Risk Factors for Ethnic Prejudice DuringEarly AdolescenceJeff Kiesner, Anne Maass, Mara Cadinu and Isi Vallese, Università di Padova, Italy

Abstract

This study examines risk factors for ethnic prejudice during early adolescence in asample of Italian middle school students (N = 187). It was predicted that low peerstatus would be associated with negative ratings of ethnic out-groups, but that thisrelation would be moderated by self-esteem. It was further hypothesized that individ-uals and their self-nominated groups would be similar with regard to ethnic preju-dice, and that antisocial behavior would be positively related to ethnic prejudice.Consistent with our prediction, results revealed that when self-esteem was low, lowpeer status was associated with high prejudice against out-groups. On the contrary,when self-esteem was high, this relation was non-existent. Moreover, individuals andtheir self-nominated groups were similar with regard to ethnic prejudice, but only forstigmatized out-groups. A relation was found between antisocial behavior and ethnicprejudice, but only for non-stigmatized out-groups. The present study emphasizes theimportance (1) of studying individual differences in risk factors and levels of preju-dice and (2) of investigating the influence that peers may have on the development ofethnic prejudice.

Keywords: prejudice; adolescence; peer relations; development

Prejudice generally refers to negative attitudes towards social out-groups, often com-bined with the propensity to act in a discriminatory fashion towards members of thesegroups. Although there is an impressive body of literature on prejudice concerningadult populations, surprisingly little is known about the development of prejudiceduring childhood and adolescence, especially as related to factors predicting individ-ual differences (for a recent overview of the literature see Aboud & Amato, in press).Moreover, while the development of prejudice has been studied mainly under a cognitive perspective, other problems of social adjustment, such as delinquency,school drop-out, and substance abuse, have been studied generally under a social-developmental perspective (see Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998 for a comprehensiveoverview). Thus, not only is little known about the development of prejudice duringadolescence, even less is known about the social developmental factors involved.

Correspondence should be sent to Jeff Kiesner, Dipartimento di Psicologia DPSS, Università di Padova, via Venezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy. Tel.: 39-049-8276578; fax: 39-049-8276511; email:kiesner@psy.unipd.it

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 289

In the present study we examine prejudice development during adolescence whilebridging two research areas, social development and prejudice research, that have traditionally been separate fields of inquiry.

Developmental Studies of Prejudice

Research on the development of prejudice has focussed typically on cognitive changesduring childhood that contribute to changes in prejudice (Aboud, 1988; Doyle &Aboud, 1995; Katz, 1976). Cross-sectional (Bigler & Liben, 1993; Brown & Johnson,1971) and longitudinal (Doyle & Aboud, 1995) studies have suggested that some typesof prejudice peak around kindergarten and then begin to decrease. Consistent with thecognitive developmental model, these changes in prejudice appear to be associatedwith an increasing understanding of the similarities between races and the differenceswithin races (Doyle & Aboud, 1995).

The decrease in prejudice after kindergarten, however, does not appear to be per-manent. A number of studies have found a second increase in prejudice during earlyadolescence. Black-Gutman and Hickson (1996), for example, found the expecteddecrease in prejudice from ages 5–6 through ages 7–9, but they also found a corre-sponding increase between the ages 7–9 and 10–12. Similarly, Rutland (1999) foundthat national prejudice, in-group favoritism, and self-stereotyping were only presentin children over age 10. Finally, research from the area of social development hasshown that crowd and clique affiliation (group membership) becomes increasinglydifferentiated during early adolescence (Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994; Kinney, 1993;O’Brien & Bierman, 1988). In fact, although childhood cliques and crowds are gen-erally integrated with regard to social class and race, during adolescence peer groupsbecome segregated by both social class (Ennett & Bauman, 1996; Hollingshed [1949]1975) and race (Shrum, Cheek, & Hunter, 1988). Moreover, the segregation based onsocial class has been shown to increase throughout adolescence (Hollingshed [1949]1975). Thus, it may be throughout these years that prejudice towards out-groups formsand crystallizes.

Despite the fact that adolescence may be an important age for prejudice develop-ment, relatively little research has focussed on this age group. Moreover, most researchon the development of prejudice comes either from a cognitive developmental per-spective (Aboud, 1988; Doyle & Aboud, 1995) or from non-developmental social psy-chological theories regarding adults (i.e., Social Identity Theory, SIT, Tajfel & Turner,1979) applied to children and adolescents (i.e., Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Verkuyten,2001). Thus, little is known about the social developmental factors important to prejudice during adolescence.

Although the research base regarding the social developmental aspects of prejudiceduring adolescence is small, some research has been conducted. For example, studiesexamining parent–child similarity on prejudice have shown that, although children andadolescents consistently perceive their parents to have similar attitudes as themselves,evidence for actual similarity is mixed (Aboud & Doyle, 1996a; Carlson & Iovini,1985). Other research on the similarity of prejudice between children and adolescentsand their friends has typically demonstrated that individuals believe they have similarattitudes as their friends, but that actual similarity does not exist (Aboud & Doyle,1996a, 1996b; Ritchey & Fishbein, 2001). Research has also shown that interracialbehavior is related to individual aggressiveness and racial attitudes of the family andpeers (Patchen, Davidson, Hofmann, & Brown, 1977). Finally, research has shown a

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

290 Jeff Kiesner et al.

positive relation between self-esteem and prejudice among majority group Dutch adolescents (Verkuyten, 1996), and between ethnic and national identity of majoritygroup Dutch adolescents and prejudice (Masson & Verkuyten, 1993; Verkuyten, 2001).

In the present study we examine ethnic and racial prejudice during early adoles-cence in relation to several social developmental variables, including peer status(popular–rejected), self-esteem, similarity in prejudice with one’s own self-nominated peer group, and antisocial behavior. Specifically, five questions areaddressed. First, are individual differences in level of ethnic and racial prejudice con-sistent across groups, or is this type of prejudice target-group specific? Second, is prej-udice related to the individual’s level of peer status, and if so, does the individual’slevel of self-esteem moderate that relation? Third, are adolescents similar to self-nominated peer groups on measures of prejudice? Fourth, is ethnic prejudice relatedto antisocial behavior? Finally, is contact with the specific out-groups related to ratingsof those out-groups?

Consistency Across Target Groups

The first question is whether there are individual differences in ethnic and racial prejudice across a variety of target groups. That is to say, do some individuals consis-tently rate out-groups more negatively or is out-group disliking target-group specific?Research with adults has demonstrated that there are individual differences in prejudice and that being prejudiced in one domain (i.e., gender) is associated withprejudice in other domains (i.e., race) (Bierly, 1985; Ray & Lovejoy, 1986). This cross-domain consistency, however, has not been found with children. In a cross-sectionalstudy of elementary school-aged children, Powlishta, Serbin, Doyle, and White (1994)found little consistency in prejudiced attitudes across three domains: gender, ethnicity-language, and body type. The authors concluded that prejudice does not rep-resent a general characteristic of elementary-school-aged children. Thus, individualdifferences in prejudice, as a general trait, may develop during late childhood and ado-lescence. By including a wide range of target groups, we intend to examine whetherprejudice in adolescents is idiosyncratic with regard to the target, or whether it rep-resents a general ‘prejudice tendency’.

It should be emphasized that we examine individual differences pertaining only toethnic and racial groups. Thus, cross-domain prejudice is not examined. However,understanding whether there are consistent individual differences across racial andethnic out-groups is an important initial step in studying prejudice with the present agegroup. The answer to this question appears particularly important if one wants to iden-tify (and possibly modify) risk factors that are conducive to juvenile prejudice devel-opment. For example, if prejudice is found to be target specific, then the identificationof risk factors would face the difficulty of taking into consideration the characteristicsof the targets. On the other hand, if prejudice is found to be generalized across targetgroups, then personal characteristics of these individuals would become a centralresearch focus and the challenge would be to modify trait-like behavior patterns.

Individual Peer Status and Prejudice

The second question concerns the potential role of peer rejection and low self-esteemin adolescent prejudice. Peer status based on sociometric peer nominations (Coie,

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 291

Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983) has been an importantmeasure for the study of peer relations. Specifically, peer status refers to the relativesocial standing (rejected–popular) of an individual within a specific social context. It has been shown that socially rejected children are at high risk for a variety of negative developmental outcomes (Kiesner, Cadinu, Poulin, & Bucci, 2002; Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992; Parker & Asher, 1987).

In the present study we hypothesize that low peer status in the classroom (beingrejected) would be related to higher levels of prejudice. This prediction is consistentwith three theories of prejudice. First, experimental social psychological research onadults, based on SIT, has shown that individuals with an insecure or peripheral statuswithin their groups tend to show greater discrimination of out-groups (Noel, Wann,& Branscombe,1995), a strategy that may be aimed at improving their status withintheir group (Breakwell, 1979; Noel et al., 1995). However, social psychology litera-ture is generally based on studies using salient intergroup contexts (e.g. sorority andfraternity houses in the American university system). Thus, it does not necessarilyfollow that a child rejected in the classroom would have the same motivation to discriminate against an ethnic minority as an ‘in-group member’ (e.g. a sororitymember) would have to discriminate against a specific out-group (e.g. another sorority house).

Two other theories also predict that low social status will result in high levels ofprejudice, without strictly requiring intergroup comparisons or attempts to enhanceone’s own position in his or her own group. First, according to the classical Scapegoattheory of prejudice (Berkowitz, 1962; Hovland & Sears, 1940), low-status individu-als will experience frustration and will seek out other groups or individuals as targetsfor prejudice in order to compensate for the fact that they are unable to reach socialacceptance. In fact, Hovland and Sears found that the correlation over 48 yearsbetween the number of lynchings and economic indices in 14 southern states rangedfrom -.61 to -.65. Although these data were later re-analyzed using more appropri-ate time-series analyses, the relation between economic indices and the number oflynchings remained (Hepworth & West, 1988). Interestingly, the same effects werefound when predicting the number of lynchings of both Blacks and Whites (ibid.).Thus, the status of the out-group does not appear to be critical for these observedeffects.

Later, Allport (1954) also suggested that people who are low in social status willturn their attention to low status or disliked out-groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. More recently, with the Downward Comparison Theory, Wills (1981) predicted that people experiencing negative affect can enhance their well-being bycomparing themselves to less fortunate others. Therefore, low-status individualsshould be the most inclined to show out-group derogation, especially towards minor-ity groups. Because an individual’s status during adolescence is based largely on peerpopularity, we hypothesize that rejected adolescents would be most likely to demon-strate high levels of prejudice. Based on the theories discussed above, this relationshould be strongest regarding attitudes towards ‘low-status’ out-groups.

Self-esteem and Prejudice

The dominant theory suggesting a relation between prejudice and self-esteem is SIT.According to this theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), in order for people to maintain orenhance their self-esteem, the in-group tends to be viewed as positively differentiated

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

292 Jeff Kiesner et al.

from the out-group. According to Abrams and Hogg (1988), the self-esteem hy-pothesis derived from SIT implies that people with low self-esteem should be moremotivated to show in-group favoritism than people with high self-esteem. However,evidence supporting this prediction is mixed (see Brown, 2000; Rubin & Hewstone,1998).

Regarding the present study, Scapegoat Theory, Downward Comparison Theory, andSIT all predict main effects for either peer status or self-esteem. Another possibilityis that self-esteem moderates the relation between peer status and prejudice. Forexample, Crocker, Thompson, McGraw, & Ingerman (1987) found that self-esteemand group status interacted when predicting in-group and out-group ratings. However,the Crocker et al. study examined intergroup relations which is very different fromthe focus of the present study, in which low status is defined at the individual level,not the group level.

In the present study, considering the hypothesis that peer rejection would be relatedto higher levels of prejudice, self-esteem could be hypothesized to have two very different moderator effects. One possibility is that low self-esteem makes individualsmore vulnerable to the negative effects of being rejected. Thus, low self-esteem indi-viduals would be predicted to show a stronger relation between peer status and prej-udice. The second possibility is that high self-esteem individuals use prejudice as ameans of maintaining high self-esteem in the face of rejection. Thus, high self-esteemindividuals would be expected to show a stronger relation between rejection and prej-udice. These two possibilities are tested in the present analyses by looking both at themain effect of self-esteem and the interaction between peer status and self-esteem.

Individual–Peer Group Similarity on Prejudice

The third question investigated the potential impact of peers on prejudice develop-ment. Whereas change in prejudice across childhood seems to be linked to cognitivedevelopment, it is possible that individual differences in prejudice during adolescenceare predominantly linked to proximal social factors such as the attitudes of friends andpeers. Previous research has shown that individuals and their friends tend to be similaron a variety of problem behaviors including aggression (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman,Gest, & Gariépy, 1988), antisocial behavior (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995a;Kiesner et al., 2002), and drug use (Kandel, 1978). However, this similarity appearsto depend on the type of behavior. Poulin et al. (1997), for example, found that friendswere similar on proactive aggression, but not on reactive aggression or a series ofprosocial behaviors. Individual–friend similarity also appears strongest for behaviorsand weaker for measures of attitudes (Tolson & Urberg, 1993; see also Aboud &Mendelson, 1996).

Although few studies have examined friendship similarity on prejudice, the find-ings consistently have been negative. For example, Ritchey and Fishbein (2001) foundno similarity between adolescent friends on a variety of measures of prejudice. Similarly, Aboud and Doyle (1996a) found that, although children (third graders) perceived their friends to have similar attitudes, there was no evidence for actual similarity. However, it is important to note that in both of these studies the averagelevel of prejudice was quite low. That is, at the group level, participants demonstratedno clear negative attitudes towards the out-groups. It is possible that similarity is basedon selection of friends according to salient and public social information. If this is thecase, then the attitudes regarding groups who are not targets of strong negative atti-

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 293

tudes within that sample may not provide such salient information. Thus, these nullfindings may be the consequence of using measures that didn’t tap salient attitudesthat would be used in friendship selection.

On the other hand, Aboud and Doyle (1996b) found that high prejudice children(3rd and 4th graders) became less prejudice following a discussion of racial issueswith a non-prejudice friend. Thus, although past research has not found similarityacross friends on measures of prejudice, it appears that peer influence may exist forprejudice among children.

Considering the limited number of studies on this issue, and the fact that previousstudies have found no clear prejudice at the group level, we decided to test for peersimilarity also in the present study. We hypothesized that individuals and their self-nominated peer groups would report similar levels of prejudice.

Antisocial Behavior and Ethnic Prejudice

The hypothesis that antisocial behavior and prejudice would be related is based on theidea that antisocial behavior frequently involves coercive or aversive acts towards otherpeople (Kiesner, Dishion, & Poulin, 2000; Loeber, 1982). If an individual is prone tobehave in a negative and aversive way towards others, it seems plausible that the sameindividual may have attitudes that follow a similar pattern. Thus, we suggest that indi-viduals high on antisocial behavior may be more likely to demonstrate high levels ofethnic prejudice than individuals low on antisocial behavior.

Contact with Out-Groups

It has been proposed that contact with out-groups reduces intergroup prejudice(Allport, 1954). Specifically, Allport suggested that prejudice may be reduced by inter-group contact if (1) there is equal status between groups, (2) there is a common goalshared by the groups, (3) the contact is sanctioned by institutional support, and (4)that it leads to a perception of common interests. Research has in fact supported thishypothesis. For example, research has shown that interracial contact among adoles-cents is related to friendly interactions with other racial groups (Patchen et al., 1977),and that classroom racial integration has lasting effects one year later, after studentsmoved into non-integrated classrooms (Schofield, 1979; see also Brown, 1995 for areview). Because of the demonstrated relation between contact and prejudice, in thepresent study we include a self-report measure of contact with all groups included inthe questionnaire. In line with previous research we hypothesized that high levels ofcontact would be related to lower levels of prejudice.

Method

Participants

For the present sample, the parents of all 7th grade students from four middle schools(in the northeast of Italy), and all 8th grade students from one of those schools, wereasked for permission for their child to participate. Of these 310 children, permissionto participate was obtained for 231 (75%). Of these 231 students (112 girls), 184 were7th graders. The average age was 13.2 years (SD = .48). Although socioeconomicstatus was not directly measured, these schools included students from a wide rangeof social classes (low and working classes through upper-middle class).

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

294 Jeff Kiesner et al.

Measures

Ethnic Group Ratings. To measure individual attitudes towards a variety of racial andethnic groups, participants were asked to respond to the following three questionsregarding their opinions of 11 groups: (1) How much do you like the following groups?(2) How nice do you consider the following groups? and (3) How much can you trustpeople from the following groups? Subjects were asked to respond, for each question,on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all and 7 = very much; e.g. 1 = I don’t like them at alland 7 = I like them very much). Participants were asked to respond to the above threequestions regarding the following groups: Albanians, Chinese, Jews, French, Italians,Moroccans, Southern Italians, Black Africans, Germans, Veneti (from the Venetoregion of Italy), and Gypsies. These groups were chosen to provide a variety of out-groups who experience varying degrees of prejudice in the Italian culture. Responseson each of the three questions were then averaged for each group. This provided a score of the individual’s overall rating of each group. The Cronbach’s alphas for the three questions calculated separately for each group ranged from a = .82 to a = .91.

Finally, participants were asked to indicate to which racial/ethnic group(s) theybelong. They were provided with a list of 10 groups and a final response of ‘other’for which they could specify a group. These data were used to select Italian (and/orVeneti) participants for the regression analyses presented below.

Contact with Out-Groups. Following the evaluative ratings of the 11 groups, each par-ticipant was asked how much time he or she spends with each of the 11 groups. Foreach group the participants were asked to respond to two questions. The first questionasked how often they spend time with members of each group inside of the school.Answers were given on a 4-point scale with 0 = Never, 1 = Rarely, 2 = Once in aWhile, 3 = Frequently. The second question used the same format but asked abouttime spent with each group outside of the school. Because the base-rates were verylow for most groups, the responses to these two questions were averaged to make asingle contact score for each group. The means and standard deviations for each groupwere (in ascending order): Jews, M = .13, SD = .38; Albanians, M = .17, SD = .46;Gypsies, M = .18, SD = .45; Chinese, M = .20, SD = .47; Germans, M = .24, SD =.56; Blacks, M = .27, SD = .56; French, M = .35, SD = .64; Moroccans, M = .41, SD= .66; Southern Italians, M = 1.45, SD = 1.01; Veneti, M = 2.75, SD = .64; Italians,M = 2.90, SD = .40. Although these questions were asked about all 11 groups, thescores regarding contact with Italians and Veneti were not used in the analyses. Thiswas done because, as described below, only Italians and Veneti were included in theanalyses. For obvious reasons it would not make sense to use contact with the in-groupas a predictor variable.

Peer Status. Peer nominations were conducted within each classroom. Each participantwas provided with a list of his or her classroom peers who were participating in thestudy. The classroom peers, rather than the school-wide peers, were used because inItalian schools students remain with the same classroom of students for the entire dayand year (these same students also make up the same class for all three years of middleschool). To measure peer status we used unlimited and cross-gender peer nominationsfrom classmates on two questions: ‘Who do you like the most?’ (LM) and ‘Who do youlike the least?’ (LL). The LM and LL scores were first standardized within each class-

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 295

room and across gender, then the peer status (PS = LM - LL) score was calculated. Thecorrelation between the LM and the LL scores was r = -.76 (p < .001).

Peer Nominations of Problem Behavior. Unlimited and cross-gender peer nomina-tions on two behavioral questions were used as a measure of problem behavior. Thesequestions were ‘Who are the kids that hang out with kids that frequently get introuble?’, and ‘Who are the kids that hit, pick on, or tease other kids?’ Nominationson these measures were standardized within each classroom and across gender. Thescores from these two questions were averaged (r = .81, p < .001) to form one measureof peer-reported problem behavior.

Teacher Report of Problem Behavior. An adapted version of a Teacher Report Ques-tionnaire (Kiesner, 1997) was used to measure problem behavior in the classroomduring the past week. Seven items from the questionnaire, including ‘was argumenta-tive?’ and ‘disturbed classmates?’, were used to calculate the problem behavior score.All questions required a response using a 6-point scale, ranging from ‘No, not at all’to ‘Yes, frequently’. A separate form was used for each student. Responses to the sevenitems were averaged together. The Cronbach’s alpha for the seven items was high (a = .93). The average score for the entire sample was M = 1.7 (SD = .96).

Youth Report of Problem Behavior. The Youth Report of Problem Behavior (a modi-fied version of the Child Telephone Interview; Dishion et al., 1984) was used as ameasure of individual problem behavior. Within this questionnaire there were twotypes of questions. The first set of questions required a yes/no response to 12 ques-tions regarding activities that the child may have engaged in during the last 24 hours(or last week for smoking cigarettes, using alcohol, using drugs). The 24-hour refer-ence period was used because these behaviors were expected to be relatively high fre-quency behaviors, such as ‘argue with or talk back to an adult?’, ‘swear at anyone?’and ‘told lies?’The mean number of items marked ‘yes’ for the entire sample on thesequestions was M = 3.45 (SD = 3.56). The second set of questions required responsesusing a 4-point scale (with 0 = Never, 1 = Rarely, 2 = Once in a While, 3 = Frequently)to six questions regarding activities that the child may have engaged in during the lastweek. The one-week reference period was used for this set of questions because theywere expected to be lower base-rate behaviors (i.e., stealing, graffiti, vandalism). Theaverage score for these six questions across the entire sample was M = .35 (SD = .47).The Cronbach’s alphas for these two measures were satisfactory (a = .75 for the firstset of questions and a = .76 for the second set of questions). Both scales were thenstandardized across the entire sample and linearly combined (r = .57, p < .001).

Antisocial Behavior Score. To have an overall measure of antisocial behavior the peer- , teacher- , and self-report measures were standardized then linearly combined.The correlations among these three measures ranged from r = .41 to r = .62.

Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire (Rosenberg, 1965) was usedto measure individual self-esteem. This questionnaire consists of 10 questions usinga 6-point scale ranging from 1 = I absolutely disagree to 6 = I absolutely agree. Sixof the questions were worded positively and four were worded negatively. The nega-tive questions were reverse coded so that high scores for all of the questions wouldcorrespond to a high level of self-esteem. An average was calculated across all 10

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

296 Jeff Kiesner et al.

questions (M = 4.6, SD = .90). Cronbach’s alpha for these 10 items was satisfactory(a = .81).

Peer Group Ratings of Target Groups. To identify the individual’s self-nominated peer group a two-step procedure was used. First, students were given a definition ofa ‘group’ that included two key characteristics: (1) there must be at least three chil-dren in the group (including the target child) and (2) these children must spend timetogether. Thus, a dyad would not qualify as a group and a set of independent friendswho don’t spend time together would not qualify as a group. In the second step chil-dren were asked to list the names of their peers who were in their group at school.Participants could list any students from the school, whether or not those students wereparticipants in the study. The average number of members nominated for each peergroup was M = 5.14 (SD = 2.17).

Because most children in the participating classrooms did participate we were ableto identify, and have data for, most individuals listed as members of each participant’sgroup (the average proportion of members identified was M = .84, SD = .22). Usingthis information we computed a peer group ratings score for each target group, foreach participant. These group scores are simply the average of the individual ratingsof all the members in each participant’s self-nominated peer group, excluding thetarget individual.

Procedure

Questionnaire booklets were administered to the students in the classroom duringregular school hours. Each questionnaire consisted of five parts: nomination of peergroup, sociometric peer nominations, the youth report questionnaire, the self-esteemquestionnaire, and the ‘prejudice’ questionnaire (in this order). Two research assistantswere present during all administrations which lasted approximately one hour and 15minutes. Administration of these questionnaires was highly structured with all stu-dents completing the same section of the questionnaire booklet at the same time, thenwaiting for instructions for the following section. In addition, teachers were asked tocomplete the teacher report of child problem behavior. All measures were adminis-tered within each classroom on the same day.

Results

For the following analyses two inclusion criteria were used. First, all participantsincluded in these analyses must have identified themselves as being Italian or Veneti.Second, all participants included in these analyses could not have identified themselvesas belonging to any of the out-groups. Thus, even if participants identified themselvesas Italian or Veneti, if they also identified themselves as Albanian, those participantswere excluded from these analyses. Based on these two criteria 38 participants wereexcluded. Six additional participants were excluded for missing data. In all, 187 par-ticipants were included in the present analyses (96 females, 91 males). A series of t-tests was conducted to determine whether the excluded participants were differentfrom the included participants on five important variables. These analyses demon-strated that the participants excluded from these analysis were not statistically dif-ferent from those included on two measures of out-group ratings, peer rejection, orantisocial behavior (all t’s £ 1.5, ns). The included participants, however, did show

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 297

more favorable in-group ratings than the excluded participants (t = 3.88, p < .01; M = 6.1, SD = .99; and M = 5.3, SD = 1.6, respectively).

Descriptive Statistics

Box plots of group ratings for all 11 groups are presented in Figure 1. Groups are listedin ascending order based on the value of their median rating score. Examining themedians and distributions of each group, it is clear that the questionnaire used in thepresent sample was sensitive to differences between target groups: Gypsies, Albanians,and Moroccans were consistently rated negatively, whereas Veneti and Italians wereconsistently rated positively. Finally, five of the remaining groups (Black Africans,Chinese, Germans, Jews, Southern Italians) all had median scores that were approxi-mately equal to the scale midpoint, indicating neutral evaluations. Together, these dataindicate that there are commonly shared negative attitudes towards Gypsies, Albanians,and Moroccans; commonly shared positive attitudes towards the in-groups (Italians,and Veneti); and no commonly shared attitudes for Black Africans, Chinese, Germans,Jews, or Southern Italians. Finally, the French were generally rated positively.

A Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation was used to deter-mine whether individuals who tend to rate one out-group negatively also tend to rateall out-groups negatively. That is to say, do some individuals show consistently negative ratings of out-groups, or are attitudes towards out-groups idiosyncratic? Two factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1. The factor loadings, eigenvalues, and variances explained for the two factors are presented in Table 1. It

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

The line within each box indicates the median, the top of each box indicates the 75th percentile, andthe bottom of each box indicates the 25th percentile.

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Italians

Veneti

French

Southern Italians

Jews

Germans

Chinese

Black Africans

Moroccans

Albanians

Gypsies

Figure 1. Box plots of group ratings for all 11 target groups.

298 Jeff Kiesner et al.

can be seen by the factor loadings that the first factor represents out-group ratings andthat the second factor represents in-group ratings. Moreover, all groups, exceptGermans, loaded more clearly on only one factor. These results indicate that in-groupand out-group ratings show clearly different participant response patterns, and thatratings of these two types of groups are largely independent. Moreover, the consis-tently high factor loadings for the nine out-groups on the first factor indicate thatratings of all out-groups are highly correlated. Thus, individuals who rate one out-group negatively (relative to other participants) tend to rate all out-groups negatively(relative to other participants). This suggests that some individuals are more preju-diced across a variety of out-groups, thus demonstrating a general prejudice tendencywith regard to ethnic and racial groups.

Because the evaluations of the nine out-groups indicate that some groups are cleartargets of commonly shared negative attitudes, while others are not, we decided tosubdivide the out-groups into two categories: those who are targets of commonlyshared negative attitudes, and those who are not targets of commonly shared negativeattitudes. To accomplish this we conducted a one-sample t-test for each group, using4 as the criterion value. A criterion of 4 was used because it was the midpoint of thebipolar scale, and was considered to indicate a neutral rating. Therefore, groups witha mean rating significantly lower than the scale midpoint were considered to be ‘stig-matized’ out-groups. All other out-groups, with a mean rating not significantly below4, were considered ‘non-stigmatized’ out-groups. The three groups that received thelowest ratings (Gypsies, Albanians, and Moroccans; see Figure 1) had mean scoressignificantly below the scale midpoint (all ps < .0001). All other out-groups were notdifferent from the scale midpoint, except the French, who were significantly above thescale midpoint. Italians and Veneti both had mean ratings significantly above the scalemidpoint (both ps < .0001). Thus, for the following analyses, the 11 groups were

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Table 1. Factor Loadings for Group Ratings of all 11 Groups on Both Factors

Factor 1 Factor 2Target Group* ‘Out-group Ratings’ ‘In-group Ratings’

Albanians .76 -.04Chinese .70 .25Jews .75 .22French .53 .37Italians -.02 .88Moroccans .76 -.03Southern Italians .54 .09Black Africans .76 -.02Germans .40 .42Veneti +.04 .85Gypsies .73 -.07

Eigenvalue 4.2 1.8Variance Explained 38.4 16.3

*Groups are listed in the order listed in the questionaire.

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 299

divided into three categories: stigmatized out-groups, non-stigmatized out-groups, andin-groups.

A composite rating score was calculated for each of these three categories. Thiscomposite score was simply the mean of all the groups in that category. Before creating these composite scores the ratings for each group were first standardized tohave a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1. This was done also for the contactscores, resulting in two contact scores: contact with stigmatized out-groups andcontact with non-stigmatized out-groups. As mentioned above, contact with the in-groups was not used as a predictor in the following analyses.

Regression Models Predicting Group Ratings for Out-groups and In-groups

To test the hypotheses regarding peer status, individual–group similarity, and antiso-cial behavior, we conducted three multiple regression analyses: one for stigmatizedout-group ratings, one for non-stigmatized out-group ratings, and one for in-groupratings. In each model all predictor variables were entered simultaneously. In eachmodel the following variables were used as predictors: individual peer status, averageratings of the target groups by the individual’s self-nominated peer group, individualantisocial behavior, gender, self-esteem, the individual’s self-reported contact with thetarget groups, and the interaction between self-esteem and peer status. All two-wayinteractions involving gender were also tested, but since none was statistically sig-nificant they were not included in the present analyses. To facilitate interpretation, allvariables were standardized to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1. Theinteraction term was the product of the standardized predictors.

The correlations among the predictor variables for each of the three models are presented in Table 2. The strengths of the correlations present no problems of multicollinearity.

In the first model, predicting individual ratings of stigmatized out-groups, 22% ofthe variance was explained, which was statistically significant (F(7, 179) = 7.11, p <.0001). As is shown in Table 3, peer status, the average ratings of target groups by theindividual’s self-nominated peer group, gender, self-reported contact with the out-groups, and the interaction between peer status and self-esteem all contributed sig-nificantly to the explaining variance in the model. The positive coefficient for peerstatus indicates that, as hypothesized, rejected individuals tend to report more nega-tive ratings of these stigmatized out-groups than popular individuals. The positivecoefficient for the individual’s self-nominated peer group indicates that the peer groupand the individual are similar with regard to ratings of stigmatized out-groups. Thepositive coefficient for gender indicates that girls reported more positive attitudestowards these out-groups than did boys. Self-reported contact with these out-groupswas positively related to out-group ratings. Finally, as predicted, the coefficient for theinteraction between peer status and self-esteem was negative, indicating that, as self-esteem increases, the relation between peer status and out-group ratings decreases.

To help understand this interaction, the simple slopes for ratings of the stigmatizedout-groups regressed on peer status at three levels of self-esteem (High = +1 SD,Average = at the mean, Low = -1 SD) are presented in Figure 2. Examining thesesimple slopes, it can be seen that when self-esteem is high the slope is nearly flat. Asself-esteem decreases, however, the strength of the relation increases. In other words,for low self-esteem individuals, a lower level of peer status predicts more negativeratings for these out-groups.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

300 Jeff Kiesner et al.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Tab

le 2

.C

orre

lati

ons

Am

ong

All

Var

iabl

es U

sed

in t

he R

egre

ssio

n A

naly

ses

12

34

56

78

910

11

1) P

eer

Sta

tus

2) S

elf-

este

em.1

2†

3) A

ntis

ocia

l B

ehav

ior

-.15

*-.

04

4) C

onta

ct w

ith

Sti

gmat

ized

.08

.04

.20*

*G

roup

s

5) C

onta

ct w

ith

.16*

.05

.26*

**.5

8***

Non

-sti

gmat

ized

Gro

ups

6) P

eer

Gro

up R

atin

gs o

f.0

7-.

06.0

5.2

0**

.14†

Sti

gmat

ized

Gro

ups

7) P

eer

Gro

up R

atin

gs o

f.0

5.0

3-.

01.0

3.0

6.6

2***

Non

-sti

gmat

ized

Gro

ups

8) P

eer

Gro

up R

atin

gs o

f-.

09.1

2-.

09-.

04.0

0-.

40**

*-.

09In

-gro

ups

9) I

ndiv

idua

l R

atin

gs o

f.1

8*.0

1-.

02.3

3***

.25*

*.2

6***

.06

-.23

**S

tigm

atiz

ed G

roup

s

10)

Indi

vidu

al R

atin

gs o

f.2

7***

.09

-.17

*.2

3**

.30*

**.1

8*.1

3†-.

22**

.72*

**N

on-s

tigm

atiz

ed G

roup

s

11)

Indi

vidu

al R

atin

gs o

f.0

3.1

6*-.

08.0

8.1

5*-.

11-.

04.1

6*.0

8.2

2**

In-g

roup

s

Gen

der

-.09

-.05

-.41

***

-.08

-.01

.01

.13†

.07

.12

.14†

.04

†p

<.1

0; *

p <

.05;

**

p <

.01;

***

p <

.001

.

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 301

In the second model, predicting individual ratings of non-stigmatized out-groups,23% of the variance was explained, which again was statistically significant (F(7, 179)= 7.65, p < .0001). Regression coefficients for this model are presented in Table 4.Similar to the previous model, peer status, self-reported contact with these out-groups,

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Table 3. Regression Model Predicting IndividualRatings of Stigmatized Out-groups

Predictor b

Peer Status† .17**Peer Group Ratings† .18**Antisocial Behavior† -.02Gender .29*Self-esteem -.02Contact .31***Peer Status X Self-esteem† -.17**

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ****p < .0001; †One-tailedtest of significance.

210-1-2-2

-1

0

1

2

High Self-esteemAverage Self-esteemLow Self-esteem

Individual Peer Status

Indi

vidu

al R

atin

gs o

f St

igm

atiz

ed O

ut-g

roup

s

Figure 2. Plot of interaction between peer status and self-esteem for the model pre-dicting ratings of stigmatized out-groups.

302 Jeff Kiesner et al.

and the interaction between peer status and self-esteem all contributed significantly tothe overall model. Contrary to the previous model, the average ratings of target groupsby the individual’s self-nominated peer group, and gender were not related to ratingsof the non-stigmatized out-groups. Finally, in the present model, but not the previousmodel, antisocial behavior was also significantly and negatively related to ratings ofthe non-stigmatized out-groups. This negative coefficient for antisocial behavior indi-cates that, as expected, antisocial individuals tend to report more negative ratings ofthese non-stigmatized out-groups than non-antisocial individuals.

The coefficients related to the interaction between peer status and self-esteem werealmost identical to those found in the previous model. Therefore, examination ofFigure 2 provides an adequate depiction of this interaction using non-stigmatized out-group ratings as the dependent variable. Again, for low self-esteem individuals thereis a positive relation between peer status and out-group ratings, whereas for high self-esteem individuals there is no relation between peer status and out-group ratings.

In the final model, predicting in-group ratings, 6% of the variance was explained,which was only marginally significant (F(7, 179) = 1.95, p < .10). The only predictorvariable which reached statistical significance was in-group rating by the self-nominated peer group (b = .16, p < .05).

Discussion

One of the primary hypotheses of the present study was that low peer status would berelated to out-group prejudice. This hypothesis was supported by the data. There wasa consistent multivariate relation between peer status and out-group ratings, in the predicted direction. Moreover, as hypothesized, this relation was moderated by theindividual’s self-esteem. The relation between peer status and out-group ratings wasstrongest when self-esteem was low, and non-existent when self-esteem was high.

This pattern of results was found when predicting ratings of both stigmatized andnon-stigmatized out-groups. Note that both Scapegoat Theory (Hovland & Sears,1940; Berkowitz, 1962) and Downward Comparison Theory (Wills, 1981) predict thiseffect only for low-status out-groups. Because in the present study the stigmatized out-

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Table 4. Regression Model Predicting IndividualRatings of Non-stigmatized Out-groups

Predictor b

Peer Status† .20**Peer Group Ratings† .08Antisocial Behavior† -.21**Gender .13Self-esteem -.03Contact .33***Peer Status X Self-esteem† -.17**

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ****p < .0001; †One-tailedtest of significance.

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 303

groups are clearly also low status, whereas the non-stigmatized out-groups are not,these theories would not necessarily predict this effect for both of these sets of out-groups. However, even though the Scapegoat Theory predicts these effects towardsonly low-status out-groups, the re-analysis of Hovland and Sears’ data found the sameeffects relative to both Black lynchings and White lynchings (Hepworth & West,1988). Thus, while this re-analysis suggests that target-group status is not important,it also suggests that we should expect the same effect for in-group targets in the presentstudy. Yet, in the present study, no relation was found between peer status and in-groupratings. However, lynchings and group ratings are very different measures, and itseems plausible that one could be violent towards an in-group member without dero-gating the entire group, or vice versa.

Other research in social psychology, on the other hand, has shown that target-groupstatus is important for understanding out-group derogation (Cadinu & Reggiori, 2002).These researchers found that psychologists derogated social workers, but not doctors,following negative in-group feedback. In this case social workers were low status inrelation to psychologists, but clearly not in relation to all professions or in any objec-tive sense. Therefore, in the present study, the generalization of the effect of peer statusacross ratings of both stigmatized and non-stigmatized out-groups may be explainedby the consistently lower ratings given to all out-groups than the in-groups. That is tosay, in the present study, relative to the in-groups, all other groups were considered‘lower status’.

A second important finding is that self-esteem had no main effects on prejudice.This is inconsistent with Social Identity Theory, which predicts that people are motivated to differentiate the in-group from the out-group in order to enhance theirself-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). However, self-esteem wasfound to moderate the effects of peer status: when self-esteem was low the relationbetween peer status and prejudice was stronger than when self-esteem was high. Thisfinding has both theoretical and practical implications. At the theoretical level it sug-gests that the role of self-esteem may not be direct, but that self-esteem may make theindividual more or less vulnerable to other social conditions (i.e., low social status,inter-group threat). At the applied level, these findings suggest that helping youthdevelop a positive self-esteem (e.g. through success in some personally importantdomain) may make the individual less vulnerable to the effects of social failure.

It should be noted that, because the present study uses a correlational design, thedirection of causation cannot be determined. For example, it is possible that beingrejected results in higher levels of prejudice, as we have hypothesized here. However,it also is possible that prejudice results in peer rejection. However, whereas the inter-action between peer status and self-esteem is consistent with the hypothesis that peerrejection leads to higher levels of prejudice, it would be difficult to interpret this inter-action if one were to argue that prejudice leads to peer rejection. Further research isclearly needed in order to provide stronger evidence for the hypothesized direction ofeffects.

A third important finding is that prejudice was related to antisocial behavior, butonly for non-stigmatized out-groups. One important question regarding antisocialbehavior, then, is why it was related to ratings of non-stigmatized out-groups but notstigmatized out-groups. One possible explanation is that the social acceptance of negative attitudes towards the stigmatized out-groups is so strong that antisocial andnon-antisocial youth are equally as likely to show negative attitudes towards them. Onthe other hand, for non-stigmatized out-groups an individual must depart from social

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

304 Jeff Kiesner et al.

norms to have clearly negative attitudes. Being antisocial may represent such a depar-ture from normative attitudes. The relation between antisocial behavior and prejudicewill be discussed more fully below.

It was also hypothesized that individuals would be similar to their self-nominatedgroups with regard to prejudice. Results confirmed this hypothesis, but only for thestigmatized out-groups. Although these findings at first may seem inconsistent withthe results presented by Ritchey and Fishbein (2001) and Aboud and Doyle (1996a),we believe that they are consistent. Although these previous studies found no simi-larity among friends on a variety of measures of prejudice, the participants in both ofthese studies demonstrated no clear prejudice, at the group level, on any of the measures. Thus, the results presented by Ritchey and Fishbein (2001) and Aboud andDoyle (1996a) are comparable to, and consistent with, the findings in the present studyregarding non-stigmatized out-groups.

One explanation for the difference between stigmatized and non-stigmatized out-groups is that groups for which there are clear stereotypes will provide salient attitu-dinal information regarding people, and could then be used by others for selecting ornot selecting the individual as a companion. For example, an individual who has verynegative opinions of Albanians will likely be tolerant and possibly appreciative ofothers with similar opinions. Prejudice towards stigmatized out-groups is then pro-posed to function as a selection criterion for friendships. On the other hand, non-stigmatized out-groups are not the subjects of discussion and therefore do not providesalient attitudinal information regarding the individual. Thus, they would not beexpected to be used as a criterion during friendship selection.

The similarity between the individual participants and their self-nominated groupsmay be important for understanding developmental changes throughout adolescencein prejudiced attitudes. For example, previous research has shown that peers play animportant role in the escalation of antisocial behavior (Dishion, Capaldi, Spracklen,& Li, 1995b; Dishion, Eddy, Haass, Li, & Spracklen, 1997; Dishion, Spracklen,Andrews, & Patterson, 1996; Kiesner et al., 2002). It is possible that the sameprocesses which result in peer influence on antisocial behavior would also be presentfor prejudice. Thus, it would be predicted that individuals who report already highlevels of prejudice are likely to reinforce each other’s prejudice attitudes and behav-iors, resulting in an increase in prejudice. This process of reinforcement and escala-tion within the context of similar peers may contribute to the development of extremeforms of racism which often occur in group contexts.

We also examined the relation between contact with the out-groups and ratings ofthose out-groups. As expected, this relation was significant and in the expected direc-tion for both stigmatized and non-stigmatized out-groups. Three points are importantregarding this result. First, the level of contact was low (see methods). Thus, the safestconclusion may be that low levels of contact lead to lower levels of prejudice than nocontact at all. Second, because we don’t know where, or in what context, the contactoccurred, we have no data regarding whether Allport’s conditions for contact were metwith the present sample. Third, the measures of contact and prejudice come from thesame self-report measure, and thus the effect is likely to be inflated by mono-methodbias. On the other hand, this does appear to be a robust finding in the literature (seeBrown, 1995).

Finally, it is clear from the present study that these adolescents self-report highlevels of ethnic prejudice for certain groups. For example, in Figure 1 it can be seenthat the median rating for Gypsies is below 2, that the median rating for Albanians is

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 305

below 2.5, and that most participants rated Gypsies, Albanians, and Moroccans belowthe scale midpoint, thus indicating negative attitudes. The median rating for the in-groups (Veneti and Italians), on the other hand, were both above 6, with almost all ofthe participants rating the in-groups above the scale midpoint. This is very differentfrom studies in which no clear prejudice was demonstrated at a group level (seeRitchey & Fishbein, 2001). Thus, by early adolescence these participants have alreadydeveloped strong intergroup biases, indicated both by positive in-group ratings andnegative out-group ratings.

Overall, the present study provides a set of findings which suggest that prejudiceduring adolescence is related to a set of key social developmental variables: peer status,antisocial behavior, peer attitudes, and self-esteem. This pattern of results suggeststhat extreme prejudice towards ethnic and racial out-groups may be part of a largerpattern of developmental maladjustment such as a general problem–behavior syn-drome (Gottfred & Hirshi, 1990; Jessor & Jessor, 1977). Certainly, this does not implythat only problem youth will demonstrate prejudice. Rather, we suggest that high levelsof prejudice, like high levels of problem behavior, will be correlated with other prob-lems of social development, and that examining the developmental course of preju-dice in this context will be informative.

Considering prejudice as part of a general syndrome, however, does not take awaythe importance of considering prejudice at the group level. As was very clear in thepresent study, on average, Italian adolescents demonstrated clearly negative and com-monly shared attitudes towards some groups. Thus, although we can say that the mostprejudice adolescents also demonstrate other problems, it is also true that, on average,the entire sample showed noticeably high levels of prejudice. Although the presentstudy suggests that future research should continue to examine individual differencesin prejudice, it is also clear that prejudice represents a serious problem at thegroup/population level.

These findings represent an important step towards understanding the developmentof ethnic and racial prejudice. Earlier research on the development of prejudice hasfocussed primarily on cognitive development at the group level (Aboud, 1988; Doyle& Aboud, 1995; Katz, 1976), and there has been relatively little research regardingwhat factors may contribute to the development of individual differences in ethnic andracial prejudice during adolescence. The present study provides strong evidence thatethnic prejudice in early adolescence is related to the social developmental context ofthe individual, and suggests that future research should consider these factors.

References

Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford: Blackwell.Aboud, F. E. & Amato, M. (in press). Developmental and socialization influences on intergroup

bias. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook in Social Psychology, Vol 4:Intergroup Processes. Oxford: Blackwell.

Aboud, F. E. & Doyle, A. B. (1996a). Parental and peer influences on children’s racial attitudes.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 371–383.

Aboud, F. E. & Doyle, A. B. (1996b). Does talk of race foster prejudice or tolerance in chil-dren? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 161–170.

Aboud, F. E. & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and quality:Developmental perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.),The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 87–112). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

306 Jeff Kiesner et al.

Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in socialidentity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Bierly, M. M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 189–199.Bigler, R. S. & Liben, L. S. (1993). A cognitive-developmental approach to racial stereo-

typing and reconstructive memory in Euro-American children. Child Development, 64,1507–1518.

Black-Gutman, D. & Hickson, F. (1996). The relationship between racial attitudes and social-cognitive development in children: An Australian study. Developmental Psychology, 32,448–456.

Breakwell, G. M. (1979). Illegitimate group membership and inter-group differentiation. BritishJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 141–149.

Brown, B., Mory, M. & Kinney, D. (1994). Casting crowds in a relational perspective: Carica-ture, channel, and context. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Advances inadolescent development, Vol. 5: Personal relationships during adolescence. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Brown, G. & Johnson, S. P. (1971). The attribution of behavioural connotations to shaded andwhite figures by Caucasian children. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10,306–312.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future

challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.Cadinu, M. & Reggiori, C. (2002). Discrimination of a low status out-group: The role of in-

group threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 501–515.Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariépy, J. (1988). Social net-

works and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection. Developmental Psychology,24, 815–823.

Carlson, J. M. & Iovini, J. (1985). The transmission of racial attitudes from fathers to sons: Astudy of Blacks and Whites. Adolescence, 20, 233–237.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: Across-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.

Crocker, J., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingerman, C. (1987). Downward compari-son, prejudice, and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and threat. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 907–916.

Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995a). Antisocial boys and their friends in earlyadolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Develop-ment, 66, 139–151.

Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D., Spracklen, K. M., & Li, F. (1995b). Peer ecology of male adoles-cent drug use. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 803–824.

Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. M. (1997). Friendships and violentbehavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 207–225.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., Capaldi, D. M., Forgatch, M. S., & McCarthy, S.(1984). Child Telephone Interview. (Available from OSLC, 207 E. 5th Suite 202, Eugene,OR 97401.)

Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy train-ing in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390.

Doyle, A. B. & Aboud, F. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children’s racial prejudice as asocial-cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209–228.

Ennett, S. & Bauman, K. (1996). Adolescent social networks: School, demographic, and longitudinal consideration. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 194–215.

Gottfred, M. R. & Hirshi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hepworth, J. T. & West, S. G. (1988). Lynchings and economy: A time-series reanalysis ofHovland and Sears (1940). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 239–247.

Hollingshed, A. ([1949] 1975). Elmtown’s youth and Elmtown revisited. New York: Wiley.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

Ethnic Prejudice During Adolescence 307

Hovland, C. & Sears, R. R. (1940). Minor studies in aggression. VI: Correlation of lynchingswith economic indices. Journal of Psychology, 9, 301–310.

Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development. New York:Academic Press.

Kandel, D. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 36, 306–312.

Katz, P. A. (1976). The acquisition of racial attitudes in children. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towardsthe elimination of racism (pp. 125–154). New York: Pergamon Press.

Kiesner, J. (1997). The effects of a homework monitoring intervention on school engagementof high risk middle school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eugene: Universityof Oregon.

Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M. R., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early ado-lescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer influence. ChildDevelopment, 73, 196–208.

Kiesner, J., Dishion, T. J., & Poulin, F. (2000). A reinforcement model of conduct problems inchildren and adolescents: Advances in theory and intervention. In J. Hill. & B. Maughan(Eds.), Conduct disorders in children and adolescence (pp. 264–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kinney, D. (1993). From nerds to normals: The recovery of identity among adolescents frommiddle school to high school. Sociology of Education, 66, 21–40.

Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. ChildDevelopment, 53, 1431–1446.

Masson, C. N. & Verkuyten, M. (1993). Prejudice, ethnic identity, contact and ethnic grouppreferences among Dutch young adolescence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,156–168.

Nesdale, D. & Flesser, D. (2001). Social identity and the development of children’s group atti-tudes. Child Development, 72, 506–517.

Newcomb, A. F. & Bukowski, W. M. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determi-nants of children’s peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856–867.

Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership statusand public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,127–137.

O’Brien, S. & Bierman, K. (1988). Conceptions and perceived influence of peer groups: Inter-views with preadolescents and adolescents. Child Development, 59, 1360–1365.

Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. G., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status andacademic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80–87.

Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.

Patchen, M., Davidson, J. D., Hofmann, G., & Brown, W. R. (1977). Determinants of students’interracial behavior and opinion change. Sociology of Education, 50, 55–75.

Poulin, F., Cillessen, A. H. N., Hubbard, J. A., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997).Children’s friends and behavioral similarity in two social contexts. Social Development, 6,224–236.

Powlishta, K. K., Serbin, L. A., Doyle, A. B., & White, D. R. (1994). Gender, ethnic, and bodytype biases: The generality of prejudice in childhood. Developmental Psychology, 30,526–536.

Ray, J. J. & Lovejoy, F. H. (1986). The generality of prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology,126, 563–564.

Ritchey, N. P. & Fishbein, H. D. (2001). The lack of an association between adolescent friends’prejudices and stereotypes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 188–206.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rubin, M. & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 40–62.

Rutland, A. (1999). The development of national prejudice, in-group favouritism and self-stereotypes in British children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 55–70.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003

308 Jeff Kiesner et al.

Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young people. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Schofield, J. W. (1979). The impact of positively structured contact on intergroup behavior:Does it last under adverse conditions? Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 280–284.

Shrum, W., Cheek, N., Jr., & Hunter, S. (1988). Friendship in school: Gender and racialhomophily. Sociology of Education, 61, 227–239.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. Austin &S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Tolson, J. M. & Urberg, K. A. (1993). Similarity between adolescent best friends. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 8, 274–288.

Verkuyten, M. (1996). Personal self-esteem and prejudice among ethnic majority and minor-ity youth. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 248–263.

Verkuyten, M. (2001).National identification and intergroup evaluations in Dutch children.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 559–571.

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Social Development, 12, 2, 2003