Childrens Moral Reasoning About Gender and Race-Based Peer Exclusion - Essay Example

Children’s moral reasoning about gender and race-based peer exclusion Introduction Children differ with adults in theirreasoning. They hold different perceptions on the various issues affecting them, and as such, in their developmental stages, children hold diverse views about issues happening in the society. In the recent past, research on children’s moral reasoning has taken a dramatic change to focus on emerging issues, leading to new theories focusing on the effects of their reasoning to their morality. Currently, research focuses on gender and racial exclusions are the most significant forms of exclusion among children. If children perceive exclusion as morally wrong, they are likely to avoid exercising it, while in case they perceive it as right, it reduces their chances of exercising exclusion. Further, various elements determine the context under which children engage in certain groupings. The most significant of these factors include the social status of the children, gender, race, age, and ethnicity. These are the very variables that have the biggest weight in determining exclusion or inclusion of children in various groups. Researchers focus on these contexts in order to establish the role of exclusion and participation variables of children in the various groups. While discussing children’s moral reasoning of inclusion or exclusion, this essay will focus on two most important variables, gender, and race-based peer exclusion. According to Levesque (2011), social exclusion, a widely spread aspect of social life, often happens in everyday activities that children engage in. commonly practiced forms of exclusions among children to their peers include exclusion from engaging in birthday parties, exclusion from sports and games teams, and exclusion from joining social organizations such as schools, churches and hotels. In large scale, exclusions take the form of “social tragedies such as religious and ethnic related exclusion”, which in most cases lead to genocide and increased tensions between the affected groups. As Feigenberg et al. (2008) argues, whenever exclusion happens among individual children, it increases the levels of conflict and tension of the affected child. In extreme cases, the affected child may suffer from stress and stress related complications such as ulcers and low self-esteem. Therefore, preventing such exclusion among the children would solve numerous problems facing children in the society. Various studies relating to exclusions among peers have mainly focused on the inter-individual exclusion rather than inter-group exclusion in a child’s world. Further, peer rejection and victimization, as Feigenberg et al. (2008) observe, significantly affect the character of the victim, who may become violent and suicidal. This is a result of lack of social competence of the child, facilitated by self-hatred and the desire to show the world their ability. Other effects of exclusion include wariness of the individual, shyness, and fearfulness whenever in the midst of people (Cooley, et al., 2012). Gender based peer exclusion Gender is one of the most widely studied elements of social exclusion affecting children in the society. Gender inequality, described as any unjust discrimination of an individual based on their sex more often than not occurs among children in the society (Siegler, et al., 2010). Although most of the research conducted on gender discrimination and exclusion has focused on gender at adult level, little research focuses on gender exclusion among the children. Yet, it seldom happens. Understanding that children have the knowledge and understanding of exclusion among them is important (Levesque, 2011). Whenever adults practice any form of exclusion, they perceive children as rather too young to understand. On the contrary, they understand whenever they face any form of exclusion, affecting both the victim and their peers (Killen, 2007). Gender exclusion, as Kellan (2007) asserts, appear as a more legitimate form of exclusion compared to ethnically based exclusion. Further, certain issues happening in the society support ethnic and racial stereotyping more than gender stereotyping. Although stereotyping exhibits powerful forces legitimizing exclusion, assert Crystal, et al. (2010), extensive evidence explain how adolescents perceive the problems associated with discrimination in relation to social justice. However, social reasoning provides evidence supporting various methods that children use in justifying or rejecting exclusion. In addition to this, they determine the conditions contributing to their shift from giving morality first priority to group conditioning. Reasoning as a group weakens any individual ties, forcing the members of the group to conform to the group norms. The absence of moral reasoning in such instances is very likely (Siegler et al., 2010). Whenever this happens, children seldom treat the victim with any form of fairness.  Levesque (2011) argues that children and adolescents experience exclusion based on their identity. This form of exclusion has far-reaching effects on these individuals if the recent published research findings are anything to go by. Among adolescents, gender has been a major reason for the increased likelihood of peer exclusion in the various groups (Siegler et al., 2010). Although recent studies have showed diminishing cases of gender exclusion culminating from the changes inherent in the society, it still forms a considerable source of social exclusion among children. While in the past, there was a high level of gender discrimination among the children, recent changes in the social setup, among them being the contemporary cultures and the changes in the lifestyles have increasingly reduced this form of discrimination (Malti, et al., 2012). However, these changes have not successfully managed to deal with gender discrimination as it considerably affects children in various groups. The fact that gender plays a significant role in the composition of various groups is evidence enough. Among the most affected groups, include athletic teams, academic disciplines, occupations, and social organizations. Racial based peer exclusion Racial exclusion on the other hand focuses on the exclusion according to the race and ethnicity. However, researchers associate little explicitness with racial exclusion compared to the gender related exclusion (Killen, 2007). Because of their nature, children tend to reject racial based exclusion and use moral reasoning to explain these decisions (Siegler, et al., 2010). However, as adolescents in their developmental stages struggle to coordinate their “romantic” interests their gender and sexuality development process, sexual orientation is likely to play a big role in the outcomes (Wainman, et al., 2012). Killen & Stangor (2001) analyse the various forms under which race-based exclusion takes place. These include exclusion of people due to their colour, nationality, or origin. Children understand the differences between them, especially with relations to their skin colour and language; especially whenever organized into groups. Regardless of these “differences” however, whenever forming groups, race, or nationality do not feature in their grouping plans. Naturally, whenever racial exclusion happens it has considerable negative effects on these children (Fanger, et al., 2012). According to Møller & Tenenbaum (2011), children justify whether some of the issues affecting them are right or wrong in three ways, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. While pre-conventional focuses on the effects of these acts on the individual, conventional means focuses on these acts in terms of the norms of their groups. On the other hand, post-conventional context focuses on how they understand the justice in the kind of treatment they extend towards each other. The young children’s judgement on the social events and issues affecting them relate to the individual child, the group, and the justice element of the acts. Park & Killen (2010) argue that there is no hierarchical consideration in these judgements whatsoever. While some researchers argue that children’s judgement happens through a single context, others hold that a number of considerations such as moral, conventional, and psychological considerations significantly influence their judgement. Studies have focused on the actions that children are likely to take whenever confronted by a moral issue (Møller & Tenenbaum, 2011). Social domain models hold that various elements describe morality especially among the children. These elements include fairness, justice, rights, and the welfare of others. Children thus feel bad whenever exclusion happens in any of the three spheres. While one gets sad if excluded from a game or an event, the same feeling cuts across the members of the group. Additionally, they perceive it as an unjust treatment whenever they or their friends go through exclusion (Recchia, wt al., 2012). To them, it is immoral to exclude either in events, as they have the right to belong and take part in the event or the group (Siegler, et al., 2010). Killen (2007) finds a bigger connection between the intergroup connection among children and increased levels of prejudice in cases of exclusion. Among members of a group, there is a high level of interconnection among the members of that particular group. Intimacy and interpersonal relationships characterize members of groups (Fanger, et al., 2010). There is thus an increase in the likelihood of protection and high levels of concern for each other in the group (Smetana, et al., 1991). According to Chaparro, et al. (2013), children disregard racial exclusion among their peers. Arguments on the inter-ethnic grouping of children indicate that positive inter-ethnic attitudes reduce the chances of children engaging in the same ethnic grouping (Fanger, et al., 2010). Because of the increased levels of inter-ethnic friendship among the children, coupled with the success of these groups are the main reasons for this scenario. Children from different racial and ethnic backgrounds have a higher likelihood of forming groups than children from the same race or ethnicity (Levesque, 2011). Group norms, whether in-group or out-group related, influence the members of the groups in varying capacities. Their norms affect their inter-group attitudes and relationships, which result to an increase in the level of cohesion among these members. Killen (2007) however, argues that there is a close relationship between the interpretation of children’s in-group and out-group norms with prejudice and bias. According to Killen (2007), the main influencing factor on children’s perception of whether exclusion is either, legitimate or wrong largely depends on their willingness to accept or reject in-group identity norms. According to children’s lay theorists, the conventional knowledge about the meaning of working in a group and the rule played by efforts or intrinsic ability in determining group relations affects the prejudices and biasness in the group (Levesque, 2011). While working in a group, researchers have focused on the fairness in the allocation or denial in of resources to members of that particular group (Crawford, 2000). The denial or allocation of resources of members of the group is a moral consideration among the members of these groups. Contrary to the efforts that allow prejudicial treatment, moral decision-making focuses on the intrinsic ability of the members of the groups (Killen, 2007). Social status also affects the manner in which the members of the various groups treat each other. Social status of an individual thus plays a big role in their joining a particular group. Further, in addition to the social status of the individual determining the acceptance of the individual, it also contributes to winning them the position they assume after joining the group (Rutland et al., 2010). Along these lines of reasoning, children make judgements about their groups, especially on decisions relating to the influence of knowledge and group norms in their group membership. Further, it influences how these directly or indirectly influence their moral judgments about excluding and including certain individuals in their groups (Crawford, 2000). Group behaviour also depends on the social experiences of children. Intergroup contact among the members of different groups justifies the exclusion of children from belonging into various groups. According to the intergroup-contact theory, under certain conditions, increased contact of members of one group with members of other groups reduces prejudice among the children (Levesque, 2011). As such, the prejudice helps in reducing the conflicts inherent in the group. The challenge stage view of group development stages holds that whenever conflicts arise among the members of various groups, increased contact with members of other groups reduces the conflicts in the affected group (Killen, et al., 2002). Despite the children’s ability to make judgements on the prejudices among their groups especially on who to include and exclude in their groups, the use of assimilation helps children in making moral judgements on individuals to include in the groups. According to the stage view of group formation process, argue Rutland et al. (2010), one would expect children while forming their groups, to use either conventional or group expectation considerations. Contrary to these expectations, researchers assert that there are varying forms of reasoning among the children in different groups depending on the context and the balance of priorities. Effects of exclusion Sociologists argue that every form of exclusion has consequential effects on the victims. “Racial exclusion” for instance, contributes to increased pressures between assimilation and acculturation, thus affecting the preservation of an individual’s culture. “Gender exclusion” on the other hand increases chances of gender related struggle among the members of the excluded gender (Lahat & Zelazo, 2012). Victims of exclusion suffer serious consequences, both short term and long term. Short-term consequences either affect their performance in school or while playing. Further, they suffer from low self-esteem and increased levels of sadness. Children love play, and in the event of excluding, one in a game would result to depression and deep sadness. Long-term effects are however far reaching than the short-term consequences (Buhs, et al., 2006). A child who has faced exclusion in their life could affect character. While some show lack of self-esteem and a sense of belonging, others lead to social tragedies such as suicide or violent behaviour. Children who experience pervasive exclusion from their peers portray negative behaviour, characterized by increased cases of depression, anxiety, and loneliness (Killen, et al., 2002). Recent studies have indicated a reduction in the level of prejudice with the increase in the interaction between children of different groups. An analysis of the children’s racial attitudes indicates lower levels of prejudice among these children. As such, racial and ethnic groups are an important consideration whenever measuring the effects of exclusion among children of various groups. Although there is substantial evidence on how contact influences children’s racial considerations, little evidence focuses on the influence of contact to other categories such as nationality, gender, and religion. Conclusion There are contrasting views on the children’s perception of exclusions based on their gender and race. While some instances indicate substantial evidence supporting exclusion of individuals from their groups, in others, there is no form of justification whatsoever. The increased level of encounters adolescents have with exclusion especially largely depends on the focus on the middle and early adolescent development. While gender and racial exclusion are the most significant forms of exclusion affecting children, gender exclusion has considerable effects in relation to racial exclusion. Whenever subjected to inter-group relations, each type of exclusion experienced among the adolescents function within a unique context. As such, it would be inadequate focusing on the effects of gender and racial exclusions in relation to an individual’s experiences. In order to focus on the issue entirely, it is of great importance to consider the groups and the justice associated with these actions. References Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and childrens classroom engagement and achievement?. Journal of educational psychology, 98(1), 1. Chaparro, M., Kim, H., Fernández, A., & Malti, T. (2013). The development of children’s sympathy, moral emotion attributions, and moral reasoning in two cultures. European Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 10(4), 495-509. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.742008 Cooley, S., Elenbaas, L., & Killen, M. (2012). Moral judgments and emotions: Adolescents evaluations in intergroup social exclusion contexts. New Directions For Youth Development, 2012(136), 41-57. doi:10.1002/yd.20037 Crawford, C. (2000). Racial Promotion Through Racial Exclusion. Society, 37(5), 37-43. Crystal, D. S., Killen, M., & Ruck, M. D. (2010). Fair Treatment by Authorities is Related to Childrens and Adolescents Evaluations of Interracial Exclusion. Applied Developmental Science, 14(3), 125-136. doi:10.1080/10888691.2010.493067 Fanger, S., Frankel, L., & Hazen, N. (2012). Peer Exclusion in Preschool Childrens Play: Naturalistic Observations in a Playground Setting. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(2), 224-254. Feigenberg, L., King, M., Barr, D. J., & Selman, R. L. (2008). Belonging to and exclusion from the peer group in schools: influences on adolescents moral choices. Journal Of Moral Education, 37(2), 165-184. doi:10.1080/03057240802009306 Killen, M. (2007). Childrens Social and Moral Reasoning About Exclusion. Current Directions In Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 16(1), 32-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00470.xv Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Childrens Social Reasoning about Inclusion and Exclusion in Gender and Race Peer Group Contexts. Child Development, 72(1), 174. Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How Children And Adolescents Evaluate Gender And Racial Exclusion. Monographs Of The Society For Research In Child Development, 67(4), 1. Lahat, A., & Zelazo, P. (2012). Towards a Process Model of Childrens Reasoning about Social Domains. Human Development (0018716X), 55(1), 26-29. doi:10.1159/000335525 Levesque, R. J. R. (2011). Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Springer. Malti, T., Ongley, S. F., Dys, S. P., & Colasante, T. (2012). Adolescents emotions and reasoning in contexts of moral conflict and social exclusion. New Directions For Youth Development, 2012(136), 27-40. doi:10.1002/yd.20036 Møller, S. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Danish Majority Childrens Reasoning About Exclusion Based on Gender and Ethnicity.Child Development, 82(2), 520-532. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01568.x Park, Y., & Killen, M. (2010). When is peer rejection justifiable? Childrens understanding across two cultures. Cognitive Development, 25(3), 290-301. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.10.004 Recchia, H. E., Brehl, B. A., & Wainryb, C. (2012). Childrens and adolescents’ reasons for socially excluding others. Cognitive Development, 27(2), 195-203. Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A New Social-Cognitive Developmental Perspective on Prejudice: The Interplay Between Morality and Group Identity. Perspectives On Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), 5(3), 279-291. doi:10.1177/1745691610369468 Siegler, R. S., DeLoache, J. S., & Eisenberg, N. (2010). How children develop. New York: Worth. Smetana, J. G., Killen, M., & Turiel, E. (1991). Childrens reasoning about interpersonal and moral conflicts. Child Development, 62(3), 629-644. Wainman, B., Boulton-Lewis, G., Walker, S., Brownlee, J., Cobb, C., Whiteford, C., & Johnsson, E. (2012). Young childrens beliefs about including others in their play: Social and moral reasoning about inclusion and exclusion. Australasian Journal Of Early Childhood, 37(3), 137-146. Read More