Discrimination in Childhood and Adolescence

A Developmental Intergroup Approach

Christia Spears Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351803489
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría en psicología

Discrimination impacts most youth at some point. Almost all children and adolescents belong to at least one stigmatized group, whether they are a Black or Latino boy in school; an immigrant or refugee; a gay, lesbian, or bisexual teen; or a girl in physics class. Discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity, immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity can have long-term academic, psychological, and social repercussions, especially when it is directed at a cognitively developing child or an emotionally vulnerable adolescent. How children and adolescents are impacted by this discrimination depends on their cognitive ability to perceive the bias, the context in which the bias occurs, and resources they have to help cope with the bias.

This book details, synthesizes, and analyzes the perception and impact of discrimination in childhood and adolescence across multiple stigmatized social groups to help us better understand the complex phenomenon of discrimination and its long-term consequences. By looking at the similarities and differences in discrimination across all social groups, we can more fully understand its mechanisms of influence. Before we can fully address the persistent achievement gap between White and ethnic minority children, the high rates of suicidal thoughts among LGBT youth, and the underrepresentation of girls in STEM careers, we must first examine the ways in which discrimination influences and is understood by children, with their unique cognitive constraints and within the specific contexts in which they live.

1 Overview and Background on Discrimination in Childhood and Adolescence

1 DEFINING A COMPLEX PHENOMENON

DOI: 10.4324/9781315208381-2

When Dr. Martin Luther King sat in a Birmingham, Alabama, jail cell in 1963 and wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” he was in the midst of leading a civil rights movement fighting for equal treatment for Blacks in the United States. In the 50 years since that letter, justice is still threatened everywhere. Discrimination, albeit often veiled and covert, is still a part of the day-to-day experience of many children and adolescents.

At its most simple definition, discrimination involves harmful actions toward others because of their membership of a particular group. More specifically, discrimination can involve actions that harm or disadvantage an individual from an out-group, or actions that unfairly advantage one’s own in-group (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010). These actions can be acutely negative behaviors directed toward an out-group member or they can be simply less positive behaviors than those directed toward the in-group. Ultimately, at the group level, discrimination “creates, maintains, or reinforces advantages for some groups and their members over other groups and their members” (Dovidio et al., 2010, p. 9).

The past 20 years’ worth of research, however, has shown that discrimination is far more complicated than these definitions suggest. To more fully explore how we conceptualize discrimination, this chapter first discusses the complexity of individuals’ intersecting multiple social group memberships, because understanding social groups is key to understanding the nature and impact of discrimination. This is followed by a discussion of discrimination within the context of implicit and explicit stereotypes and prejudice. Finally, the chapter describes the different types of discrimination, with an emphasis on how complex it is for an individual to detect it and a researcher to study it.

Defining the Group

Before discussing the details of discrimination, it is important to clarify on what basis children can be discriminated against. One reason that discrimination is so complex is that individuals may experience discrimination as a result of their membership of a large number of overlapping social groups. Discrimination may be based on one’s gender, race, ethnicity, physical or mental abilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight, religion, country of birth or immigration status, or socioeconomic status—or, more precisely, based on the intersection of these multiple groups within an individual.

Social groups frequently overlap with one another. For example, immigrant children are often in the racial/ethnic minority in their host country (e.g., broadly grouped as Asian, Latino/Hispanic, or Black). Thus, immigration status and race/ethnicity are confounded. The result is that native-born White children may discriminate against immigrant children, not because of their immigration status per se, but because of their more visually salient ethnicity. Although this distinction may seem minor, these distinctions would be important when, for example, designing a discrimination reduction intervention, as it is critical to understand what biases need to be targeted.

Social groups also intersect with one another, creating unique within-group variability. To highlight the impact of intersecting group memberships, we can first use an example involving Latina girls, followed by an example involving Black boys. As described in Brown and Chu (2013), even in studies of gender discrimination, it is important to consider ethnicity and culture. Previous research has shown that Latino families are typically more traditional in socializing gender roles than European American families (Azmitia & Brown, 2000; Baca Zinn & Wells, 2000; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Valenzuela, 1999). Girls often have more restrictions, are given more chores and responsibilities, and are more closely monitored than are their brothers (Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004; Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006). Boys, in contrast, are given more freedom, mobility, and privileges than are girls (Domenech Rodriguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2009; Love & Buriel, 2007; Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006).

In one of our studies (Brown, Alabi, Huynh, & Masten, 2011), we interviewed 350 Asian American, Black, Latino American, and White elementary and middle school children (in Los Angeles, California) and asked them to report any instance of differential treatment by gender they had noticed or experienced; this allowed for children to report the instances of gender bias that were the most salient to them. Although the overall rates of noticing gender discrimination were similar across ethnic groups, the Latino American children (predominantly from Mexico, with a minority from Central America) reported gender discrimination that was distinct from other ethnic groups, and Latino boys and Latina girls reported different examples of discrimination from one another. For example, consistent with previous research, our research found that Latina girls most frequently mentioned home life as the context for most differential treatment by gender. Girls often noted that they were assigned chores such as “washing dishes,” whereas boys were “allowed to go places and stay out late.” As one girl explained, “My brother goes out more often and my sister can’t because she has to stay home and do chores.” Perhaps reflecting their greater freedoms and privileges at home (and the resulting naiveté that accompanies high status), no Latino boys ever mentioned home life as a domain in which there were gender differences. In contrast to these home and family-based examples, White and Black boys and girls were much more likely to mention examples of gender discrimination occurring at school.

The importance of attending to both gender and ethnicity is also highlighted by the unique experiences of Black boys. Preparation for discrimination, as well as the nature of the discrimination, directed toward Black boys differs from that toward Black girls. For example, Rowley and colleagues (2014) have detailed how Black parents spend more time discussing possible future racial discrimination with their sons than their daughters, perhaps reflective of a very real fear for their physical safety. Ironically, however, Black parents, as well as the teachers of Black children, have lower expectations for both the behavior and the academic performance of Black boys compared to Black girls. Largely because of these negative academic stereotypes and related discrimination, Black boys are the least likely gender/ethnic group to take Advanced Placement (AP) courses in high school, even among students whose previous academic performance indicates they are qualified to take the course (see Rowley et al., 2014). In drawing a comparison between Black boys’ underrepresentation in AP courses and girls’ underrepresentation in AP STEM courses, Rowley and colleagues note, “Effective interventions might be aimed at changing negative stereotypes [about Black boys] held by teachers, parents, and students alike, as has been done for cultural stereotypes that undermine the performance of girls in math, science, and engineering” (2014, p. 304). This statement highlights how discrimination aimed at one group can parallel discrimination aimed at another group, and similar attention should be paid to reducing the impact of discrimination across multiple social groups. Fully understanding this complexity, however, requires attention to the intersection of the social groups.

Discrimination within a Context of Stereotypes and Prejudice

Discrimination occurs within the context of stereotypes and prejudices about the social groups to which the child belongs. In general, stereotypes refer to the associations and beliefs about the particular attributes thought to characterize a group. Stereotypes can be positively valenced (to use an example with gender, “Girls are gentle and kind”), negatively valenced (e.g., “Girls can’t throw a ball as well as boys”), or neutral (e.g., “Girls, but not boys, like to play with dolls”). They are culturally transmitted through socialization, the media, and language. Stereotypes are powerful because they influence how individuals perceive members of a particular group, how they process information about those group members, and, in turn, how they respond to those group members (Dovidio et al., 2010). Prejudice occurs when the perceiver evaluates other persons based on their own stereotypes and attitudes (e.g., negative attitudes of boys who play with dolls). Even when there is a kernel of truth to the stereotype, all stereotypes are inherently flawed, because they ignore within-group heterogeneity and exaggerate between-group differences. For example, although the mean throwing velocity for girls is less than that of boys (Hyde, 2005), when Mo’ne Davis, a 13-year-old girl, made the cover of Sports Illustrated in 2014 because of her 70-mile-per-hour fastball in Little League, she illustrated how average gender differences do not accurately reflect an individual’s abilities, preferences, and behaviors.

The exact content of stereotypes differs across social groups, reflecting the specific group’s unique intergroup history (Dovidio et al., 2010). For example, stereotypes and prejudice about LGBT individuals are very culturally and historically dependent, and, in modern times, reflect rigid interpretations of the religious texts of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Stereotypes about Black people in the United States are based on the history of capture and enslavement by Whites, denial of equal legal protection and equal education, and enforced racial segregation. Similar stereotypes about Black people in South Africa have been maintained by the long history of apartheid. Stereotypes and prejudice about immigrants throughout Europe are largely based on feelings of nationalism and in-group biased attitudes strengthened by two world wars and long-standing conflicts in the Middle East. Stereotypes about Arab, Persian, or Muslim immigrants specifically are a generalization based on fear toward Islamic extremist organizations that engage in international terrorism. Stereotypes about immigrants are also impacted by the specific country’s economic stability and prosperity (i.e., it influences whether people are concerned about immigrants vying for limited economic resources), and the country’s preexisting degree of ethnic homogeneity and xenophobia.

Stereotypes about gender differ in nature from stereotypes about sexual orientation, ethnicity, and immigration. According to Glick and Fiske’s (1996) ambivalent sexism model, gender-based prejudice is ambivalent because there are asymmetries in status and power between men and women, yet there is male–female interdependence within families and heterosexual relationships. Because of these two competing motivations, sexism can be either hostile or benevolent (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism refers to negative attitudes toward individuals who violate traditional gender stereotypes. For example, this might include negative attitudes toward girls who are “too” athletic and unconcerned with their appearance. In contrast, benevolent sexism includes protective paternalism (i.e., the belief that men must protect women) and complementary gender differentiation (i.e., the belief that boys and girls are different and complement one another). For example, physical education teachers in many elementary schools assign girls fewer physical requirements in gym than they do to boys. Although benevolent sexism may appear positive to many, it reinforces traditional gender roles and maintains status imbalances (Leaper & Brown, 2014).

Discrimination occurs within the context of these diverse stereotypes and prejudices. Specifically, discrimination is the behavioral expression of these stereotypes and prejudice (e.g., bullying a boy who plays with dolls) and can be perpetrated by either children or adults, as both children and adults know stereotypes and express prejudices (e.g., Allport, 1954; Aboud, 1988; Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001). Research has robustly shown that stereotypes and prejudices begin in early childhood and predict discriminatory behavior across the lifespan (e.g., Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008). It is clear from meta-analyses that children express stereotypes and prejudices about gender, ethnicity, race, and nationality by age five (e.g., Raabe & Beelmann, 2011; Signorella, Bigler, & Liben, 1993). Although very little research has examined the development of homophobia, evidence suggests that children hold prejudices toward LGBT individuals by at least age 12 (Poteat & Anderson, 2012). These cognitive and affe...