decisions is beneficial to their in-group. A question for future research is whether children’s in-group peer preferences and/or prioritization of group norms predict lower IMRWP over time.
At the same time as group loyalty is increasing, children’s understanding of moral concepts like equality and fairness become more pronounced and sophisticated (Rutland & Killen, 2015). Thus, if their in-group endorses exclusion of out-group members, children in middle childhood may experience conflict between their developing loyalty to their groups and their awareness of a moral imperative for inclusion and acceptance of others. By the end of early childhood, children appear to have morality based on reducing harm and react negatively when they believe someone is being excluded based on race (Rutland & Killen, 2015). By age five, most children report feeling negatively about a person they know has excluded someone based on race or gender (Burkholder et al., 2019). When exclusion is clearly the result of prejudice or stereotypes, children will often condemn it on moral grounds (Rutland & Killen, 2015). If one were to consider this behavior through the lens of social cognitive domain theory (SCDT), children would be utilizing the moral domain in their social reasoning which may indicate an early form of IMRWP. A goal for future research will be to investigate whether IMRWP contributes to moral reasoning about race-based peer exclusion. Additionally, further research should investigate whether IMRWP is associated with confronting ethnically/racially biased behavior in peers, and how concern for group cohesion affects that behavior.
When peer exclusion situations become somewhat more ambiguous, older children use moral reasoning less and are less likely to report negative feelings about the excluder (Killen & Stangor, 2001). Instead, children in middle-to-late childhood start to use social-conventional reasoning based on the norms and functioning of the group. This may include, for example, choosing a White child over a Black child to join a math club because they believe the Black child will be less likely to be good at math. Although the decision is clearly linked to a racial stereotype, older children will often not condemn the excluder on the grounds that they are trying to protect the cohesive functioning of their group. Such emphasis on group cohesion and stability also affects how children make decisions about their own social exclusion behavior. Older children are significantly more likely than younger children to exclude a child of another race and use social-conventional reasoning in their explanation of their behavior (Rutland & Killen, 2015). However, strong identification with one’s in-group does not automatically result in ignoring potentially biased behavior, and IMRWP development in particular may help children to develop a positive in-group identity without a negative out-group bias. Future research should test whether children with strong IMRWP are less likely to use social-conventional reasoning in their explanations of race-based peer exclusionary behavior by in-group members. Additionally, further work should address how IMRWP relates to children’s own race-based resource allocation and social exclusion behaviors.
Whereas peer in-groups who endorse outgroup exclusion may hinder IMRWP development, peer out-groups may enhance IMRWP. A study of adults found that feeling accepted by a racial out-group contributed to stronger IMRWP and a greater desire for more cross-racial contact and cooperation over time (Kuntsman et al., 2013). Whether this association holds among children is a question for future research.
Although peer in-groups who endorse outgroup exclusion may impede IMRWP development, peer groups with anti-bias norms may foster the development of both IMRWP and EMRWP. Studies using minimal groups indicate that an explicit anti-bias group norm contributes to children in middle and late childhood responding more positively to an out-group member (Nesdale & Dalton, 2011). Similarly, studies assessing children’s responses specifically to ethnic/racial out-groups find evidence for the impact of anti-bias norms. If the in-group’s anti-bias norms are internalized, this also may have positive implications for IMRWP (Jargon & Thijs, 2021). It should be noted, however, that some research indicates that children over the age of seven allocate resources more equally between same- and other-race groups only when they are made aware of an anti-bias norm and are being observed by someone else (Monteiro et al., 2009). Indeed, children tend to follow group norms more closely especially if they know that their groupmates may see their responses (Abrams et al., 2007). In accordance with SIDT (Nesdale, 2011), this change in behavior in response to anti-bias norms and observation may reflect children developing strong EMRWP to avoid social censure and exclusion. Research is needed to directly examine whether peer group anti-bias norms contribute to EMRWP and IMRWP development, especially under what conditions children internalize anti-bias norms.
SIDT concentrates on children’s level of identification with their in-group and how that in-group’s norms affect prejudice, but it also leaves room for individual differences via children’s social acumen (Nesdale, 2011). Nesdale (2011) found that 7- and 9-year-old children with higher empathy showed more out-group liking only when there was an anti-bias in-group norm; empathy had no effect on out-group liking in groups with a pro-bias norm. This may indicate that children with high empathy are more likely to internalize anti-bias norms. It would make intuitive sense that empathy should enhance IMRWP development. It may be that empathy is a precursor to IMRWP, but is not sufficient for strong IMRWP development. Future studies should examine the developmental trajectory of IMRWP in relation to empathy.
While children’s self-report of their biases and motivations to respond without prejudice are important, how those beliefs and attitudes contribute to their behavior also is vital to understand. All of the studies reviewed above have utilized self-report measures to investigate children’s ethnic or racial bias and have measured their affective responses to exclusion only in hypothetical vignettes, not how they respond in an actual exclusion event. Future work is needed that utilizes peer reports and observational methods. For example, research could use observations and/or peer nominations (e.g., Crick, 1996) to assess children’s exclusionary behavior and responses to exclusion in their real-life peer groups and test relations with IMRWP and EMRWP. Such research designs would help limit the effects of social desirability bias which has been identified in children (Camerini & Schulz, 2018) and would be especially useful in understanding how IMRWP and EMRWP relate to how children perpetrate and respond to race-based exclusion and bullying in the real world.

7. Friendships as Sources of IMRWP

While general peer groups and peer norms become significantly more meaningful during middle childhood, friendships also begin to take center stage as children start elementary school (FitzRoy & Rutland, 2010). Friendships are fundamentally different from other peer relationships because they involve mutual liking, affection, and intimacy (Bukowski, 2001). In this section, we consider the potential effects of cross- and same-race friendships on IMRWP development.

7.1. Cross-Race Friendships

Researchers have long argued that intergroup contact may help reduce ethnic/racial prejudice, especially during childhood (Allport, 1954; Brown et al., 2007). Contact with people of a different race may contribute to a stronger sense of familiarity (Bigler & Liben, 2007), greater likelihood of rejecting ethnic and racial stereotypes (Killen et al., 2022), and enhancing empathy towards ethnic and racial out-groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). While several studies have indicated that greater exposure to other-race people, in general, contributes to lower ethnic/racial prejudice, the effect of intergroup contact is dependent on whether that contact is consistent and positive (Brown et al., 2007). Allport’s theory highlights personalized intergroup friendships (e.g., cross-race friendships) as a critical context for positive, consistent intergroup contact that contributes to prejudice reduction (Allport, 1954). It is possible that one mechanism by which cross-race friendship leads to prejudice reduction is via IMRWP development.
Children with cross-race friendships are more likely to report negative perceptions of race-based exclusion (Killen et al., 2022), perhaps signaling the impact of cross-race friendships on IMRWP. In a meta-analysis of research on cross-racial friendships, Davies et al. (2011) found that cross-racial friendships are more effective at fostering positive out-group racial attitudes than simple cross-race contact in all stages of child development. Further research indicates that cross-ethnic/racial friendships may be most effective at reducing prejudice during middle childhood (Killen et al., 2007). Time spent together with cross-ethnicity/race friends increases the likelihood of children observing their friends acting counter-stereotypically, which may help White children in particular question the ethnic and racial stereotypes they have been exposed to (Killen et al., 2022). These experiences also give children examples from their own lives to pull from when confronting stereotypic statements made by others, a common tactic used by low prejudice children when questioning friends about their racial bias (Aboud & Fenwick, 1999). Such counter-stereotypic experiences may help children internalize anti-bias beliefs, thus contributing to the development of IMRWP. Perhaps most relevant to the development of IMRWP are the positive emotions and intimacy children share in cross-race friendships. Research indicates that positive affect resulting from intergroup contact is more important for prejudice reduction than knowledge gleaned from intergroup contact (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Future research examining whether and how children’s cross-race friendships predict IMRWP will help to advance knowledge in this area. In addition to testing whether cross-race friendships predict IMRWP, it also is of interest to consider the alternative direction of effect. It may be that children who have internalized beliefs about ethnic and/or racial equality are more likely to seek out cross-ethnic/racial friendships and are more comfortable in cross-ethnic/racial interactions. Longitudinal research will be essential to examine the potential bidirectional relationship between cross-race friendships and IMRWP and to investigate whether these relations differ across development.
Additionally, future research should examine the degree to which IMRWP resulting from cross-race friendship is generalized to other groups apart from the friend’s group. Children tend to feel more positively about an entire out-group following the development of a friendship with a member of that group (Brown et al., 2007). Thus, their positive emotions about their friend generalize to the friend’s larger group, perhaps giving children an internal reason to respond without prejudice. It is unknown but relevant to consider whether cross-race friendships influence IMRWP only towards other members of the friend’s ethnic/racial group or towards all ethnic/racial out-groups.
One could argue that cross-ethnicity/race friendships may promote EMRWP because White children may fear social censure from their friends of color. However, children with cross-race friendships report significantly lower anxiety during cross-ethnic/racial interactions compared to children without cross-ethnicity/race friendships (Bagci et al., 2020; Tropp et al., 2022). Such anxiety is usually higher in people who are high in EMRWP because they fear that they will say something racist in mixed-race company and be socially punished (LaCosse & Plant, 2020). Even people who have high IMRWP in addition to high EMRWP show elevated rates of anxiety during cross-racial interactions (Butz & Plant, 2009). Thus, the pattern of lower anxiety in children with cross-ethnic/racial friendships may indicate that these friendships do not contribute to EMRWP.

7.2. Same-Ethnicity/Race Friendships

Children exhibit homophily in their friendships and tend to have same-race friends (Rivas-Drake et al., 2019). This tendency combined with increasing segregation in neighborhoods and within schools means that most White children in America are likely to have primarily White friends (Coughlan, 2018; Killen et al., 2007). It is possible that same-race friendships may contribute to EMRWP if children fear censure from friends. In regard to IMRWP, cross-ethnic/racial friendships are uniquely situated to contribute to White children developing stronger IMRWP; however, same-race friendships may offer some opportunities for IMRWP development as well.
Children may be more likely to talk about sensitive topics like race and racism among friends compared with other peers and are thus more likely to communicate their beliefs and, due to their shared affinity, may be more likely to interrogate these beliefs as well (Aboud & Fenwick, 1999). Such conversations may contribute to the development of shared values about the importance (or lack of importance) of ethnic and racial equality and responding without prejudice. To the degree that friends are dissimilar in terms of IMRWP, these conversations also may provide an opportunity for children with higher IMRWP to positively influence their friends with lower IMRWP. Aboud and Fenwick (1999) found that when high prejudice and low prejudice friends had dyadic conversations in which they discussed their previous responses to a racial bias measure, high prejudice children reported significantly lower explicit racial prejudice following their interaction. Low prejudice children, on the other hand, showed no significant change in racial prejudice after their conversation, perhaps suggesting that children with strong IMRWP may be less likely to internalize or express their friends’ biased beliefs. The significant change in the high prejudice group indicates that when children are challenged about their prejudiced statements by friends, they seem to show less explicit prejudice. It is possible that this change could be the result of EMRWP if the highly prejudiced children were motivated to express less prejudice for fear of the friend possibly having a second opportunity to evaluate their updated responses. However, the measure was completed individually, and other studies have indicated that children are rarely affected by social pressure to appear unbiased without a viewer present (FitzRoy & Rutland, 2010; Monteiro et al., 2009; Rutland et al., 2005). More likely is that the change in response was the result of IMRWP. An open conversation with a friend about prejudice which included counter-stereotypic examples of both White and Black people as well as comments emphasizing similarities between racial groups may have contributed to the high prejudice participants beginning to internalize a more egalitarian belief via social learning. In this way, same-ethnicity/race friends may help facilitate the development of IMRWP in White children. It should be noted that these conversations may also take place in cross-ethnic/cross-racial friendships. Unfortunately, little research has addressed potential associations between friendships and IMRWP (or EMRWP) in adults, and no studies exist among children. Issues to be addressed in future research include the degree to which friends are similar on IMRWP, whether same-ethnicity/race friends influence IMRWP development, under what circumstances children who have strong IMRWP are willing to confront their friends about ethnically prejudiced or racist language or behavior, and how those confrontations may contribute to IMRWP development in those friends.

8. School Factors in IMRWP and EMRWP Development

Diverse school environments provide opportunities for intergroup contact, which may promote IMRWP and EMRWP development. Allport’s theory indicates that optimal contact resulting in prejudice reduction occurs when authority figures indicate approval of intergroup relations (Allport, 1954). Sources of authority in the school context may influence the development of IMRWP and EMRWP. In this section, we consider structural, administrative, and teacher factors that may influence IMRWP and EMRWP development.

8.1. Structural Factors

From an intergroup contact perspective, one of the most important predictors of whether a school environment is conducive to prejudice reduction is how ethnically/racially diverse the student body is. Unsurprisingly, children in more diverse schools have significantly more opportunities to develop cross-race friendships (Cameron & Turner, 2017). Children who attend more ethnically/racially diverse schools and experience more intergroup contact often report lower ethnic/racial prejudice and use stereotypes less often in their social reasoning than children from more ethnically/racially homogeneous schools (Tropp et al., 2022). They also are significantly more likely to feel that exclusion is wrong even in the ambiguous scenarios that so often elicit exclusionary decisions based on social-conventional reasoning in middle childhood (Killen et al., 2007; Rutland & Killen, 2015). These results suggest that children in more ethnically/racially diverse schools may develop stronger IMRWP than children in more homogenous schools.
However, the mere presence of ethnic and/or racial diversity in a school does not automatically mean that children will consistently interact with ethnic/racial out-groups or develop intergroup friendships. Children often self-segregate by ethnicity and/or race in diverse school environments (Tropp et al., 2022). Several interventions have sought to address this issue by creating scenarios in which mixed-ethnicity/race groups of children are placed in situations that require them to interact and cooperate (Cameron & Turner, 2017; Guerra et al., 2013; Tropp et al., 2022; R. N. Turner & Cameron, 2016). It is possible that interventions such as these facilitate IMRWP by helping children practice working together across groups to achieve shared goals. Future research should investigate how in-school desegregation interventions may contribute to IMRWP development.

8.2. Administrative Factors

Given the importance of authority sanction for fostering positive intergroup relations (Allport, 1954), school administrators may play a role in IMRWP and EMRWP development by establishing anti-bias school norms. Many researchers have argued that one major limitation of the desegregation attempts made following Brown v. the Board of Education, which mandated racial desegregation of schools in the United States, was that school administrations showed covert or, in some cases, overt hostility towards including children of color in previously White schools and classrooms (Killen et al., 2007). More recent research indicates that an explicit anti-bias norm in a school contributes to children expressing less ethnic/racial prejudice, even when their peer group has an explicit pro-bias norm (Nesdale, 2011). This finding may indicate that stated anti-bias beliefs by school administrators contributes to EMRWP, possibly out of children’s concern that they will be punished for acting counter to the school’s values. However, it also could be that the anti-bias norms were internalized as IMRWP given that the school-level anti-bias norm was more effective at mitigating prejudice in pro-bias peer groups than direct teacher surveillance (Nesdale & Dalton, 2011). Future studies investigating school administrators’ influence on IMRWP and EMRWP development would be pertinent.
In addition to expressed attitudes and establishing school norms, administrators may influence IMRWP and EMRWP development via specific administrative policies. For example, administrative practices like academic tracking often segregate children by placing Black and Latiné children in lower-achieving tracks than White students, which results in physical segregation by placing students in different classrooms (Coughlan, 2018; Killen et al., 2022). If successful, political actions such as recent efforts in some states to roll back desegregation measures in schools (Bailey, 2023) may result in administrators eliminating desegregation policies, making cross-ethnic/racial contact in schools even less likely. Future research should be oriented towards investigating how school diversity relates to children’s IMRWP and EMRWP in the face of segregation and whether doing away with academic tracking practices may help to promote children’s motivation to respond without prejudice.

8.3. Teacher Factors

Teachers may act as sources of EMRWP if children are afraid they may be punished for expressing ethnically or racially biased beliefs. While teacher surveillance does not appear to contribute to less biased behavior in children approaching late childhood (Nesdale & Dalton, 2011), those in the early stages of middle childhood do show less prejudiced behavior when they are being watched by an adult experimenter (FitzRoy & Rutland, 2010; Monteiro et al., 2009; Rutland et al., 2005). We submit that EMRWP would be higher among students with a teacher who has expressed anti-bias beliefs and that EMRWP would be further strengthened if students view their teacher as a strong source of authority. These possibilities warrant investigation in future research.
Teachers may influence IMRWP development based on whether and how they address race and racism in class. Priest et al. (2016) found that teachers tend to wait for students to bring up race by themselves before addressing the topic in class. Participating teachers often claimed their students did not see race or rarely thought about race, though the study found that most of the students in their classrooms clearly understood the concept of racism and many students of color referenced being the target of racist comments and behavior perpetrated by their classmates. Teachers in more diverse schools showed a greater willingness to proactively discuss racism, though many still fell into color-blind practices if they felt uncomfortable or unsupported. Color-blind practices emphasize that race “does not matter” or that children “should not see race” (Neville et al., 2013). Apfelbaum et al. (2010) argued that teachers tend to utilize either color-blind or diversity value mindsets when discussing race and diversity with their students. Importantly, they found that color-blind teaching lessons contributed to White children between the ages of eight and eleven only being able to identify racial bias in explicitly biased situations. When students took part in lessons that emphasized the value of racial diversity, on the other hand, they were more sensitive to racial bias both in explicit conditions and when conditions were somewhat ambiguous. They were also more likely to reference racial bias in their explanations of the situations, which prompted teachers to intervene. Children who received lessons about the value of racial diversity appeared to be less likely to use social-conventional explanations and ignore more subtle expressions of racial bias, thus contributing to more identification of racist behavior. Implications of this work include that by emphasizing the value of racial diversity, teachers may help White children identify racist behavior and potentially act as allies by confronting that racist behavior or bringing it to the attention of an adult. Although untested in this research, it is possible that children were better able to identify and call out subtle racism because the diversity value instruction contributed to their IMRWP which may have helped them utilize more moral rather than social-conventional explanations.
Addressing the historical roots of racism and its ongoing effects may help children develop IMRWP. J. M. Hughes et al. (2007) found that when White children learned about historical examples of anti-Black discrimination, they reported less explicit racial prejudice. Importantly, when these children were asked about how they felt about the lessons and what they learned, many children emphasized the importance of racial equality and referenced counter-stereotypic examples of Black people to further explain why they believed in it. These statements seem to be indicative of an internalized belief in equality, a vital aspect of IMRWP. Further studies indicate that addressing contemporary and historical examples of racism is not only vital to understanding many historical events, but also in helping White children to identify and reject racism (see Bigler & Wright, 2014). Unfortunately, there has been considerable backlash against discussing racism with children in the classroom. Critics from anti-Critical Race Theory (CRT) groups have argued that teaching about such topics would result in White children feeling shame about their racial identity and children of color experiencing distress due to hearing about people like themselves being victimized (López et al., 2021). However, research indicates that White children show no significant change in their perception of White people, and Black children show no clear signs of distress after learning about historical anti-Black racism (Bigler & Wright, 2014; J. M. Hughes et al., 2007). A goal for future work will be to understand whether and how classroom instruction addressing the historical roots of racism and its ongoing effects promotes children’s development of IMRWP. Research among adults does raise legitimate concerns that people may show more explicit and implicit prejudice after hearing an antiprejudice message that emphasizes EMRWP (Legault et al., 2011). Further work should address whether lessons about historical and ongoing systemic racism contributes to EMRWP and whether they show similar backlash responses.
Beyond historical and current events, teachers also may help foster children’s IMRWP development by integrating books and other media that include people of color. These books not only offer representation to children of color, who are commonly exposed to media that does not include them, but can also be an opportunity for White children in highly ethnically/racially homogenous schools to develop more positive attitudes about children of color. Storybooks that emphasize cooperation between children of different ethnic or racial groups appear to contribute to more positive out-group attitudes and more willingness to take part in intergroup contact (Husnu et al., 2018; Johnson & Aboud, 2017). The practice of exposing children to people of other backgrounds via books and videos is known as indirect contact, and it has been investigated as an alternative to direct intergroup contact in schools that lack racial diversity. Several interventions have been developed that utilize video technology in order to further model intergroup contact and cooperation; these interventions are associated with more positive out-group attitudes and more negative perceptions of outgroup exclusion in middle childhood (Killen et al., 2022; O’Donnell et al., 2021). This type of intervention offers an additional approach that may enable teachers to support students’ IMRWP development. Research should directly assess the impact of such approaches on children’s IMRWP development, and how that may relate to children’s behavior in classroom based on teacher- and peer-report. Of particular interest is how different forms of media representation, such as books, movie, television, video games, and social media posts, function as sources of indirect contact. This work is especially vital in the face of recent political decisions that may result in more school segregation and suppression of materials that mention race or racism (Bailey, 2023; Pollock et al., 2022).

9. Conclusions

Ethnic and racial prejudice is an urgent threat in society, and reducing ethnic and racial bias is critical. Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice have received considerable attention in adult social psychology as factors that contribute to ethnic/racial bias reduction. Developmental psychologists can contribute to societal change by investigating IMRWP and EMRWP development in children. In this review, we addressed how IMRWP and EMRWP appear to develop during middle childhood and can be facilitated or stymied by social contexts including peer groups, friendships, and schools. Given the importance of parents and families for children’s racial development (Hazelbaker et al., 2022; D. Hughes et al., 2006), future work should address IMRWP and EMRWP development within the family context. We offer a model summarizing the potential influences on and outcomes of IMRWP and EMRWP development among children to help guide future research (see Figure 1). Additionally, we enumerated suggestions for future research (summarized in Table 1) that may serve as a starting point for researchers investigating IMRWP and EMRWP among children. We believe that this work is vital in the face of anti-desegregation and anti-CRT legislative efforts (Bailey, 2023; Pollock et al., 2022) and the increasing threat of ethnicity/race-based hate (Farrell & Lockwood, 2023) in order to better understand how to promote positive interethnic/interracial attitudes and anti-racist allyship from early in life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.J.P.; writing—review and editing, R.L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No data was used in writing this review paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Exploring and evaluating school-based interventions to reduce prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 767–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aboud, F. E., & Steele, J. R. (2017). Theoretical perspectives on the development of implicit and explicit prejudice. In A. Rutland, D. Nesdale, & C. S. Brown (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents (pp. 165–184). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Ferrell, J. (2007). Older but wilier. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar]
  5. Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Sommers, S. R., & Ambady, N. (2010). In blind pursuit of racial equality? Psychological Science, 21(11), 1587–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bagci, S. C., Cameron, L., Turner, R. N., Morais, C., Carby, A., Ndhlovu, M., & Leney, A. (2020). Cross-ethnic friendship self-efficacy: A new predictor of cross-ethnic friendships among children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(7), 1049–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bailey, A. (2023, April 13). South Arkansas school resegregation likely as AG taps courts to erase integration measures. Arkansas Times.
  8. Bamberg, K., & Verkuyten, M. (2021). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice: A person-centered approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 162(4), 435–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bigler, R. S., & Wright, Y. F. (2014). Reading, writing, arithmetic, and racism? risks and benefits to teaching children about intergroup biases. Child Development Perspectives, 8(1), 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 692–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bukowski, W. M. (2001). Friendship and the worlds of childhood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 91, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Burkholder, A. R., D’Esterre, A. P., & Killen, M. (2019). Intergroup relationships, context, and prejudice in childhood. In H. E. Fitzgerald, D. J. Johnson, D. B. Qin, F. A. Villarruel, & J. Norder (Eds.), Handbook of children and prejudice (pp. 115–130). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Butz, D. A., & Plant, E. A. (2009). Prejudice control and interracial relations: The role of motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1311–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Camerini, A., & Schulz, P. J. (2018). Social desirability bias in child-report social well-being: Evaluation of the children’s social desirability short scale using item response theory and examination of its impact on self-report family and peer relationships. Child Indicators Research, 11(4), 1159–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cameron, L., & Turner, R. N. (2017). Intergroup contact among children. In S. Stathi, & L. Vezzali (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 151–168). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  18. Coughlan, R. W. (2018). Divergent trends in neighborhood and school segregation in the age of school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(4), 349–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dore, R. A., Hoffman, K. M., Lillard, A. S., & Trawalter, S. (2014). Children’s racial bias in perceptions of others’ pain. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farrell, A., & Lockwood, S. (2023). Addressing hate crime in the 21st century: Trends, threats, and opportunities for intervention. Annual Review of Criminology, 6(1), 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. FitzRoy, S., & Rutland, A. (2010). Learning to control ethnic intergroup bias in childhood. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 679–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Monteiro, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2013). Translating recategorization strategies into an antibias educational intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hazelbaker, T., Brown, C. S., Nenadal, L., & Mistry, R. S. (2022). Fostering anti-racism in white children and youth: Development within contexts. The American Psychologist, 77(4), 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hughes, J. M., Alo, J., Krieger, K., & O’Leary, L. M. (2016). Emergence of internal and external motivations to respond without prejudice in white children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hughes, J. M., Bigler, R. S., & Levy, S. R. (2007). Consequences of learning about historical racism among European American and African American children. Child Development, 78(6), 1689–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Husnu, S., Mertan, B., & Cicek, O. (2018). Reducing Turkish Cypriot children’s prejudice toward Greek Cypriots: Vicarious and extended intergroup contact through storytelling. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jargon, M., & Thijs, J. (2021). Antiprejudice norms and ethnic attitudes in preadolescents: A matter of stimulating the “right reasons”. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(3), 468–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Johnson, P. J., & Aboud, F. E. (2017). Evaluation of an intervention using cross-race friend storybooks to reduce prejudice among majority race young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Killen, M., Crystal, D. S., & Ruck, M. (2007). The social developmental benefits of intergroup contact among children and adolescents. In E. Frankenburg, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Lessons in integration: Realizing the promise of racial diversity in American schools (pp. 57–73). University of Virginia Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Killen, M., Luken Raz, K., & Graham, S. (2022). Reducing prejudice through promoting cross-group friendships. Review of General Psychology, 26(3), 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2005). Social–Cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen, & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Children’s social reasoning about inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 72(1), 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kuntsman, J. W., Plant, E. A., Zielaskowski, K., & LaCosse, J. (2013). Feeling in with the outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. LaCosse, J., & Plant, E. A. (2020). Internal motivation to respond without prejudice fosters respectful responses in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 1037–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic effects of antiprejudice messages: How motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1472–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. López, F., Molnar, A., Johnson, R., Patterson, A., Ward, L., & Kumashiro, K. (2021). Understanding the attacks on critical race theory. National Education Policy Center. [Google Scholar]
  41. Monteiro, M. B., de França, D. X., & Rodrigues, R. (2009). The development of intergroup bias in childhood: How social norms can shape children’s racial behaviours. International Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. National Security Council. (2021). Fact sheet: National strategy for countering domestic terrorism. Executive Office of the President, National Security Council. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In F. Sani, & M. Bennett (Eds.), The development of the social self. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nesdale, D. (2011). Social groups and children’s intergroup prejudice: Just how influential are social group norms? Annals of Psychology, 27(3), 600–610. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nesdale, D. (2012). The development of children’s ethnic prejudice: The critical influence of social identity, social group norms, and social acumen. In D. W. Russell, & C. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice (pp. 51–76). Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nesdale, D., & Dalton, D. (2011). Children’s social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 895–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Neville, H. A., Awad, G. H., Brooks, J. E., Flores, M. P., & Bluemel, J. (2013). Color-blind racial ideology. The American Psychologist, 68(6), 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. O’Donnell, A. W., Friehs, M., Bracegirdle, C., Zúñiga, C., Watt, S. E., & Barlow, F. K. (2021). Technological and analytical advancements in intergroup contact research. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 171–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Over, H., & McCall, C. (2018). Becoming us and them: Social learning and intergroup bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(4), e12384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pollock, M., Rogers, J., Kwako, A., Matschiner, A., Kendall, R., Bingener, C., Reece, E., Kennedy, B., & Howard, J. (2022). The conflict campaign: Exploring local experiences of the campaign to ban “critical race theory” in public K–12 education in the U.S., 2020–2021. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. [Google Scholar]
  54. Priest, N., Walton, J., White, F., Kowal, E., Fox, B., & Paradies, Y. (2016). ‘You are not born being racist, are you?’ discussing racism with primary aged-children. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(4), 808–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qian, M. K., Heyman, G. D., Quinn, P. C., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2019). Differential developmental courses of implicit and explicit biases for different other-race classes. Developmental Psychology, 55(7), 1440–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rivas-Drake, D., Saleem, M., Schaefer, D. R., Medina, M., & Jagers, R. (2019). Intergroup contact attitudes across peer networks in school: Selection, influence, and implications for cross-group friendships. Child Development, 90(6), 1898–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rizzo, M. T., Green, E. R., Dunham, Y., Bruneau, E., & Rhodes, M. (2022). Beliefs about social norms and racial inequalities predict variation in the early development of racial bias. Developmental Science, 25(2), e13170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 4, pp. 175–222). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self-presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76(2), 451–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rutland, A., & Killen, M. (2015). A developmental science approach to reducing prejudice and social exclusion: Intergroup processes, social-cognitive development, and moral reasoning. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 121–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thijs, J., Miklikowska, M., & Bosman, R. (2023). Motivations to respond without prejudice and ethnic outgroup attitudes in late childhood: Change and stability during a single school year. Developmental Psychology, 59(9), 1691–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tropp, L. R., White, F., Rucinski, C. L., & Tredoux, C. (2022). Intergroup contact and prejudice reduction: Prospects and challenges in changing youth attitudes. Review of General Psychology, 26(3), 342–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Turner, R. N., & Cameron, L. (2016). Confidence in contact: A new perspective on promoting cross-group friendship among children and adolescents. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 212–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Youth 05 00103 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical Model of IMRWP and EMRWP Development among Children.
Figure 1. Theoretical Model of IMRWP and EMRWP Development among Children.
Youth 05 00103 g001
Table 1. Questions to Address in IMRWP/EMRWP Research Among Children.
Table 1. Questions to Address in IMRWP/EMRWP Research Among Children.
TopicResearch Questions
General IMRWP/EMRWP development
  • Are the IMRWP/EMRWP group profiles of adults also found among children?
    ○
    Do children in these groups exhibit similar attitudes and behaviors to adults in these groups?
    ○
    Does the result that the most positive outcomes are found among the high IMRWP/low EMRWP group hold across development?
Peer factors in IMRWP/EMRWP
  • Do children’s in-group peer preferences and/or prioritization of peer in-group cohesion predict lower IMRWP over time?
  • Does IMRWP predict confronting of peers’ ethnically/racially biased behavior? Does concern for group cohesion decrease the likelihood of confronting?
  • Does IMRWP contribute to moral reasoning about ethnicity/race-based peer exclusion?
  • Are children with strong IMRWP less likely to use social- conventional reasoning to explain ethnicity/race-based peer exclusionary behavior by in-group members?
  • How does IMRWP relate to children’s own ethnicity/race-based resource allocation and social exclusion behaviors?
  • Does peer acceptance by ethnic/racial out-groups enhance IMRWP development?
  • Do peer group anti-bias norms influence EMRWP development?
  • Is empathy a developmental precursor to IMRWP?
  • How do children’s self-reported IMRWP and EMRWP relate to their peers’ reports of their behavior and their observed behavior in peer groups?
Friendships and IMRWP/EMRWP
  • Are there associations between cross-ethnicity/race friendship and IMRWP?
    ○
    Do cross-ethnicity/race friendships predict IMRWP, and by what mechanism(s) (e.g., increased knowledge of, positive affect toward out-groups)?
    ○
    Does higher IMRWP contribute to developing cross-ethnicity/race friendships?
    ○
    Do these effects differ across development?
  • Do cross-ethnicity/race friendships influence IMRWP only towards the friend’s ethnic/racial group, or all ethnic/racial out-groups?
  • Do friends show similar trajectories of IMRWP development?
  • How do friends influence IMRWP development in each other?
  • Are children with higher IMRWP more likely to confront a friend for saying or doing something prejudiced?
School-level factors in IMRWP/EMRWP
  • Do children in more ethnically or racially diverse schools develop stronger IMRWP?
    ○
    Are greater intergroup peer contact and greater opportunity for cross-ethnicity/race friendships mediators?
  • How does school diversity relate to IMRWP/EMRWP in the face of segregation?
    ○
    Does eliminating academic tracking impact IMRWP?
    ○
    Do in-school desegregation interventions impact IMRWP/EMRWP?
  • Do schools’ and teachers’ anti-bias norms contribute to greater EMRWP or IMRWP among their students?
  • Does CRT-based curriculum contribute to IMRWP or EMRWP development?
    ○
    Do counter-stereotypic examples of people of color contribute to greater IMRWP in the absence of discussing historical racism?
  • Does indirect contact via books, television, or other media contribute to greater IMRWP?
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pitcher, K.J.; Smith, R.L. The Need for Social Developmental Research on Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice. Youth 2025, 5, 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5040103

AMA Style

Pitcher KJ, Smith RL. The Need for Social Developmental Research on Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice. Youth. 2025; 5(4):103. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5040103

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pitcher, Katelyn J., and Rhiannon L. Smith. 2025. "The Need for Social Developmental Research on Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice" Youth 5, no. 4: 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5040103

APA Style

Pitcher, K. J., & Smith, R. L. (2025). The Need for Social Developmental Research on Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice. Youth, 5(4), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5040103

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop