Chapter 13 Preventing Prejudices through Social Skills Training and Intergroup Contact between Refugee and Native Children

In: The Challenge of Radicalization and Extremism
Authors:
Jan S. Pfetsch
Search for other papers by Jan S. Pfetsch in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anja Schultze-Krumbholz
Search for other papers by Anja Schultze-Krumbholz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Laura M. Neumann
Search for other papers by Laura M. Neumann in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

Abstract

The increasing cultural and ethnic diversity in Europe can enrich its societies with intercultural friendships and exchange. The positive integration of individuals who have experienced forced migration depends on a successful process of psychosocial adjustment and the intercultural openness of the society of destination. Childhood is a particularly crucial stage in the development of ethnic prejudices, and measures for preventing prejudices and fostering tolerance should therefore start at this early age. Based on an exemplary intervention study, this chapter shows how intergroup contact combined with social competence training can reduce prejudices and increase tolerance both, for majority and minority groups.

1 Background

Societal events and changes can trigger prejudice and prejudice-related hate and attacks. For example, the migration movement into Europe in 2015, when refugees from war regions in the Middle East migrated to Europe in large numbers, posed a challenge for many countries: integrating the newly arrived into society and increasing society’s tolerance towards them. Since childhood is a crucial stage for the development of ethnic prejudices (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011), it seems reasonable to implement interventions for this age group to foster tolerance and integration and reduce prejudices and discrimination. Schools can be especially challenged by the need to organize school places for children and adolescents with refugee experiences because of the disparities between international school systems, the generally low levels of migrants’ competence in the language of their country of destination, and high numbers of arriving refugees caused by natural disasters, humanitarian crises, or (civil) wars in certain nations or regions. On the other hand, educational institutions have specialized staff for teaching and education, the normative mission to support the civic development of their students, and organizational structures to enable joint learning and intergroup contact between native and refugee children. This chapter will show how structured intergroup contact can be established through social skills training and cooperative learning and that these interactions can influence prejudices and tolerance in native and refugee children alike and how this can be a promising approach for preventing radicalization and extremism.

2 Prejudices and Tolerance

Our current understanding of prejudice is based on Gordon Allport’s definition of prejudice as ‘an antipathy based on a faulty and inflexible generalization’ (1954, p. 9). This antipathy may be felt, thought, or expressed, thus reaching from an emotional and cognitive to a behavioural dimension. These three dimensions of prejudice can be found in the conceptualization of prejudice as a display of negative attitudes through the dislike of a person (emotional), the attribution of negative characteristics to this person (cognitive), or negative behaviour towards this person (behavioural) based on the generalization of attributions regarding the out-group of which the person is assumed to be a member (Dovidio et al., 2010; Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). Attitudes are ‘favourable or unfavourable evaluations or appraisals’ (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188) of behaviour, objects, or people. Prejudice towards individuals is based on group-assigned characteristics and does not take into account individual differences within the out-group (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011).

This three-dimensional conceptualization of prejudice provides a good starting point for intervention and prevention approaches because it allows for a description of complex situations, although the phenomenon cannot be uniformly described because not all components occur simultaneously. Someone with negative assumptions about an out-group does not necessarily have to behave in a discriminatory way. Nonetheless, the three dimensions are helpful for analytical purposes and for an understanding of how the dimensions of prejudice influence each other (Klein, 2014). The cognitive dimension is sometimes also equated to stereotypes, i.e. the typical picture that people associate with a specific social group (Lippmann, 1922; cited in Dovidio et al., 2010). The psychological, and especially the cognitive, function of stereotypes is to reduce or simplify complex social environments. However, this leads to the perception of a group as a whole (i.e. an overgeneralization; Allport, 1954), with each member believed to be sharing the same attributes instead of allowing for the fact that group members may have unique characteristics. These processes may take place automatically, involuntarily, and unintentionally. However, they are dependent on a number of circumstances and can therefore be modified, although a much larger cognitive effort is necessary for an individualized as compared to a categorical perception (Degner et al., 2009). Moreover, people emotionally resist new knowledge that might disprove their prejudices (Fishbein, 2002, p. 3).

To a large extent, prejudices are based on emotions (affective dimension). They can be related to sympathy or antipathy, which can be expressed in intense forms such as anger, rage or hatred, and which can influence the need for social closeness versus social distance towards members of another group (Beelmann et al., 2010). It can be assumed that the affective and cognitive processes underlying prejudices are interrelated. In the context of prejudice, emotions primarily refer to fear or to a perceived threat to the in-group’s very existence, its political or economic power, or its physical or material well-being. Fear can also be elicited by a perceived threat to the in-group’s values and traditions. Additionally, fear may be more personal, such as people being afraid of being embarrassed, ridiculed, or rejected by members of the out-group. Finally, stereotypes themselves lead to expectations of negative, conflictual, or unpleasant interactions (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). However, changing such emotions seems feasible: using approaches like reappraisal, misattribution, or desensitization to the emotions caused by intergroup relations may reduce the effect of negative emotions on, for example, judgement and behaviour (Smith & Mackie, 2005).

The behavioural dimension of prejudice is often believed to refer to behavioural intentions rather than specific behaviour (e.g. Fishbein, 2002). Attitudes can be a driver for behavioural intentions (i.e. discriminatory intentions) which, in turn, are related to actual discriminatory behaviour. However, factors like (subjective) norms and perceived behavioural control also influence behavioural intentions and behaviour (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In adults, discriminatory behaviour may range from derogatory comments behind someone’s back to genocide, while children often show discriminatory behaviour by socially excluding out-group peers, being rude to them, calling them names, or picking a fight with them (Fishbein, 2002; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002).

Prejudices in their different dimensions have detrimental outcomes for the development of children and adolescents. For example, school-wide perceptions of peer prejudice within the respective school were associated with lower academic achievement, while individual perceptions of peer prejudice were linked to lower levels of school attachment (Benner et al., 2015). Being aware of the negative expectations regarding one’s group can lead students to underperform even though they initially started out equal in terms of parental income, education, and quality of school. Thus, a factor unrelated to intelligence or skills influences the academic achievement of students of colour (Aronson, 2004). Moreover, prejudices expressed as behaviours (i.e. discrimination) are related to subjective health (Kolarcik et al., 2015) as well as to aggressive behaviour and violence (Bayram Özdemir et al., 2018; Kuhn, 2004). Even more importantly, from a societal point of view, prejudice reduces contact (Binder et al., 2009) and may thus have negative effects on feelings of belonging and connectedness. However, a feeling of attachment to society protects against radicalization and extremism (Lösel et al., 2018). Adolescents who are rejected or excluded may find a sense of meaning and belonging in radical or extremist groups (Borum, 2014).

In contrast to ethnic prejudices, tolerance refers to the belief that e.g. immigrants and non-immigrants should be treated equally. This belief is based on an understanding of equalitarian principles and political convictions (van Zalk & Kerr, 2014). However, tolerance is not the exact opposite of prejudice and may even co-occur with prejudices within individuals; that is, individuals might have prejudices towards members of an out-group while at the same time believing that everyone should be treated equally. Tolerance can be increased through intergroup contact (e.g. in the form of friendships) which in turn decreases prejudices (van Zalk & Kerr, 2014). The results of this longitudinal study showed that prejudices and tolerance were only moderately negatively related and did thus not form opposite ends of one dimension. According to Forst (2000; see also Köhler, 2016) there are four levels of tolerance. The first three levels—permission, coexistence, respect—all refer to some kind of permission and all of them accept but do not endorse the differences. Only at the highest level—appreciation—do the groups not only view each other as equal but also appreciate each other’s views, while still believing their own views to be superior. So even at its appreciative highest level, tolerance still carries some kind of rejection, according to this approach.

There is significant variation between adolescents regarding levels of prejudice and tolerance. Regarding the development from childhood to adolescence, Raabe and Beelmann (2011) examined 113 studies from around the world and found that prejudices increased between early and middle childhood and then decreased between middle and late childhood as well as within late childhood. They did not find changes in adolescence and concluded that changes are limited to childhood. Moreover, they found age-specific changes; for example, explicit prejudices decreased between middle and late childhood, but implicit prejudices did not. Also, prejudices against national out-groups did not change during this age, while they decreased for minorities within a country. Given these results, the authors concluded that the time between middle and late childhood could be a sensitive phase for reducing prejudices (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). Argued from a social-cognitive perspective, the in-group preference and positive identification with a high-status group is crucial for the development of prejudices at this age, and higher levels of cognitive flexibility, hypothetical thinking, and openness for other people’s perspectives during early adolescence enable more social tolerance. In addition to cognitive development, social identity and societal context can influence the stability of prejudices from childhood to adolescence; thus, the ethnic identity of participants can also influence the development of prejudices (Teichman & Bar-Tal, 2008). Contrary to Raabe and Beelmann (2011), van Zalk and Kerr (2014) found changes in adolescence; prejudices decreased from early to late adolescence while tolerance increased. However, only about a quarter of the individual differences in changes could be attributed to simultaneous changes in prejudice and tolerance. Further, tolerance increased to a much smaller extent than prejudice decreased. The authors explain the general developmental trends of these attitudes with social norms and value systems which adolescents increasingly acquired and integrated as well as with cognitive maturation processes which allowed adolescents to align abstract principles of equality with real-life situations. Norms of tolerance need to be modelled by significant others (e.g. parents, peers) as well as relevant institutions (e.g. school).

3 Prevention of Prejudice

To reduce prejudice and to enhance respect for ethnic differences in childhood, several empirical studies have been conducted, and three reviews have systematized the empirical evidence of the preventive interventions explored in the studies (Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Ülger et al., 2018). These reviews divide prejudice prevention programmes based on programme content (e.g. knowledge-based interventions, intergroup contact, social-cognitive skills, or individual competence training). Other distinctions concern the intervention strategy (e.g. perceptual-cognitive strategies, individual strategies, interpersonal strategies, or a combination of these) or the exposure to information to change group attitudes (e.g. intergroup contact, media exposure to another ethnic group, exposure to multicultural or antibias instruction).

In a systematic review of 32 studies for children up to eight years with 62 effect sizes on attitudes and 59 effect sizes on peer relations, Aboud et al. (2012) found interventions concerning attitudes to be more effective than those concerning peer relations, and media-based or multicultural/antibias interventions to be more effective than contact interventions. Interestingly, promoting intergroup attitudes was more positive for ethnic majority children than for ethnic minority children. The authors explained this through the assumption that prejudice and exclusion are more prevalent and serious in majority ethnicities (Aboud et al., 2012).

Based on a meta-analysis of 81 research reports with 268 effect sizes for children and adolescents from three to eighteen years, Beelmann and Heinemann (2014) concluded that the inclusion of programme components like structured direct intergroup contacts and training in perspective taking, and the programme parameters ‘active trainer’ (be it a researcher, teacher, or trained student) and ‘implementation within the curriculum’ are related to higher effect sizes. In general, multimodal programmes showed higher and more generalized effects on prejudice and other intergroup attitudes (tolerance, social distance, knowledge) than programmes with only one content aspect, and the cognitive and behavioural aspects of intergroup attitudes were more strongly influenced than the emotional aspects (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014).

Integrating 50 anti-bias interventions in schools with over 7,000 school-age students, Ülger et al. (2018) found that interventions were effective for both primary school students and middle and high school students (but slightly more effective for older students), and that interventions led by researchers or research assistants were more effective than interventions led by teachers (in contrast to Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). While the intervention effect was significant for majority group members, interventions showed no significant effect for minority group members (although only seven studies contributed effect sizes for this group). Additionally, intergroup contact interventions and multifaceted interventions (combined intervention strategies) were highly effective in younger children and less effective in older children and adolescents (Ülger et al., 2018).

In sum, although these meta-analyses show some variation in the results for programme components and intervention strategies, it seems that prevention programmes to change cognitive, affective, and behavioural prejudices are generally effective, also work for younger children (although higher effect sizes can be found in adolescents), and mainly reduce prejudices in majority groups and to a lesser extent in minority groups. Intergroup contact and multimodal/multifaceted programmes seem to provide promising intervention contents.

4 Intergroup Contact

The origin of the contact hypothesis is dated to Gordon Allport (1954), who stated that intergroup contact reduces prejudices and who proposed four optimal conditions of contact: equal status of involved groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support by institutional authorities. Indeed, meta-analytic evidence suggests that these optimal contact conditions facilitate a decrease in prejudice but that even if the conditions are not met, a smaller reduction of prejudices occurs (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). The reduction of prejudices through greater contact is remarkably robust across age groups, gender, and nations. The effect can be seen quite universally and works for majority groups and to a lesser extent also for minority groups (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Not only direct contact with an ethnic minority (meeting face-to-face with out-group members) but also extended contact (knowing an in-group member who has an out-group friend) and imagined contact (simply imagining contact with out-group members) can improve intergroup attitudes (Hewstone & Swart, 2011). In relation to refugees, positive intergroup contact of adults with asylum seekers leads to more positive attitudes towards asylum seekers in general (Kotzur et al., 2019). Further, in five- to eleven-year-old children, extended intergroup contact also improved attitudes toward refugees (Cameron et al., 2006). Thus, intergroup contact can be a powerful tool for reducing prejudice and for fostering tolerance for both majority and minority status groups (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005), especially when combined with training in social competencies and intergroup knowledge (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014).

5 The Need for Intervention in Schools

Early adolescence is an important phase for the formation of friendships, which have numerous strong effects on development, especially regarding normative and differential aspects (Hartup, 1996). School is a primary meeting place for different social groups, and school attendance is compulsory in Germany and many countries. As we have already shown, intergroup contact and friendships are significant for reducing prejudices and increasing tolerance. To accommodate newly arrived refugee children and adolescents, many German schools established new types of classes (so-called ‘welcome classes’) in the past decade. The rationale behind this was a focus on language development and acquisition. However, these classes had a separating effect, keeping these children and adolescents socially out of regular classes and away from the opportunities of intergroup contact for both majority and minority students. Since German young people are among the most intolerant young people in Europe (Beelmann et al., 2009), there is a pressing need for the social integration of refugee children in schools and society.

6 Research Question and Hypotheses

Building on previous research, we examined whether a universal prevention programme would help native and refugee children to reduce prejudice and increase tolerance on both sides. Based on empirical results regarding the relevance of childhood as a crucial stage for the development of ethnic prejudices (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011), the effectiveness of intergroup contact (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005) and combined interventions of intergroup contact and training in social competencies and intergroup knowledge (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Ülger et al., 2018), and results showing that intergroup contact effectively reduces prejudices among majority and minority groups even in younger children (Ülger et al., 2018), we formulated two hypotheses:

  1. (H1)Intergroup contact reduces prejudices and increases interpersonal tolerance in both native and refugee children.
  2. (H2)The combination of intergroup contact, social competence, and knowledge training shows the most favourable outcomes (reduced prejudices, increased interpersonal tolerance).

7 Intervention Study

7.1 Design of the Intervention

A universal prevention programme for the reduction of prejudices between native and refugee children was developed for 5th graders (children around 10 or 11 years), which lasted for eight weeks and a total of 18.5 hours. The programme was implemented from May to July 2017 and was accompanied by data collections (see below). The programme consisted of several units (see Table 13.1) that were implemented by at least two trained educators per group (school social workers, similar to education welfare officers). In a first, cognitively oriented unit, the themes were causes of flight and self-reflection on societal views of refugees. In order to reflect personal experiences and in order to relate the information to their own living situations, only native children learned facts about refugees and their living situations. In a second step, social competence training with seven units was conducted and implemented in small groups of native and refugee children. Examples of behaviourally oriented contents included cooperative games, exercises about person perception or emotion awareness, role plays about tolerance, group work on friendship, and social responsibility, and a problem-solving schema which was taught through role plays about conflict resolution. In the last unit, the mixed small groups were sent on a field trip in the neighbourhood during which they had to complete challenges to achieve a positive ending of the programme.

Table 13.1

Overview of the intervention programme

Unit Theme Content Aims
1 Knowledge transfer and reflection Flight reasons, personal experiences versus social prejudices Knowledge about flight;

relating knowledge to own living situation
2 Social competence and intergroup contact Cooperative games and group rules Cooperation competence;

basis for positive group climate
3 Social competence and intergroup contact Exercises about person perception Multiple categorization;

positive group emotions
4 Social competence and intergroup contact Exercises about emotional awareness Emotion perception;

cognitive empathy
5 Social competence and intergroup contact Role plays and cooperative games about tolerance Interpersonal tolerance
6 Social competence and intergroup contact Group work on friendship Social competence in interpersonal relationships
7 Social competence and intergroup contact Examples of tolerance and fair social interactions Social responsibility
8 Social competence and intergroup contact Problem-solving schema, role plays about conflict resolution Social competence in conflict situations
9 Field trip and challenges (intergroup contact) Joint completion of challenges in the city (mixed teams) Cooperation competence;

positive team experiences

7.2 Methods

Sample: For the current study, 5th graders from four classes of a primary school in a large German city participated in a universal prevention programme. There were Ntotal = 57 students in total (nnative = 42 native students and nrefugee = 15 refugee students), who were between 10 and 13 years old, with a mean age of M = 11.2 (SD = 0.73) years; 60% of students were female, 40% male. 27 children (47%) took part in the experimental group, of which 19 were native (33%) and 8 were refugee children (14%). The control group consisted of 30 children (53%), of which 23 were native (40%) and 7 were refugee children (12%).

Group conditions: The prevention programme was implemented under different conditions; participants were assigned to intergroup contact (yes/no) and social skills training (yes/no), which was partially combined with a unit of knowledge training about the causes of flight and self-reflection on societal views of refugees. Because the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) stresses the importance of a structured situation and common goals in the intergroup contact, intergroup contact was only implemented together with the social skills training, thereby fulfilling the optimal conditions for intergroup contact according to Allport (1954): equal status of all participants (native and refugee students); common goals (in exercises, cooperative games, role plays, field trip); intergroup cooperation (mixed small groups of native and refugee students); and support by authorities (teachers, educators). The programme conditions could not be randomly assigned but instead included the participants in groups depending on their membership of a school class and social experiences (native students versus students with refugee experiences). Thus, five groups of participants were distinguished as follows:

  1. Experimental group one (EG1): n = 19 native students—participants received social skills and knowledge training, and intergroup contact;
  2. Experimental group two (EG2): n = 8 students with refugee experience—participants received social skills training and intergroup contact;
  3. Control group 1 (CG1): n = 11 native students—participants received only social skills and knowledge training but no intergroup contact;
  4. Control group 2 (CG2): n = 7 students with refugee experience—participants received only social skills and knowledge training but no intergroup contact;
  5. Control group 3 (CG3): n = 12 native students—participants received no intervention (neither knowledge training, social skills training, nor intergroup contact).

Measures: Participants filled in questionnaires before the eight-week intervention (T1), immediately after the intervention (T2), and two months later (T3). The constructs included cognitive, affective, and behavioural levels of ethnic prejudices as well as interpersonal tolerance. All constructs were measured using established valid instruments.

Cognitive prejudices were measured with a scale from Feddes et al. (2009) on a 4-point Likert scale (none [1], some [2], a lot [3], all [4]). The four items (friendly, polite, clever, kind) with the common item stem ‘how many German [refugee] children are …?’ were answered once for the in-group and once for the out-group (German versus refugee children). Based on the responses, bias values were calculated (subtracting the values concerning the out-group from the values concerning the in-group) and averaged, resulting in one mean score with the range of −3 = out-group preference, 0 = no preference, +3 = in-group preference, MT1 = 0.60, SDT1 = 0.65, Cronbach’s α = .79/.74/.74 (for T1/T2/T3, respectively).

Affective prejudices were measured with a sympathy rating and a street exercise. For the sympathy rating (two additional items on the cognitive prejudices scale), participants answered the question ‘how much do you like German [refugee] children?’ on a 4-point Likert scale (not at all [1], rather not [2], rather yes [3], a lot [4]). The resulting bias score had a mean of MT1 = 1.19, SDT1 = 1.10. In the street exercise (Griffith & Nesdale, 2006), participants were shown a street with nine houses. They were asked to imagine that they lived in the middle house and that a German and a refugee family would move to the street. Then they were asked to mark the houses into which house the German and the refugee family should move. Based on the responses—the distance of the in-group versus out-group family’s house to the respondent’s own house—a bias value was calculated (distance in-group minus distance out-group, MT1 = 0.76, SDT1 = 1.33). Because the sympathy rating and street exercise were substantially correlated (rs = .58/.54/.65 for T1/T2/T3, respectively), we combined both measures to form a composite score for affective prejudices.

Behavioural prejudices were measured by the intended behaviour measure (Cameron et al., 2006). For hypothetical situations, participants indicated on a 5-point Likert scale (not at all [1], very much [5]) their behavioural intentions for five behaviours (‘how much would you … like to play with/…like/…like to take for dinner at home/…like to have at home over night/…like to share a secret with?’) regarding a German and a refugee child. Again, a bias score was calculated (in-group minus out-group) and items were averaged (MT1 = 0.93, SDT1 = 1.03, Cronbach’s α = .86/.90/.93 for T1/T2/T3, respectively).

Interpersonal tolerance was measured with a scale by Beelmann et al. (2006), which included 17 items on a 5-point Likert scale (does not apply [1], applies completely [5]), with a mean score of MT1 = 3.88, SDT1 = 0.60, and a Cronbach’s α = .82/.82/.81 (for T1/T2/T3, respectively). An example item that covered social tolerance is ‘everybody should behave like the others do’ (reverse coded), and an item concerning the acceptance of social difference reads: ‘everybody can be as they want to be’.

Additionally, after the intervention (T2), we asked the experimental groups about their perception of the programme (enjoyment, feeling of well-being, contact experience). 76% of responses concerning the perception of the programme were positive (much or very much on a 5-point Likert scale from not at all [1] to very much [5]), and enjoyment of the programme was even more pronounced in children with refugee experiences (MEG2 = 4.25, SDEG2 = 0.71) compared to native children (MEG1 = 3.84, SDEG1 = 1.26).

Analyses: Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested the effects of the factors group (experimental versus control conditions) and time (before the intervention (T1); after the intervention (T2); and two months later (T3)). The important test statistics were the interaction effects of time by group to analyse the intervention effect on prejudices and tolerance (H1) with follow-up tests to differentiate between experimental conditions (H2).

8 Results

8.1 Descriptive Analyses

To provide an overview of the dependent variables of cognitive prejudice, affective prejudice, behavioural prejudice, and interpersonal tolerance, Table 13.2 displays the means and standard deviations for the complete sample at the three measurement points.

Table 13.2

Overview of prejudices and tolerance over time

Construct Items Range Time N M SD
Cognitive prejudice 8 −3/3 T1 57 0.60 0.65
T2 57 0.36 0.55
T3 57 0.50 0.56
Affective prejudice 4 −3/3 T1 57 0.97 1.09
T2 57 0.68 1.01
T3 57 0.81 1.09
Behavioural prejudice 10 −4/4 T1 57 0.93 1.03
T2 57 0.74 1.13
T3 57 0.87 1.17
Interpersonal tolerance 17 1/5 T1 56 3.86 0.61
T2 56 4.07 0.58
T3 56 4.04 0.55

Items: Number of items per scale. Range: Variation of possible values. Time: Measurement points, whereby T1 = before intervention, T2 = after intervention, T3 = 8-week follow-up. N: Number of students. M: Mean. SD: Standard deviation.

The means and standard deviations for the dependent variables in each experimental group at the three measurement points can be found in Table 13.3.

Table 13.3

Development of prejudices and tolerance in experimental conditions

Cognitive prejudices Affective prejudices Behavioural prejudices Interpersonal tolerance
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
EG1 0.97 0.70 0.47 0.59 0.76 0.53 1.74 0.99 1.08 1.13 1.39 1.09 1.35 1.22 1.08 1.21 1.26 1.21 3.85 0.60 4.16 0.59 4.01 0.58
EG2 0.59 0.65 0.06 0.65 −0.03 0.54 0.06 0.90 −0.25 0.93 −0.31 0.84 0.50 0.28 −0.10 0.58 −0.13 0.43 3.14 0.65 3.59 0.66 3.58 0.69
CG1 0.59 0.50 0.45 0.58 0.59 0.57 0.91 1.20 0.77 0.96 0.73 1.08 0.87 1.04 0.78 1.22 0.87 1.27 4.22 0.41 4.39 0.36 4.35 0.34
CG2 0.07 0.45 0.11 0.43 0.14 0.45 0.36 0.48 0.29 0.39 0.36 0.48 0.20 0.67 0.03 0.86 0.14 0.89 3.87 0.49 4.00 0.62 4.03 0.56
CG3 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.43 0.52 0.41 0.79 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.96 0.96 1.10 0.96 1.17 1.00 1.39 1.00 4.08 0.44 4.05 0.43 4.09 0.42

EG1: Experimental group comprised native students; intervention involved social skills and knowledge training, and intergroup contact. EG2: Experimental group comprised refugee students; intervention involved social skills training and intergroup contact. CG1: Control group comprised native students; intervention involved social skills training but no intergroup contact. CG2: Control group comprised refugee students; intervention involved social skills training but no intergroup contact. CG3: Control group comprised native students; no intervention given (neither social skills training nor intergroup contact). T1: Before intervention; T2: After intervention; T3: 8-week follow-up. M: Mean. SD: Standard deviation.

8.2 Testing the Hypotheses

The first hypothesis assumed that intergroup contact would reduce prejudices and increase interpersonal tolerance in both native and refugee children. Indeed, the repeated measures ANOVA for cognitive prejudices differentiating groups with intergroup contact (EG1 and EG2) and without intergroup contact (CG1, 2 and 3) showed a significant main effect of time (F(1.52, 83.31) = 10.80, p < .001, ηp2 = .164) and a significant interaction effect of time and group (F(1.52, 83.31) = 9.57, p = .001, ηp2 = .148). The results for affective prejudices also showed a significant main effect of time (F(1.76, 97.03) = 8.62, p = .001, ηp2 = .136) and a significant interaction effect of time and group (F (1.76, 97.03) = 5.63, p = .007, ηp2 = .093). In contrast, for behavioural prejudices, a significant main effect of time could be found (F(1.22, 67.09) = 3.30, p = .005, ηp2 = .262) but not a significant interaction effect of time and group (F(1.22, 67.09) = 2.79, p = .092, ηp2 = .048). For interpersonal tolerance, a significant main effect of time (F(1.43, 77.01) = 24.67, p < .001, ηp2 = .314) and a significant interaction effect of time and group was confirmed (F(1.43, 77.01) = 8.56, p = .002, ηp2 = .137). For all significant interaction effects, the groups with intergroup contact (EG1 and EG2) showed more favourable outcomes than the groups without intergroup contact (CG1, 2 and 3), i.e. groups with intergroup contact showed lower levels of prejudices and higher levels of tolerance after the programme (see Table 13.3).

The second hypothesis assumed that a combination of intergroup contact, social competence, and knowledge training would show the most favourable outcomes (reduced prejudices, increased interpersonal tolerance). This assumption was analysed through planned contrasts between experimental groups with combined social competence training and intergroup contact versus groups with no combination (for native students: EG1 versus CG1, for students with refugee experience: EG2 versus CG2). As displayed in Figures 13.1 and 13.2, the combination of intergroup contact and social competence training resulted in lower cognitive prejudices directly after the programme (for native children and children with refugee experience) and eight weeks after the programme (for children with refugee experience), lower affective prejudices directly after the programme (for native children and children with refugee experience) and eight weeks after the programme (for children with refugee experience), and lower behavioural prejudices directly after and eight weeks after the programme (for children with refugee experience only). Additionally, interpersonal tolerance was higher directly after the programme (for native children and children with refugee experience) and eight weeks after the programme (for children with refugee experience). In sum, the combination of intergroup contact and social competence training resulted in lower prejudices and higher interpersonal tolerance compared to the control groups without the combination of intergroup contact and social skills training. However, the effects were more stable for the children with refugee experience.

Figure 13.1
Figure 13.1

Development of prejudices in experimental conditions. T1 = before intervention; T2 = after intervention; T3 = 8-week follow-up

Figure 13.2
Figure 13.2

Development of interpersonal tolerance in experimental conditions. T1 = before intervention; T2 = after intervention; T3 = 8-week follow-up

9 Discussion

The current study shows how intergroup contact between native and refugee children can be designed and that the structured situation of the social skills training was effective in the context of school classes. While the empirical results showed that cognitive and affective prejudices were significantly reduced, this was not the case for behavioural prejudices. Additionally, it was possible to foster interpersonal tolerance. Native children in EG1 reported fewer cognitive and affective prejudices (but not behavioural intentions) and more interpersonal tolerance compared to the no-intervention control group (CG1) directly after the programme (T2). However, this effect had diminished eight weeks later (T3). For refugee children in EG2, cognitive and affective prejudices decreased significantly (T3). Further, these participants reported significantly higher interpersonal tolerance after the intergroup contact (T2) and two months later (T3). Additionally, intergroup contact combined with social competence training led to more favourable outcomes (fewer prejudices, more tolerance) compared to social skills training alone or no intervention. This result adds to the growing evidence that fostering social competences and intergroup knowledge is especially helpful for supporting the positive effect of intergroup contact (Beelmann & Heidemann, 2014).

Importantly, the positive intervention effect could be observed among both native children and refugee children. The effect sizes for the reduction of prejudices were comparable and slightly higher than in reviews for native children (small to medium effect sizes, Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Ülger et al., 2018). However, we found surprisingly strong effects for refugee children (in contrast, however, see Ülger et al., 2018). This result is especially encouraging as positive attitudes towards peers in the country of destination might help refugee children to seek and build more intercultural contacts and friendships. Having at least some good friends is a strong resilience factor for a child’s healthy psychosocial development and a possible source of social support in challenging situations that might arise as refugees adapt to their new life circumstances. This might help to establish connectedness and belonging and thus prevent susceptibility to radical or extreme movements or groups. By further fostering values of citizenship and diversity and by acknowledging and valuing differences, the presented intervention is also in line with recommendations on how education and interventions in educational contexts can help build resilience against radicalization and extremism (Ghosh et al., 2017).

Limitations of the current study concern the use of self-reports for measuring prejudices and tolerance. As these constructs are normative and participants might want to express socially accepted attitudes, self-serving biases in the responses cannot be ruled out. Further, the groups could not be randomly assigned to the experimental condition because of organizational constraints in schools, and the sample size was limited, especially for children with refugee experience. The main reason for this is that the recruitment of schools and classes for study participation was complicated, and it took nearly a year to find a school that was open to this research question and to then establish a trusting relationship with the headteacher and school educators in order to conduct the study. Conducting research on topics with high political and societal relevance can be challenging and rewarding at the same time.

10 Implications

Implications of the current study include a call for prevention efforts that address both native and refugee children. Instead of separating refugee children in language courses over a long period of time, increasing the frequency of situations with direct contact to native children seems recommendable. The example of the intervention described here shows how positive opportunities for intergroup contact can be established. The combination of social skills and knowledge training and intergroup contact seems especially promising for the prevention of negative attitudes and behaviours in children as the combination of intergroup contact and social skills training was more effective than social skills training alone (see Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). Structured opportunities for interethnic contact seem to be a powerful tool in culturally diverse schools.

The prevention of prejudices could be integrated into the school curriculum; positive intergroup contact combined with social-emotional learning could be particularly helpful in this regard. Some schools are challenged by negative intergroup attitudes and intolerance among their students. Rather than exerting moral pressure, providing learning opportunities for children and adolescents to extend their world views and to get in contact with persons with different social and cultural experiences might be the answer. Western democratic multicultural societies should try to strengthen the moral, social, and emotional development of their future citizens, and the reduction of prejudices is one important step on this journey.

References

  • Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C. S., Niens, U., Noor, N. M., & the Una Global Evaluation Group. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32(4), 307336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.05.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions. A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 1139). Hogrefe & Huber.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

  • Aronson, J. (2004). The threat of stereotype. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 1419.

  • Bayram Özdemir, S., Sun, S., Korol, L., Özdemir, M., & Stattin, H. (2018). Adolescents’ engagement in ethnic harassment: Prejudiced beliefs in social networks and classroom ethnic diversity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(6), 11511163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0795-0

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.11.002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelmann, A., Heinemann, K. S., & Saur, M. (2009). Interventionen zur Prävention von Vorurteilen und Diskriminierung [Interventions for the prevention of prejudice and discrimination]. In A. Beelmann & K. J. Jonas (Eds.), Diskriminierung und Toleranz. Psychologische Grundlagen und Anwendungsperspektiven (pp. 435461). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelmann, A., Sauer, M., Schulze, D., & Ziegler, P. (2006). PARTS, Programm zur Förderung von Akzeptanz, Respekt, Toleranz und Sozialer Kompetenz [PARTS, programme to promote acceptance, respect, tolerance, and social competence]. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelmann, A., Saur, M., & Ziegler, P. (2010). Thüringer Studie zur Vorurteilsprävention und Toleranzentwicklung. Projektbericht: Zeitraum 2005–2009 [Thuringian study for the prevention of prejudices and development of tolerance. Project report 2005–2009]. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benner, A. D., Crosnoe, R., & Eccles, J. S. (2015). Schools, peers, and prejudice in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 173188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12106

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Maquil, A., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borum, R. (2014). Psychological vulnerabilities and propensities for involvement in violent extremism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(3), 286305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2110

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77(5), 12081219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00929.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Degner, J., Meiser, T., & Rothermund, K. (2009). Kognitive und sozial-kognitive Determinanten: Stereotype und Vorurteile [Cognitive and social-cognitive determinants: Stereotypes and prejudices]. In A. Beelmann & K. J. Jonas (Eds.), Diskriminierung und Toleranz: Psychologische Grundlagen und Anwendungsperspektiven (pp. 7593). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 328). Sage Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80(2), 377390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fishbein, H. D. (2002). Peer prejudice and discrimination: The origins of prejudice. Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Forst, R. (2000). Toleranz, Gerechtigkeit und Vernunft [Tolerance, justice, and reason]. In R. Forst (Ed.), Toleranz. Philosophische Grundlagen und gesellschaftliche Praxis einer umstrittenen Tugend (pp. 119143). Campus.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, J. A., & Nesdale, D. (2006). In-group and out-group attitudes of ethnic majority and minority children. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 735749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.05.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghosh, R., Chan, W. Y. A., Manuel, A., & Dilimulati, M. (2017). Can education counter violent religious extremism? Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 23(2), 117133. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2016.1165713

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131681

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hewstone, M., & Swart, H. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 374386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klein, J. (2014). Working with groups (psychology revivals). The social psychology of discussion and decision. Routledge.

  • Köhler, E. (2016). Toleranz [Tolerance]. In D. Frey (Ed.), Psychologie der Werte: Von Achtsamkeit bis Zivilcourage—Basiswissen aus Psychologie und Philosophie (pp. 225235). Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kolarcik, P., Geckova, A. M., Reijneveld, S. A., & van Dijk, J. P. (2015). The mediating effect of discrimination, social support and hopelessness on self-rated health of Roma adolescents in Slovakia. International Journal for Equity in Health, 14(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0270-z

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kotzur, P. F., Schäfer, S. J., & Wagner, U. (2019). Meeting a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes stereotype content perceptions and associated emotional prejudices, and encourages solidarity-based collective action intentions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 668690. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12304

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuhn, H. P. (2004). Adolescent voting for right-wing extremist parties and readiness to use violence in political action: Parent and peer contexts. Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 561581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lösel, F., King, S., Bender, D., & Jugl, I. (2018). Protective factors against extremism and violent radicalization: A systematic review of research. International Journal of Developmental Science, 12, 89102. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-170241

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta-analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82(6), 17151737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01668.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2005). Aggression, hatred, and other emotions. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice (pp. 361376). Blackwell Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 2345). Erlbaum.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Teichman, Y., & Bar-Tal, D. (2008). Acquisition and development of a shared psychological intergroup repertoire in a context of an intractable conflict. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 452482). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269930.ch18

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ülger, Z., Dette-Hagenmeyer, D. E., Reichle, B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2018). Improving outgroup attitudes in schools: A meta-analytic review. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 88103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • van Zalk, M. H. W., & Kerr, M. (2014). Developmental trajectories of prejudice and tolerance toward immigrants from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10), 16581671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0164-1

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in the Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(2), 310331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870120109502

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand

The Challenge of Radicalization and Extremism

Integrating Research on Education and Citizenship in the Context of Migration

Series:  Moral Development and Citizenship Education, Volume: 19

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 823 341 3
PDF Views & Downloads 375 37 2