Download American elementary school children`s attitudes about immigrants

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
American elementary school children's attitudes about immigrants, immigration, and
being an American
Christia Spears Brown ⁎
University of Kentucky, 125 Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 November 2009
Received in revised form 18 January 2011
Accepted 18 January 2011
Available online 25 February 2011
Keywords:
Stereotypes
National identity
Attitudes toward immigrants
Elementary school children
a b s t r a c t
The current study examined 5 to 11-year-old European American children's (N = 90) attitudes regarding
immigrants, immigration policy, and what it means to be an American. The majority of children in the sample
(from a predominantly European American community) held strong American identities and had distinct
ideas about what it means to be an American (namely, one must love America, live by its rules, and be White).
Children were in favor of legal immigration as a policy, and although they believed in allowing illegal
immigrants to stay if employed, many younger children believed they should go to jail. Many children in the
sample were aware of Americans' anti-immigration sentiments, largely attributing it to ethnic/cultural
discrimination. Finally, children held negative attitudes about immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants.
These negative attitudes were most evident among children who held a strong, prototypical national in-group
identity. In contrast, children did not hold differential attitudes about White and Black Americans.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The U.S. has recently seen rapidly changing demographics, largely
fueled by immigration. In 2008, a total of 1,107,126 immigrants
became legal permanent residents of the United States, most
commonly immigrating from Mexico and People's Republic of China
(Monger & Rytina, 2009). While the immigrant population is
increasing, anti-immigration sentiments are ubiquitous, whether it
be media coverage of the “Minutemen” who patrol the U.S.–Mexican
border to “enforce immigration laws” (http://www.minutemanproject.com); repeated Congressional “English as the National Language”
proposals; or controversies surrounding nationwide pro-immigration
marches (CNN, 2007). These controversies are often framed around
concerns about patriotism and a weakening of an American identity
(Deaux 2008). American children are explicitly taught about the
ideals of a free country that welcome immigrants, yet are consistently
exposed to these anti-immigration sentiments. As research has
shown, children's attitudes and reasoning are influenced by social
context and exposure (Brown, Mistry, & Bigler 2007; Killen,
McGlothlin, & Henning 2008). Despite the presence of this ubiquitous
cultural debate on immigration, and children's frequent interaction
with children of immigrants at school (Hernandez, Denton, &
Macartney 2008), little to no research has examined children's
perceptions of and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.
Because an immigrant represents someone from another nation
(i.e., a national out-group) trying to become a member of one's
national in-group, individuals' attitudes towards immigration are
⁎ Tel.: +1 859 257 6827.
E-mail address: [email protected].
0193-3973/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.01.001
informed by their sense of their national identity (Deaux 2008).
Research has previously examined the development of national
identity among children. Studies (typically with British children)
have shown that children have developed a national in-group identity
by age 5 (Barrett & Short 1992; Barrett, Wilson, & Lyons 2003;
Bennett, Lyons, Sani, & Barrett 1998; Bennett et al. 2004). Children at
this age are able to label their nationality and categorize themselves
accordingly. Children by age 5 to 6 also prefer their national in-group
to other nationalities (Bennett et al. 2004, 1998). There is a smaller
body of research specifically on attitudes toward immigrants. Namely,
research has shown that 10- to 12-year-old Dutch early adolescents
are more negative toward immigrants (specifically, asylum seekers)
than established minority groups (Verkuyten & Steenhuis 2005). In
addition, in a large-scale international sample, female adolescents
were shown to have more positive attitudes toward immigrants'
rights than males (Torney-Purta, Wilkenfeld, & Barber 2008).
The current study addresses four specific research questions
related both theoretically and practically to the immigration debate.
First, the study assesses White European American children's
identification and conceptualization of their national in-group (i.e.,
Americans). For example, we examine how much children identify
with being an American, how they define being an American, and
whether they believe certain ethnic groups are more American than
other groups. Second, the study assesses White European American
children's knowledge of and attitudes about immigration, both legal
and illegal. Specifically, it examines children's endorsement of
attitudes that are most commonly expressed by adults (e.g., whether
immigrants take jobs from other Americans). Third, the study assesses
White European American children's stereotypes and attitudes about
110
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
immigrants, and whether these stereotypes and attitudes differ based
on the country of origin of the immigrant. Finally, the study examines
whether the strength of children's national identity is related to their
attitudes and stereotypes about immigrants. Importantly, this study
was conducted in a city reflective of much of “middle America”: a
predominantly (76%) White European American city, with 13%
African Americans, and an increasing Mexican immigrant population.
The first research question addresses children's national identity,
specifically what it means to be an American. One theoretical link
between national identity and attitudes toward immigrants is based
on the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio 2000,
2009), which argues that the inclusion of out-group members into a
superordinate common group leads to more positive attitudes toward
that group. In other words, if individuals view immigrants as part of
the national in-group of Americans, we would expect them to hold
more positive attitudes toward immigrants (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson,
& Armstrong 2001). In contrast, if individuals have impermeable ingroup boundaries, they may maintain their negative attitudes and
stereotypes. Thus, it is important to examine the extent to which
individuals hold tight restrictions about who can and cannot be an
in-group member.
One way to assess the permeability of the national in-group
boundary is to ask participants to define what makes a “true” American
(Devos & Banaji 2005). When adults were asked this question, they
ranked being born in America as a rather unimportant criterion.
Instead, the most highly ranked criteria for being a true American was
they must respect America and its laws, followed by they must speak
English, followed by they must live in America a long time (Devos &
Banaji 2005). This suggests that adults support immigrants becoming
Americans in general, and they allow certain immigrants to enter their
national in-group. However, despite seemingly open boundaries,
adults have rather narrow definitions of prototypical Americans,
often based on the prototype of a White American (Devos & Ma 2008).
Specifically, although they were described as being born in America,
Asian Americans and African Americans were rated by adults as “less
American” than White Americans (Devos & Banaji 2005). Based on
these findings, we hypothesized that White children would also have
permeable in-group boundaries but would rate White Americans as
more American than other American-born groups (including African
Americans). We predicted that children with more prototypical
restrictions about their in-group would hold more negative attitudes
about immigrants.
The second research question relates to children's knowledge of
specific issues often raised by adults surrounding immigration. Adults
(often college students) often hold negative attitudes toward immigrants
because they represent a symbolic threat, which is a threat to in-group
morals and standards, and a realistic threat, which is a threat to the
material well-being of the in-group (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman 1999).
These perceived threats are often framed in the language of patriotism,
but the patriotism is focused on protection (e.g., “We have to protect our
country”) rather than simply positive attitudes toward the country (e.g.,
“I love my country”). Many of these perceived threats are expressed in
the media, and thus can influence children's attitudes about immigration.
For example, a television commercial in 2010 by the Coalition for the
Future American Worker argued that immigrants are taking jobs away
from American workers. Adults also make a strong distinction between
legal versus illegal immigrants (Deaux 2008), holding considerably more
unfavorable attitudes toward illegal or undocumented immigrants than
legal immigrants (Lee & Fiske 2006; Short 2004). No research has
examined whether children perceive immigrants to pose the same types
of symbolic or realistic threats as adults, and whether they distinguish
between legal versus illegal immigrants. Further, no research has
examined children's general understanding of why immigration occurs
and their rationale for why it should be legal versus illegal.
Children's attitudes are likely to be different than adults' attitudes
about immigration and immigration policy because of their develop-
ing cognitive abilities. For example, children in early rather than late
elementary school are particularly likely to focus on concrete rather
than abstract attributes (Keil 2006). Research has shown that, prior to
age seven, children regularly emphasize concrete external qualities
when describing people (Aboud 1988; Aboud & Levy 2000; Martin
1989). This is consistent with Piagetian theory, which notes that
children in this age group tend to overemphasize observable qualities
(see Inhelder & Piaget 1964). Thus, we hypothesized that early
elementary school children, when asked to explain anti-immigrant
attitudes, would attribute attitudes less to symbolic or realistic threats
and more to concrete reasons (such as immigrants looking different).
In addition, we hypothesized that children would be more negative
toward illegal than legal immigrants. We also predicted that early
rather than late elementary children would endorse legal ramifications for illegal immigration (e.g., they broke the law, thus they should
go to jail) because of younger children's legalistic, rule-based moral
reasoning in which it is rarely appropriate to break a law (Helwig &
Jasiobedzka 2001; Tapp & Kohlberg 1971).
The third research question assessed whether children hold
negative attitudes toward or stereotypes about immigrants, and
whether those attitudes and stereotypes differ based on the country of
origin of the immigrant. Research with adults indicates that Americans
hold more negative stereotypes toward Hispanic/Mexican immigrants
than Asian immigrants (Lee & Fiske 2006) or English immigrants
(Short 2004). In general, Americans are more favorable to White
immigrant groups than groups of color (Deaux 2006). Evidence
suggests children will hold similarly differing stereotypes based on the
immigrant's country of origin (Enesco, Navarro, Paradela, & Guerrero
2005). For example, by middle childhood, children are aware of
different nationalities' stereotypes (Barrett & Short 1992). Though not
regarding immigrants per se, Barrett and colleagues found British
children, in line with cultural stereotypes, held more favorable
attitudes toward Americans than Germans (Barrett et al. 2003).
Children by age 5 also show preferences for children who speak their
same language (Powlishta, Serbin, Doyle, & White 1994). This may be a
result of same-language speakers being more easily included into a
common in-group. Thus, in the current study, we hypothesized that
children would hold negative attitudes and stereotypes toward
immigrants, but these stereotypes would be more negative toward a
Mexican immigrant than a British immigrant (who is both White and
speaks English, and thus can more easily be included in a common ingroup). As a point of comparison, children's stereotypes about Black
Americans (who are included in White American children's national
in-group, but not racial in-group) were also assessed. This comparison
allows for a test of which bias is more prominent: racial bias or national
bias. We predicted that, because of the current climate of negative
immigrant sentiments, children would be more negative towards
immigrants than other Americans, regardless of race.
The degree of negative stereotypes children hold toward
immigrants may depend, however, on their own national identity.
Based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner 2004), individuals
who hold an important group identity strive for positive distinctiveness and may in turn hold more negative attitudes about their
out-group. In support of this theoretical rationale, research with
adults has shown that a strong national identity is related to
stronger biases against other nationalities (Reizábal, Valencia, &
Barrett 2004) and more negative attitudes toward immigrant groups
(Billiet, Maddens, & Beerten 2003). Verkuyten (2009) found similar
results with Dutch adolescents, in which a stronger national identity
was related to perceiving newcomer groups as more threatening,
which in turn was related to less support for multiculturalism and
immigrant rights. In the current study, in line with social identity
theory, we hypothesized that White European American children
with strong national identities would hold more negative attitudes
and stereotypes about immigrants than children with weaker
national identities.
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
Methods
Participants
Participants consisted of 90 White European American children
(50 girls, 40 boys), ranging in age from 5 to 11 years. The mean age
was 7 years, 10 months (SD = 1 year, 6 months). To examine age
differences in attitudes about immigration, children were categorized
into two age groups, based on a median split: younger children,
ages 5 to 7 (n = 39), and older children, ages 8 to 11 (n = 51). These
age groups also correspond with a qualitative shift in children's
cognitive development that is related to their endorsement of racial/
ethnic stereotyping and prejudice (Aboud 1988).
All children classified themselves as “White” and no children were
themselves first- or second-generation immigrants. Participants were
recruited from the after-school programs associated with three
elementary schools in a medium-sized city in the Upper South.
Specifically, the city is 76% White European American, 13% African
American, 5% Hispanic (specifically, 4.5% are from Mexico), and 3%
Asian (specifically, 1% are Indian, .6% are Chinese, and .6% are
Japanese). Of the total population, 8% are foreign born. The school
district serves 35,429 students, of which 61% are European American,
24% are African American, 8% are Hispanic, and 4% are Asian, with
2137 students enrolled in English as a Second Language. The vast
majority of Hispanic students are first- and second-generation
immigrants from Mexico (whose parents are typically farm workers),
and the majority of Asian students are first- and second-generation
immigrants from India, China, and Japan (whose parents are typically
medical professionals or academics). The specific three schools the
children attended have approximately 83–84% White European
American students, 5% African American students, 1–3% Hispanic
students, and 3–11% Asian students. Thus, the children in the current
sample have little contact with immigrants at school (although their
degree of contact was not directly measured). Fewer than 20% of
students qualified for free or reduced lunch. Analyses indicated no
differences across school sites.
Only those children with signed parental consent, and who
themselves gave assent, participated in the study. Approximately
75% of children who received consent forms (entitled “Living and
Working in America”) returned them signed.
Procedure and measures
Overview
All measures were administered to the children individually in
their after-school program by a female experimenter. To control for
reading ability, all questions were read aloud to each child, and the
experimenter wrote down the child's responses. The measures are
described in the order of the research questions, but in practice, the
explicit measures about immigration and anti-immigrant sentiments
were given last (the rest of the measures were counterbalanced).
Upon completion of the measures, all children were fully debriefed
and given a small toy from a “treasure box.”
Conceptualization of national in-group
To assess the strength of children's national identity, they were
asked, “How American do you feel?” Children responded on a 4-point
scale, ranging from not at all American (1) to very American (4). A
similar one-item assessment of national identity has been used
previously (Pfeifer et al. 2007).
Children's definition of Americans was assessed. Children were asked
about their criteria for being a true American based on items adapted
from Devos and Banaji (2005). Of particular interest was whether
children held impermeable in-group boundaries (e.g., to be a true
American one must be born in America). Specifically, children were told,
“Think about what it means to be a true American. Some people say
111
there are some things that make a person a true American, while others
say that there is nothing that makes one person more American than
another. What do you think it means to be an American?” The four
criteria were: (a) “Be born in America,” (b) “Speak English,” (c) “Live in
America most of their lives,” and (d) “Love America and try to live by its
rules.” Children rated each criterion on a 4-point scale, ranging from not
at all true (1) to very true (4).
Children's attitudes about the prototypicality of Americans were
also assessed. To measure the degree to which children differentiated
Americans based on ethnicity, children were asked to think about
people born in American (Devos & Banaji 2005). Specifically, they
were told, “Think about people who were born in America. In your
opinion, how ‘American’ are people in these groups? Remember, you
are thinking about people born in America” (original emphasis).
Children rated how American the following groups were: African
Americans, White Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, and Asian
Americans. Children used a 4-point scale ranging from not at all
American (1) to very American (4).
Conceptualization of immigration
To examine children's knowledge of immigration and the immigration debate, children were asked, “Some people are upset when people
move to the US from other countries. Have you ever heard about
this?” Children responded “yes” or “no”. If they answered “yes,”
children were asked, “Where did you hear about this?” They
responded to 4 possible sources: TV, Newspapers, Parents, and School.
To assess their knowledge of the reasons for immigration, children
were then asked, “Why do you think people move here from other
countries?” Their open-ended responses were recorded. There were
no a priori codes created; categories were derived from emerging
themes from the responses. Three primary themes emerged: to seek
freedom, to seek greater material/financial opportunities, and to
escape hostile conditions (described in detail in results). Once
categories were created, the author and a research assistant
independently coded every response. The interrater reliability was
high (Cohen's kappa was .97) and all discrepancies were discussed
until agreement was reached on 100% of the responses.
To assess children's attitudes about legal and illegal immigration,
they were asked, “Do you think people should be allowed to move
here from other countries? Why or why not?” Their open-ended
responses were recorded. As before, there were no a priori codes
created; categories were derived from emerging themes from the
responses. Three primary themes emerged: because of freedom,
because America is desirable, and because diversity is good (described
in detail in results). Once categories were created, the author and a
research assistant independently coded every response. The interrater
reliability was high (Cohen's kappa was .86) and all discrepancies
were discussed until agreement was reached on 100% of the
responses.
To assess children's attitudes about the consequences of illegal (or
undocumented) immigration, children were asked, “Think about people
who move here from other countries even though it was against the law.
What do you think should happen to them?” Children responded “yes,”
“maybe,” or “no” to each counterbalanced option: (a) “They should be
sent back to the country they came from,” (b) “They should be allowed
to stay in the U.S. if they have jobs,” and (c) “They should be put in jail for
breaking the law.” These items were not mutually exclusive (i.e.,
although illogical, children could respond yes to all three) and were not
intended to represent all possible options (e.g., allowing immigrants to
stay in the U.S. even without jobs). Instead, because the study examined
attitudes that are likely influenced by social context and exposure, the
questions were designed to tap the options most frequently mentioned
by adults in the ongoing cultural debates about immigration. For
example, as of November 2010, Arizona has debated and passed a law
that allows for the arrest of immigrants without legal documentation; in
addition, current debate has also focused on whether immigrants with
112
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
jobs should be allowed to work toward legal status or whether they
should be immediately deported (for a review of national polling
questions asked of adults that taps each of these options, see http://
www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm).
To assess children's attributions for anti-immigration sentiments –
such as attributions to symbolic threat, realistic threat, or discrimination – children were asked, “Why do you think American people
might not like it when other people move to America from other
countries?” There were six counterbalanced attributions that were
unique to the current study and designed to test both symbolic and
realistic threats frequently mentioned by adults and racial/ethnic/
cultural discrimination: (a) “Because the people who move here are
not smart,” (b) “Because the people who move here take too much
money from the government,” (c) “Because the people who move
here are criminals (they break the law),” (d) “Because the people
who move here take too many good jobs from other Americans,”
(e) “Because the people who move here like different things than
other Americans, like food and music,” and (f) “Because the people
who move here look very different from other Americans .” Children
rated each criterion on a 4-point scale, ranging from not at all true
(1) to very true (4).
Stereotypes of and attitudes toward immigrants
Children were read 5 counterbalanced vignettes about different
people (all men) who moved to their city from different countries or
regions of the U.S.: from (a) Mexico, (b) China, (c) England,
(d) California, and (e) a small town in their state. Each vignette included
details about the person, specifically where the person moved from, that
he moved for work, that he sent part of his money back home to help a
family member, that he had a wife and one or two children, and what his
hobby was (e.g., watching baseball). A picture of a person from the
particular country accompanied each vignette. Of the two Americans,
one was African American and the other was European American. Each
picture was taken from a public source photography website, and each
photograph was pilot tested with college students by asking them where
they thought the person immigrated from. There was 100% agreement
on the photographs of the people ostensibly from Mexico and China.
After hearing each vignette and looking at the photograph, children were
asked (a) how much money the person made, (b) how much school the
person went to, (c) how hard the person worked, (d) how much their
town/neighborhood wanted the person to move there, (e) how much
they wanted to go to school with the person's child, and (f) how smart
the person's child was. Children responded to each question using
a 4-point scale, ranging from not very much (1) to very much (4).
Results
Preliminary analyses and overview
Preliminary analyses were conducted to test for differences based
on gender. There were no gender differences (contrary to previous,
larger-scale research, Torney-Purta et al. 2008). For all analyses about
immigration or attitudes toward immigrants, follow-up analyses were
conducted to examine whether previous knowledge of the immigration debate was related to children's responses. Previous knowledge
of the debate was not related to responses. Therefore, the analyses
collapse across gender and knowledge level, and examine age
differences (based on a median split) between younger children,
ages 5 to 7 (n = 39), and older children, ages 8 to 11 (n = 51).
Conceptualization of national in-group
American identity
Overall, children endorsed a strong American identity (M = 3.71,
SD = .57), with 75% of children feeling “very American.” A one-way
analysis of variance compared the strength of younger and older
children's American identity, F(1, 87) = .11, p N .50, η2 = .00. There
were no differences across age groups (M [SD]: younger = 3.68 [.66];
older = 3.73 [.49]).
Definition of Americans
To assess children's criteria for being a true American, a 2 (age group:
younger, older) × 4 (criteria: born in America, speak English, live in
America most of their lives, love America) mixed ANOVA was
conducted, in which the last variable was treated as a within subjects
factor. Analyses revealed a significant main effect for criteria, F(3, 85) =
32.55, p b .001, η2 = .54. Bonferonni analyses (used throughout)
revealed that children rated the criterion that true Americans must
simply love America and try to live by its rules as more accurate (M =
3.45, SD = .93) than all other criteria. They rated the criterion that
people must speak English to be a true American as less accurate (M =
2.00, SD = 1.15) than all other criteria. The criteria that people must be
born in America (M = 2.31, SD = 1.29) and must live in America most of
their lives (M = 2.37, SD = 1.19) did not differ from one another. There
were no differences across age groups.
Prototypicality of Americans
To assess whether children think some ethnic groups are more
prototypically American than other ethnic groups, a 2 (age group:
younger, older) × 4 (ethnic group: White American, Black/African
American, Latino American, Asian American) mixed ANOVA was
conducted, in which the last variable was treated as a within subjects
factor. Analyses revealed a significant main effect for ethnic group,
F(3, 86) = 29.24, p b .001, η2 = .51. Bonferonni analyses revealed
that children rated White Americans (M = 3.71, SD = .55) as more
American than African Americans (M = 3.25, SD = .78), who were rated
as more American than Asian Americans (M = 3.03, SD = .77), who
were rated as more American than Latino Americans (M = 2.84, SD =
.91). There were no differences across age groups.
Conceptualization of immigration
Knowledge of immigration and immigration debate
To examine how many children were aware of anti-immigration
sentiments, and whether this differed by age, a chi-square test of
association was conducted. Results indicated a significant association
between awareness of immigration debate and age group, χ2 (1) =
3.89, p b .05. Specifically, 36% of younger children had heard that some
people were against immigration, whereas 57% of older children had.
When asked where they had heard about it, 10% of younger and 18% of
older children heard about it on television (no significant age
difference); 8% of younger and 16% of older children read about it in
newspapers (no significant age difference); 10% of younger and 24% of
older children heard about it from parents (no significant age
difference); and 21% of younger and 41% of older children heard
about it from school (significant age difference: χ2 [1] = 4.32, p b .05).
When asked “why” people move here from other countries,
children gave three primary responses. Overall, 34% of children (43%
of older and 23% of younger) gave responses referring to immigrants
seeking freedoms available in the U.S. (e.g., “To have freedom and to
not be bossed around,” “They want freedom. They don't want to be
ruled by a king. They want to have a choice on going to church or
not.”); 21% of children (26% of older and 15% of younger) gave
responses referring to greater material and financial opportunities in
the U.S. (e.g., “Because the houses are bigger,” “They can get more
money,” “Because there are better jobs and they can support their
families better.”); and 10% of children (6% of older and 15% of
younger) gave responses referring to immigrants escaping their home
countries because of war, disease, famine, or political reasons (e.g.,
“Because like in Iraq there are many wars and price of rice and meat
are going up,” “Some people in their country might be having a
conflict.”). However, 19% of children (10% of older and 31% of
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
younger) were unable to give a reason. These responses differed by
age, χ2 (6) = 12.83, p b .05, such that a greater percentage of younger
children compared to older children were unable to give a reason for
immigration (goodness of fit: χ2 [1] = 5.28, p b .05).
Attitudes about legal and illegal immigration
When asked if people should be allowed to move here from other
countries, 97% of children said yes (95% of younger and 98% of older
children; no significant age difference). When asked “why” people
should be allowed to move here from other countries, children gave
three primary responses. Overall, 58% of children (67% of older and
46% of younger) gave responses referring to America being a free
country or made an implicit reference to the ideals of freedom (e.g.,
“America is a free country and everyone has the right to live here,”
“Because I think people should have the right to move to other
countries,” “Because if you want freedom, you should be able to have
it,” “Because it is a free country and we welcome people.”); 21% of
children (14% of older and 31% of younger) gave responses referring
to people's acceptable desire to live in the best possible country, in
this case the U.S. (e.g., “Because this is a really good place to live,”
“Because I think America is the best,” “Because if they want to move
here, it is okay because it is better here.”); and 10% of children (14% of
older and 6% of younger) gave responses referring to the benefits to
America of having a diverse population (e.g., “If we didn't allow other
people to move here, people would not have pizza, pasta, quesadillas,”
“So people can make different friends.”). In addition, 11% of children
(6% of older and 18% of younger) were unable to give a reason. These
responses differed by age, χ2 (3) = 9.18, p b .05, such that a greater
percentage of younger children compared to older children said we
should allow immigration because of the acceptable desire to live in a
good country (goodness of fit: χ2 [1] = 3.15, p b .05).
When asked if people should be allowed to move here from other
countries even when it is against the law, 82% of children said no (80%
of younger and 84% of older children; no significant age difference). To
assess what children thought should happen to immigrants who
move here illegally, a chi-square goodness of fit test was conducted on
children's endorsement of three possible orthogonal consequences.
Children were more likely than expected by chance to endorse the
notion that immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. if they
have a job, χ2 (2) = 34.52, p b .001 (63% endorsed this; i.e., said “yes”
rather than “no” or “maybe”). Children's endorsement that immigrants should be sent back to their home country (27% endorsed this)
or be put in jail (35% endorsed this) did not differ from chance. To
assess whether these attitudes differed by age, a chi-square test of
association was conducted for each consequence. Results indicated a
significant association between “they should be sent to jail” and age
group, χ2 (2) = 16.65, p b .01, with 58% of younger children as
compared to 16% of older children saying that they should be put in
jail for breaking the law. The other possible consequences did not
differ by age, with 36% of younger and 20% of older children endorsing
that they should be sent back to their home country, and 59% of
younger and 65% of older children endorsing that they should be
allowed to stay in the U.S. if they have jobs, all χ2s b 3.20.
Attributions for anti-immigrant sentiments
To assess children's attributions for why some Americans are
opposed to immigration, a 2 (age group: younger, older) × 6 (attribution
type: not smart, take too much money from government, criminal and
break the law, take too many jobs, like different things, look different)
mixed ANOVA was conducted, in which the last variable was treated as a
within subjects factor. Analyses revealed a significant main effect for
attribution type, F(5, 81) = 22.17, p b .001, η2 = .58. As can be seen in
Table 1, Bonferonni analyses revealed that children rated the two most
accurate reasons for anti-immigration sentiments to be because
(a) people who move here like different things than other Americans
and (b) people who move here look very different from other Americans
113
(these attributions did not differ from one another). Children rated the
second most accurate reasons to be because (a) people who move here
take too many good jobs from other Americans and (b) people who
move here are criminals (these attributions did not differ from one
another). Children rated the attribution that people who move here take
too much money from the government as the next most accurate
reason, followed by the attribution that people who move here are not
smart.
Stereotypes of and attitudes toward immigrants
To assess children's stereotypes about immigrants, and whether
these stereotypes differed based on immigrants' country of origin and
child's conceptualization of their national in-group, children's
responses to the vignettes were assessed. First, to assess whether
children with a stronger versus weaker American identity differed in
their stereotypes about immigrants, a variable was created for
children with a strong American identity (children who rated
themselves as being “very American” [n = 67]) and children with a
weaker American identity (all other children [n = 23]). As the
majority of children rated themselves as “very American,” and no
children felt “not at all American,” the only comparison group was
with children with a less extreme American identity. Second, to assess
whether (a) children who hold a prototypical ideal of an American
(i.e., differentiate between Americans based on their ethnicity) and
(b) children who do not hold a prototypical ideal of an American (i.e.,
do not differentiate between Americans) differed in their stereotypes
about immigrants, a variable was created to compare the two groups
of children. Specifically, children's ratings of “how American” the
three non-white American groups were (i.e., African American, Asian
American, Latino American) were averaged. This average score was
subtracted from the rating of the White American. Children (n = 33)
whose difference score was 0 (i.e., they did not differ in their ratings
between Americans) were compared to children (n = 57) who rated
White Americans as more prototypically American than non-White
Americans.
Next, a series of 2 (age group: younger, older) × 2 (American
identity: weaker, stronger) × 2 (prototypical American: White
prototype is more American vs. no difference) × 5 (country: Mexican
immigrant, Chinese immigrant, British immigrant, White American,
Black American) mixed ANOVAs was conducted, in which the last
variable was treated as a within subjects factor. Regarding the
question about how much money the immigrant earns, analyses
revealed a significant main effect for country of origin, F(4, 78) = 3.53,
p b .01, η2 = .15. Means are presented in Table 2. Bonferonni post hoc
tests indicated that children rated the White and Black American as
earning more money than the Mexican immigrant. The Black
American was also rated as earning more money than the Chinese
and British immigrant. There were no effects of age or national ingroup.
Regarding the question about how smart the child of the
immigrant is, analyses revealed a significant interaction between
American identity, age, and country of origin, F(4, 78) = 2.32, p b .05,
η2 = .11. Means are presented in Table 3. Tests of simple effects
revealed that there were no differences across country of origin for
younger children or older children who had weaker American
identity. Older children with strong American identity did differentiate, however, based on country of origin, such that both American
children (i.e., White American and Black American) were rated as
significantly smarter than all three immigrant children.
Regarding the question about how much the child would want to
go to school with the child of the immigrant, analyses revealed a main
effect for country of origin, F(4, 78) = 2.17, p b .05, η2 = .10. Means
are presented in Table 4 (Note: This test did not meet the
homogeneity of variance assumption, but because this effect was
based on a within-subjects analysis, the F test is robust without the
114
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
Table 1
Attributions for anti-immigrant sentiments by age group.
Attribution
Age group
Not smart
Take money
Criminals
Take jobs
Younger
Older
Combined
1.34 (.94)
1.39 (.84)
1.37 (.88)a
1.82 (1.16)
1.73 (.88)
1.77 (1.01)b
2.24 (1.34)
1.96 (1.06)
2.08 (1.19)c
2.03 (1.26)
2.10 (1.14)
2.07 (1.19)c
Different culture
Different appearance
2.58 (1.27)
2.35 (1.16)
2.45 (1.21)d
2.97 (1.30)
2.24 (1.18)
2.56 (1.28)d
Note. Numbers represent means (standard deviations). Scores range from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). Different superscripts indicate significant differences (p b .05) across
attribution types. Numbers in bold indicate attribution types with significant differences across age groups.
assumption; see Lindman 1974; Lomax 2007). Post hoc tests indicated
that children rated wanting to go to school with White and Black
Americans' children higher than the Mexican and Chinese immigrants' children. The British child did not differ from any others. There
was also significant interaction between age, country of origin, and
whether they endorsed a White prototypical American, F(4, 78) =
2.85, p b .05, η2 = .13. Analysis of simple effects and post hoc tests
indicated that older children who rated White Americans as the
prototypical American rated wanting to go to school with both
American children significantly more than the Mexican child. Ratings
for the British and Chinese immigrants' children did not differ from
any others. There were no differences across country of origin for
younger children or older children who did not hold a prototypical
ideal of an American.
There were no differences (see Table 2) in how important
immigrants' jobs were, how hard they worked, or how much their
town wanted them to live there.
Discussion
The current study addressed the general questions of what
children think it means to be an American and what it means to be
an immigrant. The first research question addressed children's
conceptualization of their national in-group. Results revealed that
the children in this sample held a strong American identity. Further,
although children considered some Americans to be more American
than others, they believed that being an American is attainable by
anyone and not based on nativity. Specifically, although all group
members were described as being born in the U.S., White European
American children in this sample considered White Americans to be
“more American” than Black Americans, who were in turn “more
American” than Asian Americans, who were in turn “more American”
than Latino Americans. Despite these distinctions, children did not
hold strict restrictions on what makes a true American. They
considered the most important criterion to be that an individual
loves America and lives by its rules; this was significantly more
important than speaking English, being born in America, or living in
the U.S. a long time. These conceptualizations of their national ingroup did not differ across age groups, and suggests that children by
early elementary school have conceptualizations of Americans similar
to that of adults (Devos & Banaji 2005).
Table 2
Stereotypes about immigrants based on region of origin.
Stereotype
domain
Money
Importance
Hard work
Town
attitudes
White
American
3.31
3.34
3.63
3.08
(.65)ac
(.82)
(.62)
(.85)
Black
American
3.39
3.46
3.82
3.02
(.66)a
(.72)
(.41)
(.90)
Mexican
immigrant
3.01
3.29
3.75
2.89
(.80)b
(.84)
(.45)
(.93)
British
immigrant
3.16
3.38
3.76
2.88
(.73)bc
(.77)
(.48)
(.90)
Chinese
immigrant
3.14
3.30
3.78
2.86
(.87)bc
(.84)
(.46)
(.97)
Note. Numbers represent means (standard deviations). Scores range from 1 (not at all)
to 4 (very much). Different superscripts indicate significant differences (p b .05) across
immigrants.
The second research question addressed children's knowledge
and attitudes regarding the immigration debate. Overall, many
(although not the majority) of the children in this sample were aware
of the immigration debate and almost all held positive attitudes about
legal immigration. Specifically, one-half of older children and one-third
of younger children knew that some people are against immigration.
When asked why people immigrate to the U.S., the largest percentage
of children, particularly older children, referred to immigrants seeking
the freedoms found in America. Children also noted that immigrants
move to America for more financial and material opportunities and to
escape harsh conditions in their native country. A considerable number
of younger children, however, could not give a reason for immigration,
reiterating that children learn more about immigration over the course
of middle childhood. When asked why people should be allowed to
move here, the majority of children, again particularly older children,
noted the ideals of freedom. Children seemed to have internalized the
concept of freedom as a human right — it is both as a reason people
seek out America and a reason we should allow them to live where
they choose (see Torney-Purta et al. 2008, for an elaboration on
children's understanding of human rights). The finding that freedom
was mentioned more often by older than younger children is consistent
with cognitive developmental trends in which older children better
understand abstract concepts and ideals (Helwig & Jasiobedzka 2001;
Keil 2006). Younger children, in particular, also commonly mentioned
that America is the best possible country to live in and it is
understandable and acceptable for people to want to live here.
Although children in this sample are very positive about legal
immigration (with 97% favoring of it), children did not support illegal
immigration (with 82% opposed to it). However, despite being opposed
to illegal immigration, the majority of children (63%) believed
immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. if they hold a job.
This is higher than the national polling data that indicate that less than
half of adults endorse this option as a means for illegal immigrants to
gain legal immigration status (see Polling Report, 2010). It is unclear
from the current study, however, whether children believe immigrants
should be allowed to stay in the U.S. regardless of employment. In other
words, many children may simply be eschewing any punishment for
illegal immigrants (in contrast to the majority of adults favoring
deporting or detaining illegal immigrants, Polling Report, 2010). The
only finding in which children endorsed a punishment for illegal
immigrants is when the youngest children in this sample favored a
legalistic response to breaking a law (i.e., being jailed, but not being
deported). This finding is consistent with research showing that
younger children believe that any legal violation is wrong and should
be punished (Tapp & Kohlberg 1971). In contrast, older children were
very unlikely to endorse placing illegal immigrants in jail, supporting
previous research showing that older children more so than younger
children weigh personal rights and freedoms when justifying legal
violations (Helwig & Jasiobedzka 2001). Thus, there may be a
developmental trajectory in attitudes about illegal immigration in
which young children favor a legal punishment (but only a legal
punishment) for breaking a law, and older children tend to focus on
personal rights and reject any punishment for illegal immigrants
(despite their disapproval). These attitudes appear to change again for
many individuals as they reach adulthood, although the reasons for
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
115
Table 3
Stereotypes about how smart the child of the immigrant is based on region of origin.
Age/national identity
Older
Strong American identity
Weaker American identity
Younger
Strong American identity
Weaker American identity
Combined
White American
Black American
Mexican immigrant
British immigrant
Chinese immigrant
3.53 (.60)a
3.23 (.59)
3.47 (.51)a
3.08 (.76)
3.24 (.59)b
3.31 (.63)
3.21 (.62)b
3.31 (.63)
3.05 (.65)b
3.54 (.52)
3.72 (.53)
3.78 (.44)
3.57 (.58)
3.79 (.41)
3.44 (.73)
3.52 (.59)
3.41 (.82)
3.56 (.53)
3.34 (.67)
3.66 (.72)
3.33 (.50)
3.38 (.67)
3.72 (.53)
3.33 (.87)
3.37 (.68)
Note. Numbers represent means (standard deviations). Scores range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Different superscripts indicate significant differences (p b .05) across
immigrants.
adults' attitudes toward immigration are complex and multi-faceted.
Future research should examine why children are opposed to illegal
immigration and why they think certain consequences are more
appropriate than others.
When asked why some people are against immigration, participants
attributed this sentiment to the notion that immigrants look different
and like different things from other Americans (as compared to taking
too much government money, being criminals, or taking too many jobs).
The finding that younger children, relative to older children, were
especially likely to attribute anti-immigrant sentiments to the notion
that immigrants look different than other Americans is consistent with
developmental research. Considerable work has shown that children
focus on observable, external qualities in person perception (Aboud
1988; Aboud & Levy 2000; Martin 1989) and often assume that skin
color differences reflect differences in the inherent essence of the group
(known as racial essentialism, Hirschfeld 1996; Mahalingam 2007).
Related, this developmental trend is similar to findings in Brown (2006),
in which younger children perceived teachers to be biased against
students because of their skin color more frequently than older children,
most likely because of the salience of the physical differences between
people. This finding may also reflect the context in which these children
live, one in which the majority of the community is White European
American with an increasing Mexican immigrant population. To the
children we tested, immigrants apparently do look different from the
other Americans they see. Children in a community with a large Polish
immigrant group might be less likely to focus on physical differences, for
example.
Regardless of the developmental differences, children overall most
strongly assumed that Americans are opposed to immigration because
immigrants look different and like different things from other
Americans. These attributions do not parallel adults' beliefs (or at
least adults' explicitly stated beliefs) in symbolic or realistic threats
(Stephan et al. 1999). In other words, children seem to endorse a
strong positive type of patriotism (e.g., feeling “very American”)
without also feeling the more chauvinistic type of patriotism (e.g.,
“Outsiders threaten our country”). These attributions have potentially
important implications. First, it indicates that children attribute antiimmigration sentiments to ethnic/cultural discrimination. Research
has shown that children at this age are knowledgeable about ethnic
discrimination (Brown 2006; Brown & Bigler 2005), but no research
has previously examined whether children perceive discrimination
toward immigrants. This study suggests that children in this sample
indeed perceive such discrimination. Second, this finding calls into
question adults' actual reasons for anti-immigration attitudes.
Although purely speculative, perhaps children's responses reflect
adults' actual (or even implicit) attitudes, minus the filter of social
desirability that comes with age. Similarly, adults' endorsement of
symbolic and realistic threats as reasons for anti-immigration
attitudes may be a form of symbolic racism (Tarman & Sears 2005),
and children's responses may be a more explicit reflection of the
racial/ethnic prejudices underlying anti-immigration sentiments.
The third research question assessed children's stereotypes and
attitudes about immigrants based on their country of origin. Results
indicated that children held differential attitudes about immigrants
based on country of origin, with Mexican immigrants being viewed
most negatively (although, no attitudes were entirely negative, but
rather less positive). For example, the Mexican immigrant was
perceived to make less money than either the Black or White
American, his child was perceived to be less smart than either the
Black or White American, and children wanted to go to school with his
child less than the child of the Black or White American. This tendency
to view the Mexican immigrant most harshly is consistent with
previous research with adults (Lee & Fiske 2006; Short 2004), and
reflects the most negative stereotypes in America being associated
with Mexican immigrants. Although children reported not wanting to
go to school with the Chinese immigrant relative to the two American
children, children were less biased against the Chinese immigrant
than the Mexican immigrant. The slightly more favorable attitudes
toward Chinese immigrants may be their association with the positive
“model minority” stereotype about Asian Americans (e.g., Park 2008).
The difference between attitudes about Mexican versus Chinese
immigrants also reflects the context in which the children in the
current sample live. They live in a community with a predominantly
low-income Mexican immigrant population who often hold manual
labor jobs, and a relatively high-income Chinese immigrant population who are often medical professionals or academics. Thus, because
the community make-up parallels stereotypes supported in previous
research, the pattern of children's attitudes is not surprising.
Table 4
Stereotypes about how much they wanted to go to school with the child of the immigrant based on region of origin.
Age/prototypical American
Older
White prototypical American
No prototypical American
Younger
White prototypical American
No prototypical American
Combined
White American
Black American
Mexican immigrant
British immigrant
Chinese immigrant
3.19 (.83)a
3.15 (.81)
3.03 (.80)a
3.30 (.86)
2.61 (.84)b
2.95 (.69)
2.84 (.82)ab
3.15 (.75)
2.84 (.89)ab
3.00 (.86)
3.20 (1.0)
3.69 (.63)
3.26 (.87)a
3.20 (1.2)
3.54 (.66)
3.21 (.91)a
3.20 (.91)
3.23 (1.0)
2.94 (.88)b
3.32 (.95)
2.92 (1.2)
3.05 (.92)ab
2.84 (1.1)
3.38 (.96)
2.96 (.96)b
Note. Numbers represent means (standard deviations). Scores range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Different superscripts indicate significant differences (p b .05) across
immigrants.
116
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
In addition, as predicted, children did not hold many negative
attitudes or stereotypes about the British immigrant (i.e., they did not
mind going to school with the British immigrant). British immigrants
can be more easily incorporated into a common in-group identity (see
Gaertner & Dovidio 2000) because of similarities in skin color and
language, and this has been associated with more positive attitudes in
children as young as 5 (Powlishta et al. 1994). Thus, it is easier to view
British immigrants as similar to the prototypical American, and
subsequently it is more likely that Americans can apply their positive
in-group attitudes to the British immigrant.
Importantly, the study indicates that the White European
American children in this sample did not show biases favoring the
White American over the Black American. Decades of research have
indicated that European American children hold racial biases against
African Americans, and hundreds of studies have attempted to reduce
such biases (for a brief review, see Pfeifer, Brown, & Juvonen 2007).
The current findings suggest that children also hold biases (perhaps
even stronger biases) against Mexican immigrants. Although children
no doubt continue to hold racial biases not captured by this study,
these findings demonstrate that immigration status is an important
distinction among elementary school-aged children and should not be
ignored. The implication of this finding is that anti-bias intervention
programs in the U.S. – programs that rarely, if ever, address immigrant
groups – are overly restricted in focus and miss the groups toward
which many children hold biases.
The final research question assessed the relationship between
national identity and attitudes toward immigrants. Findings indicate
that older children with a strong American identity perceived the two
American children to be smarter than all three immigrant children.
This bias was not evident in children with a weaker American identity.
This finding supports both theory, namely social identity theory
(Tajfel & Turner 2004) in which individuals who hold an important
group identity hold more negative attitudes about their out-groups,
and previous research (Billiet et al. 2003; Reizábal et al. 2004;
Verkuyten 2009). In addition, the degree to which children believed
that a prototypical American is White moderated some of their
attitudes about immigrants. Specifically, older children who believed
that a White American is the most prototypical American wanted to
go to school with both American children more than the Mexican
immigrant's child. This bias was not evident in children who did not
differentiate across Americans. This suggests that children who hold
tight restrictions around who is a true member of their national ingroup hold more biases than children without such restrictions,
suggesting that they are less likely to allow Mexican immigrants (or at
least their children) into a common in-group. Both of these
moderating variables were only relevant for older children. Previous
research has found that national identity becomes more important
across middle childhood (see Barrett, Lyons, & del Valle 2004), and
perhaps the current finding reflects older children's more sophisticated integration of their in-group conceptualizations and their outgroup attitudes.
As with all research, there are limitations to the current study. For
example, the current sample was ethnically homogenous. Although
ethnicity has not been a significant predictor of attitudes toward
immigrants in previous work (Stephan et al. 1999), more current
research should explore ethnic group differences in children's
attitudes toward immigrants. Unlike the current study, future
research should address attitudes toward immigration among
children of immigrants. In addition, the current study examines
children's attitudes about the immigration threats perceived by
adults. Future research should examine whether children perceive
unique threats from immigrants that differ from those of adults and
explore the ways that children view important issues in immigration.
Further, the current study did not assess parents' role in shaping
children's attitudes about immigrants, and studies on the role of
socialization in developing attitudes about immigration would be
valuable. Finally, future research should tease apart the numerous
confounds associated with stereotypes about immigrants. Immigrants
differ in terms of race, language, generational status, and socioeconomic status. All of these variables likely affect children's attitudes of
immigrants, and thus should be examined independently.
In conclusion, this study suggests that elementary school aged
children in this sample hold strong American identities and have
flexible ideas about what it means to be an American. Further, by age
10, children seem to make important distinctions between both
Americans and immigrants. White Americans were often considered
more prototypical of Americans than other ethnic group members,
legal immigrants were favored over illegal immigrants, and Mexican
immigrants were viewed more negatively than immigrants from
other areas (perhaps a reflection of the sample community).
Furthermore, children's own attitudes and American identities seem
to influence their attitudes towards immigrants. Taken together, this
study suggests that researchers who are concerned with the
intergroup attitudes of children (and likewise, interventions to reduce
negative intergroup attitudes) should more frequently examine
children's attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Although
this is a heated debate among adults, and often concerns abstract
legal, financial, and logistical concepts, children are attending to the
debate, forming their own attitudes about the issues, and endorsing
stereotypes related to their attitudes. As immigration shows few signs
of appreciably slowing and is increasingly debated in the news,
understanding children's conceptions of these issues is of growing
importance.
References
Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Aboud, S., & Levy, S. (2000). Interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination in
children and adolescents. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination
(pp. 269−293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barrett, M., Lyons, E., & del Valle, A. (2004). The development of national identity and
social identity processes: Do social identity theory and self-categorisation theory
provide useful heuristic frameworks for developmental research? The development
of the social self (pp. 159−188). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Barrett, M., & Short, J. (1992). Images of European people in a group of 5–10-year-old
English schoolchildren. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(4),
339−363.
Barrett, M., Wilson, H., & Lyons, E. (2003). The development of national in-group bias:
English children's attributions of characteristics to English, American and German
people. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 193−220.
Bennett, M., Barrett, M., Karakozov, R., Kipiani, G., Lyons, E., Pavlenko, V., et al. (2004).
Young children's evaluations of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi-national
study. Social Development, 13, 124−141.
Bennett, M., Lyons, E., Sani, F., & Barrett, M. (1998). Children's subjective identification with
the group and in-group favoritism. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 902−909.
Billiet, J., Maddens, B., & Beerten, R. (2003). National identity and attitude toward
foreigners in a multinational state: A replication. Political Psychology, 24(2), 241−257.
Brown, C. S. (2006). Bias at school: Perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination among
Latino and European American children. Cognitive Development, 21(4), 401−419.
Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. (2005). Children's perceptions of discrimination: A
developmental model. Child Development, 76(3), 533−553.
Brown, C. S., Mistry, R. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2007). Hurricane Katrina: Children's
perceptions of race, class, and government involvement amid a national crisis.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 191−208.
CNN (2007). Thousands of immigration marchers rally across U.S. Retrieved on October 26,
2009 from. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/01/immigration.protests/index.html
Deaux, K. (2006). A nation of immigrants: Living our legacy. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3),
633−651.
Deaux, K. (2008). To be an American: Immigration, hyphenation, and incorporation.
Journal of Social Issues, 64, 925−943.
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88(3), 447−466.
Devos, T., & Ma, D. S. (2008). Is Kate Winslet more American than Lucy Liu? The impact
of construal processes on the implicit ascription of a national identity. The British
Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 191−215.
Enesco, I., Navarro, A., Paradela, I., & Guerrero, S. (2005). Stereotypes and beliefs about
different ethnic groups in Spain. A study with Spanish and Latin American children
living in Madrid. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 638−659.
Esses, V., Dovidio, J., Jackson, L., & Armstrong, T. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The
role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal
of Social Issues, 57(3), 389−412.
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity
model. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
C.S. Brown / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 109–117
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (2009). A common ingroup identity: A categorization-based
approach for reducing intergroup bias. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and
discrimination (pp. 489−505). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Helwig, C., & Jasiobedzka, U. (2001). The relation between law and morality: Children's
reasoning about socially beneficial and unjust laws. Child Development, 72(5),
1382−1393.
Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant
families: Looking to America's future. Social Policy Report, 22(3).
Hirschfeld, L. (1996). Race in the making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York, NY: Norton.
Keil, F. (2006). Cognitive science and cognitive development. Handbook of child
psychology: Vol 2, Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 609−635).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Killen, M., McGlothlin, H., & Henning, A. (2008). Explicit judgments and implicit bias. In
S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through
adulthood (pp. 126−145). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lee, T., & Fiske, S. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype
content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 751−768.
Lindman, H. R. (1974). Analysis of variance in complex experimental designs. San
Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Lomax, R. G. (2007). An introduction to statistical concepts for education and behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mahalingam, R. (2007). Essentialism, power, and the representation of social
categories: A folk sociology perspective. Human Development, 50, 300−319.
Martin, C. (1989). Children's use of gender-related information in making social
judgments. Developmental Psychology, 25, 80−88.
Monger, R., & Rytina, N. (2009). Annual flow report. U.S. legal permanent residents:
2008. Homeland security. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from. http://www.dhs.gov/
xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2008.pdf
Park, J. (2008). Second-generation Asian American pan-ethnic identity: Pluralized
meanings of a racial label. Sociological Perspectives, 51(3), 541−561.
117
Pfeifer, J. H., Brown, C. S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). Fifty years since Brown v. Board of
Education: Lessons learned about the development and reduction of children's
prejudice. Social Policy Report, 21(2).
Pfeifer, J., Rubble, D., Bachman, M., Alvarez, J., Cameron, J., & Fuligni, A. (2007). Social
identities and intergroup bias in immigrant and nonimmigrant children. Developmental
Psychology, 43(2), 496−507.
Polling Report (2010). Immigration. Polling Report, Inc. Retrieved December 7, 2010
from. http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Powlishta, K., Serbin, L., Doyle, A., & White, D. (1994). Gender, ethnic, and body type
biases: The generality of prejudice in childhood. Developmental Psychology, 30(4),
526−536.
Reizábal, L., Valencia, J., & Barrett, M. (2004). National identifications and attitudes to
national ingroups and outgroups amongst children living in the Basque country.
Infant and Child Development, 13(1), 1−20.
Short, R. (2004). Justice, politics, and prejudice regarding immigration attitudes.
Current Research in Social Psychology, 9(14).
Stephan, W., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221−2237.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Political
psychology: Key readings (pp. 276−293). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Tapp, J., & Kohlberg, L. (1971). Developing senses of law and legal justice. Journal of
Social Issues, 27(2), 65−91.
Tarman, C., & Sears, D. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic
racism. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 731−761.
Torney-Purta, J., Wilkenfeld, B., & Barber, C. (2008). How adolescents in 27 countries
understand, support, and practice human rights. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 857−880.
Verkuyten, M. (2009). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of
national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 31−52.
Verkuyten, M., & Steenhuis, A. (2005). Preadolescents' understanding and reasoning
about asylum seeker peers and friendships. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 26(6), 660−679.