AbstractThis research paper will examine the various mechanisms thought to be responsible for the development of prejudice in
children. It will contrast the idea that prejudice is something which almost comes naturally and must be combated, with the idea that some personalities are prone to become and remain prejudiced. The term prejudice will be defined, and suggestions for combating the development and the retention of prejudicial ideas and practices will be outlined.
The Development of Prejudice in Children
IntroductionPrejudice has been defined in many ways. According to G. Allport, prejudice is "An antipathy based on a faulty and inflexible generalization…which may be felt or expressed…and directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because they are a member of that group. The net effect of prejudice is to place the object of prejudice at some disadvantage not merited by their own misconduct." (Carter and Rice, 185) One term which is often used when discussing the development of prejudice, and the mechanisms at play leading to it, is reactance. "Reactance is a motivational state aroused whenever individuals believe their freedom to have been infringed. In such situations, they are assumed to strive for some means of restoring personal control; the action they take depending upon the nature of the threat… a person may choose to embrace an attitude (in our case, prejudice)." This is not only true for adults, but also for children, and it is a mechanism of prejudice development which can be easily dealt with by reducing ignorance and increasing knowledge. (Carrington, 179) What this paper aims to do is examine some of the current research and its ideas with regards to how prejudice develops or is exacerbated in children. It also aims to examine the different kinds of prejudice, and some of the ways in which the school system can be instrumental in decreasing or hopefully even getting rid of prejudice in children. The school system is an ideal environment for this task, as this is where children spent the bulk of their time while they are growing up. Research studies which have been performed will be covered as well.
How do children become prejudiced?Children define very early on in their lives what their race is, what their physical, ethnic, and mental categories consist of. This is evident as early as preschool. It seems that children have a natural affinity for "bias in favor of their own sex, favoring classmates over unfamiliar children, choosing more negative adjectives to describe others and often show bias towards other ethnic groups." (Bergen, 154) But prejudice is not instinctive (although may have some genetic factor, as will be discussed later on in this paper). Prejudice is taught and learned, either through non-verbal or verbal messages, or the child is taught prejudice directly.
So what exactly is prejudice? As defined by Pettigrew, prejudice is a "negative feeling towards a group based on a faulty generalization". It consists of several domains; the cognitive as well as the affective. In the case of the affective domain of attitudes, it seems that "three dimensions seem clear: (1) a cognitive component that is faulty and irrational; (2) a negative affective component; and (3) one based on the other. Prejudice is irrational because the information it is based on is inaccurate or insufficient to serve as an objective basis for any valid conclusion." (Bergen, 154) So why do we as humans do things like think in a prejudicial manner? It is a psychological fact that all of us as humans are driven by a natural need to classify things. What people then have a tendency to do is to "classify stimuli into sets, overestimate the similarities among the members within a set, and overestimate the differences among the members of different sets." (Bergen, 154) This psychological mechanism becomes completely distorted in the prejudices person. Their world view is one of separate sets which exclude one another. As stated by Bergen, everything is separate, different, incompatible, dissonant. This causes them to experience distrust and fear of the "out" group or set, to be apprehensive about and uncomfortable with the other sets. To deal with this, the prejudiced person separates themselves from these "others", and the order of the day becomes "avoidance, withdrawal, verbal hostility, individual acts of unfairness, physical attacks, and ultimately genocide." (Bergen 154) This is the prejudiced person's schema. "The prejudiced child uses the same schemata for justifying prejudice and thinking about it as the child uses for thinking and justifying anything else." (Bergen, 155)
There are several ideas with regards to how prejudice develops in children. As stated by Bergen, it is not completely clear whether or not there is a role for genetics in the development of prejudice, but there does seem to be a certain genetic component in that heredity does influence some cognitive schemata, such as those of "dichotomic thinking". It also could be said that the universal "discomfort of very young children towards strangers…could be seen as an example of an inborn predisposition towards the initial stages of prejudice." (Allport, 1958) But all in all it does seem that prejudice is more of a result of learning and environment.
Children develop the concept of "group" early on in their lives. "Prior to the age of three, normal children already know 'this is my group', 'it is a good group', 'I like to be with them', 'I enjoy doing the things they do.' …By age three there is already group identification." (Bergen, 155) But this is not an arbitrary thing, it is indeed necessary for survival. As stated by Bergen, a child's attachment to their group is a basic necessity of human life, and without it the child would never be able to survive, physically or psychologically. Because of this, the child also naturally adopts thinking patterns and codes of behavior of its parents. As further stated in the Bergen article, the child also ends up sharing the manner in which the family is treated by the larger social group and the family's social handicaps end up being the child's social handicaps as well. These things all contribute to the development of prejudice in children if the family holds such beliefs also.
Modeling in the child's family also contributes to the development of prejudice. As found by Lipscomb, it seems that in children under the age of seven and eight, models seem to exert a much more powerful influence. "Children can learn to behave largely through observation and imitation of others (modeling)…and if models behave in an accepting and respectful way towards others, children are more likely to do so themselves." (Bergen, 156) But not even this is a simple matter. According to Bandura, the type of modeling has an effect as well. A role model which is warm and affectionate has much more effect on a child than one which is cool and aloof, and "whichever parent the child sees as powerful will serve as an effective model because the child wants to be like him or her. Only this was will he or she be able to be powerful and respected." (Bandura, 1986) If the parent which the child is modeling himself or herself after displays prejudicial beliefs, the child will internalize these beliefs as their own after enough time has passed.
What exactly is the group that children (as all people) feel these prejudicial feelings against? At a very young age, children become aware of strangers. This is a natural process, and after time passes, children begin to get used to "strangers." "But as long as strangers keep on being 'them' and not 'us' they remain out of the child's comfort zone. Within the in group children feel secure. Life is 'good'. With strangers, there is suspicion, fear of the unknown, discomfort. Life is 'bad'. The 'us' is positive and nourishing. The 'them' is uncertain, negative and scary." (Bergen, 156) It is this thinking process which also contributes to a predisposition to prejudice. Another contributing factor is the manner in which people (children as well) naturally sort and label everything, including people. "This sorting and labeling becomes more accurate during early childhood and extends also to other ethnic categories and to physical attributes such as weight or mental qualities such as being smart, or religious identity…the child's world becomes one of sets. People do not just exist. They exist as parts of groups…an us and a them." (Bergen, 157)
But the division of the world into various sets and groups does not stop there for the child. The child also decides which group is more valuable and important to them, and as stated by Bergen, the child now decides who they like, who they don't like, who they think highly of, and who they will not think highly of. Usually the way this works is that "often children view members of the ingroup favorably and members of the outgroups with disfavor." (Bergen, 157) There are however differences in how children decide to use this information. Some children end up becoming prejudiced while others do not. The reason behind this seems to be that some children have a "categorization which is rational: they see the differences as well as the similarities, they do not see the categories as being totally apart, they allow for individual differences within groups and unifying elements across groups. And if they dislike, they dislike persons, not groups, or persons because of group membership." (Bergen 157)
As there are some children (and adults) who are able to not generalize when not appropriate, so are there also children who seem to have a prejudiced personality. It has alternately been referred to as an "authoritarian" personality, and children as young as five who have this type of personality are already beginning to display these characteristics. As stated in the Bergen text, these children see things as being very black and white and are unable to understand that there sometimes are grey areas. They also believe that there is "only one right way to do anything…They feel as if somebody is ready to get them (if they do not do things in the one right way)…they are anxious, and this anxiety is reflected in their judgments of others. They do not tolerate human weakness as they do not tolerate outgroups either…The world is a dichotomy: right or wrong." (Bergen, 161) These children are very extreme in all they do. They do not like ambiguity, but instead need simple, firm answers. In the absence of order they impose it, they are loyal members of any group they belong to, and as they grow they are extremely patriotic as Bergen points out. There exists in these children a basic distrust of people in general, so they welcome authority with open arms. They are basically stuck in a very early stage of moral development according to the Piaget and Kohlberg levels of moral development, and in them prejudice is an integral part of their personality so it is next to impossible to extinguish.
Major categories of PrejudiceAs mentioned in the Bergen article, and as stated in the Clifford and Lynne article, prejudice is both an irrational and rational attitude. A person who is prejudiced is rationalizing their belief by covering their own inadequacies by calling attention to another group or person. It is further rationalized that anyone who is different from the "in" group, or who "deviates from the reference group is considered deserving of maltreatment." (Clifford and Lynne, 185) Prejudice is also an irrational attitude because it is a "conclusion about an entire group based only on observations of individuals within that group." (Clifford and Lynne, 185) As stated by Allport, prejudice affects how children's self esteem and self-concept develop, which in turn affects their peer socialization interactions as well as their belief in their own ability to succeed and perform in life. Even very young children take on the behaviors and attitudes of their environment, and even though they might not understand, they will still imitate what they hear and see.
There are three major groups or categories if you will, of prejudice. These attitudes are what children observe and then mimic. The first major category of prejudice is the Concious/Intentional. This type of prejudice is manifested as a "blatant antipathy for a group of individuals. Persons with this type of prejudice are aware of the hatred they have for a particular group of people and express these beliefs to perpetrate the hate, feel superior, find a scapegoat, or humiliate others they have targeted as inferior." (Clifford and Lynne, 186) This is the type of prejudice one would find in members of the KKK for example. "Conscious/Intentional prejudice is rooted in feelings or affect. Fear, hatred, and feelings of inadequacy serve as motivators. The affect…can only be sustained by playing on the fears of others…by exaggerating the negative qualities or the generalizability of those qualities to evoke the fear of the unknown." (Clifford and Lynne, 186)
The second major category of prejudice is the Conscious/Unintentional prejudice. This type of prejudice is "likely to be expressed only in socially acceptable environments…by people who are in an unresolved state with their belief system and are confused. They resort to expressions of prejudice when the targeted group is too close for comfort…and on a cognitive level the individual gives some validity to the stereotypes that reinforce prejudice." (Clifford and Lynne, 187)
In the case of the third major category of prejudice, the Unconscious/Unintentional prejudice, as stated by Clifford and Lynne, it is often manifested as the "proverbial slip up." People who manifest this type of prejudice are often "unaware of their prejudiced beliefs and deny these feelings if questioned. They do not intend to hurt or label with their comments…but their comments may be more deeply rooted in repressed prejudicial statements or beliefs." (Clifford and Lynne, 186) In the case of the "children who are exposed to Conscious/Unintentional prejudice, they will continue to repeat the negative verbal expressions and behaviors as long as they are positively reinforced with either attention or praise." (Clifford and Lynne, 186) Even in families who pride themselves on being "PC", children can sense and will pick up on hidden messages. If a particular "type" of person is okay to socialize with outside of the home, but not allowed to come into the home (for sleep-overs, etc.), the child becomes confused. The message sent across by the child's parent(s) is "confusing to the child, but trust has been placed in the perception and experience of the adults in his or her life. The child reasons that the parents must know what they are talking about…because parents are older and wiser." (Clifford and Lynne, 187) It comes down to acceptance as well. "By acting as adults act, children receive a positive reaction from adults for the perceived compliment of imitation of conduct…children will do that which follows the path of least resistance and brings maximal praise…prejudice is reinforced in the child's environment." (Clifford and Lynne, 187)
In addition to these three major categories of prejudice, Allport has also defined five forms of prejudice. In the case of the first, "Antilocution refers to racist literature or verbal assaults." (Clifford and Lynne, 187) The second is "Avoidance which occurs when prejudice intensifies and individuals actively avoid contact with the disliked group." (Clifford and Lynne, 187) The third, "Discrimination is the power held by the majority group…which excludes members of the targeted group from social privilege." (Clifford and Lynne, 187) The fourth is when "Physical attacks may occur." (Clifford and Lynne, 187) The last and most horrible, and thankfully most uncommon is "Extermination." (Clifford and Lynne, 187)
The first place which many children come into contacts with belief systems other than those of their own family circle is when they enter school. "A defining moment in the development of prejudice is in the child's first encounters with the targeted groups…School is a time for learning and socialization…and when one's prejudiced beliefs are confronted with contrary religious teaching or education, and internal conflict arises." (Allport, 1954) Allport also points out that there are four ways to deal with such a conflict; through repression (where a person refuses to believe there is a contradiction in the way he or she thinks versus the out-group's perspective); through defense (where a person will alter his or her experiences to justify faulty thinking); through compromise (where a person uses the belief system which is the best option for his or her purposes); and through integration (where the person decides to open thought patterns and experiences to true integration). The key to break the cycle of prejudice in children is to enlist the help of the teachers of the children. It is important that teachers be aware of the above mentioned forms of prejudice, as well as being aware of stereotypes. Teachers also need to be aware that "positive stereotypes are also a form of prejudice, because they are based on a faulty and inflexible generalization of a particular group…these expectations create unfair pressure on the developing child." (Clifford and Lynne, 188) Teachers need to realize how important it is to be aware of the fact that they "serve as role models to students by manifesting acceptance through interactions with the children." (Clifford and Lynne, 188) Another important thing for teachers to realize is that "masking ethnic identity restricts learning opportunity through culturally linked learning styles and can result in negative self-esteem, which negatively affects learning." (Clifford and Lynne, 189) It has also been shown, as stated by Clifford and Lynne, that women and minorities are far more affected by demeaning language and ethnic jokes, as well as interpreting ambiguous behavior as prejudice. So teachers need to be aware of these things also. On a positive note, it has been proven that "cooperative teaching methods also have shown a positive effect on interethnic behavior and academic learning in school children." (Clifford and Lynne, 190) As per Allport (1954), that even though it might seem that prejudice is hereditary, the "course of transmission is one of teaching and learning, not heredity" (p. 291). So it would follow then that the same "tools" which serve to transmit prejudice can also be used to stop the transmission of prejudice. It is simply a matter of what the focus is on in the teaching and learning process. If one demonstrates a lack of acceptance for prejudicial thoughts and behavior, then the prejudice will no longer be reinforced. "Perhaps children can turn the tables and teach their parents how abhorrent prejudice is and what effect it has on others…or sibling influence on other siblings." (Clifford and Lynne, 191)
Types of prejudiceNot only do children show biases against those persons of other ethnicities early on, but they display biases and prejudice against persons of the other gender or possessing a different body type (usually obese). In the study done by K. Powlishta et al titled "Gender, Ethnics, and Body Type Biases: The Generality of Prejudice in Childhood", it was found that children from a very young age make categorical distinctions between people, and although gender may be one of the first distinctions children notice, it most assuredly is not the only one. Children also notice differences (and often hold negative views) about other ethnic categories, as well as towards people who possess different body types than themselves. The study also examined the fact that some people tend to be more prejudiced than others (most likely due to stable personality traits already evident in childhood), and that prejudice appears to decline to some degree with age when it does not appear to be due to these personality traits, but instead because of the child's specific learning experiences. The study found that throughout elementary school, many children display prejudice, with "tendencies toward in-group favoritism and out-group rejection…and children frequently gave biased reponses portraying their own group more positively and less negatively than other groups…and both boys and girls valued their own sex more highly than the other sex." (Powlishta et al, p. 548) One of the other types of prejudice which the study was interested in was prejudice aimed at overweight children/people. The study did show that negative attitudes towards overweight children did tend to decrease with age, similar to the manner which negative attitudes towards the opposite gender decreased. However, it is a common fact that a great deal of people do find it acceptable to hold prejudices against overweight people, as they seem to attribute the being overweight to some sort of character fault in the person (and therefore, within their control).It would be interesting to see whether or not this type of prejudice is the same as other types of prejudice. The above mentioned study did also find that "two consistent sex differences emerged: Girls tended to be more biased in the domain of gender, whereas boys tended to display more bias than girls in the language domain…evidence that boys are resistant to influence attempts by girls and frequently dominate cross-sex interactions…causing girls' greater negativity toward the other sex." (Powlishta et al, p. 549) The study also found that "individual experiences (this does not include children with authoritarian personality traits) appear to determine the target prejudice for a given child at a given age." (Powlishta et al, p. 549) It was also found that some adults remain more prejudiced than other adults, causing a conclusion that personality and its effects on traits becomes more important with a age.
Influence of education on prejudiceIn a study performed in Australia, on middle school aged children, developmental egocentricity was examined in order to shed more light on the cognitive and social aspects of prejudice in children. This study found in a similar manner, that "children from less educated environments gave significantly more prejudiced responses when tested." (Phillips, p. 91) This study sought to fill some significant gaps in the research with regards to satisfactory measures of social attitudes in children, as well as their attitudes towards other ethnic groups. This is important because "attitudes of prejudice are of particular consequence in contemporary technological society, which features large-scale immigrations of peoples from poor economies into highly developed countries to expand the industrial work force. School children most of all experience the melting pot society which such massive contemporary immigration programs entail." (Phillips, p. 91)
The study was set up in such a manner that middle school age children were asked to participate in a free discussion about such things like what type of playmates they preferred, and also what type of person they would imagine themselves marrying in the future. "The expressed expectation of marriage as the best possible state to be as an adult was common among male and female children alike. Because of the value placed upon it, it was used consistently to define ultimate rejection or acceptance of other ethnic groups." (Phillips, p. 92) There were several types of responses which the children gave as reasons why they would not want to marry a person from a particular ethnic group. The "insular responses…were defined as insular rejection on the basis of unfamiliarity (language was difficult…the person was not from the respondent's country…the respondent had met few to none)." (Phillips, p. 95) In the category of prejudiced responses, "prejudice was defined as the inability to see members of another ethnic group as having a variable range of behaviors and personalities. Included were negative statements such as they are wogs, they are greasy, or they are oily…and the children could find no reason (logic) for their rejection of particular ethnic groups." (Phillips, p. 95) What was concluded as a result of this particular study was that "children in middle school and preadolescence, with the limited ethnic experience of the sharp ethnic habitat divisions in large metropolitan cities, may still be sufficiently egocentric to be unable to accept routines, appearances, and customs different from their everyday ones...suggesting a developmental egocentricity" (Phillips, p. 97)
Ways to combat prejudiceAlthough the ideal way to defeat prejudice is in the home, there are parents who themselves hold prejudicial views towards other groups. So the next best thing would be to ensure that prejudice is counteracted in the schools, as this is where children spend a great majority of their time as they are growing up and developing as human beings. There is an important fact to remember, though and that is that "although researchers have been studying children's prejudice earnestly since the civil rights movement, some of their work might be invalidated by an inflexible definition of prejudice. Young children react to superficial characteristics that are foreign to them, like black skin or hair they don't like, which is qualitatively different from the deeper prejudices adults are more likely to harbor (even though research shows more prejudice at young ages)." (Carter and Rice, p. 186) The way in which this research study suggests combating prejudice in children takes into account these facts. As stated by Carter and Rice, it was found that "kids who were able to think fairly were less prejudiced…and that youngsters who were at lower moral stages gave the most negative comments about the various ethnic groups…and that contrary to popular belief, there is a low correlation between children's prejudice and that of their parents…and that the more exposure children/people got to other ethnic groups (as in forced busing), the more they hated each other." (Carter and Rice, p. 187) The tools the researchers suggest using in order to combat prejudice in school children is to incorporate "moral and character education in school…human relationships are as important as academics." (Carter and Rice, p. 187) There are different ways to approach this issue depending on the age of the child. For example, in younger children the researchers suggest beginning with feelings and motivation, and then as they develop, adding the intellectual component. (p. 187) "Prejudicial thoughts are a universal human experience because we base our identity on our differences from others. What we have to do is become more moral so we don't go around expressing them. That doesn't guarantee that we still won't think them. We'll always react more warmly towards people more like us. We can't change that, so we have to change how we behave." (Carter and Rice, p. 187) A very simple thing which can make a big difference is for teachers (and the rest of us, of course) that "children do not generally speaking, behave in prejudiced ways. They quickly get the feeling that it's allowed. You tell them it's not allowed, and it's a great relief because they can, without worrying, include everybody and know that they too will be included." (Carter and Rice, p. 188) They researchers then use the analogy of the Golden Rule as a guide to how we should all treat one another.
In another research study, using dramatic plays as a vehicle for prejudice reduction in elementary schools was examined. This method was chosen, as it had previously been shown that in the area of film, "an integrated cast had more effect on prejudice reduction than either an all-white or all-black cast." (Gimmestad and Chiara, p. 45) As a matter of background, it is vital to remember that "although knowledge can contribute to prejudice reduction, it will not reduce prejudice by itself…and that programs that focus on the cognitive dimension, such as those that impart information about ethnic groups, do not necessarily change students' affective and behavioral dimensions of prejudice." (Gimmestad and Chiara, p. 45) What the researchers did find was that "generally speaking, students who work in interracial learning teams develop positive attitudes and cross-ethnic friendships…and that dramatic plays with accompanying curricular materials is an effective vehicle for the reduction of prejudice in children…because small ethnically heterogeneous groups of children who are asked to work together on learning tasks were some success is guaranteed tend to develop positive attitudes toward each other." (Gimmestad and Chiara, p. 49)
In a British study, the emphasis was placed on "introducing multicultural perspectives as a way of enriching the education of all our pupils. It gives pupils the opportunity to view the world from different standpoints, helping them to question prejudice and develop open-mindedness." (Carrington, p. 164) To accomplish this, the researchers decided to plug the gap in the research concerning anti-Semitism in children younger than adolescence. "If we do not know the nature of children's thinking about society, it is difficult to plan appropriate learning contexts for them…and some researchers seem to have paid scant regard to ethical considerations when probing children's understanding of issues relating to 'race', ethnicity and cultural identity." (Carrington, p. 164) The researchers in this article focused on examining children's beliefs and assumptions (which they seemed to take for granted) with regards to religious culture and identity, as well as with regards to persons from other countries (in this case, Africa). What the researchers attempted to do was take the development of open-mindedness and the questioning of prejudice, and translate it into a workable strategy in the classroom. The first thing implemented was to educate the teachers that it was not acceptable to adopt a neutral position when handling discussions of controversial issues (specifically in this case, issues of racism). "When racist remarks were made in a public forum, such as a class debate, the immediate response by the teacher should be to invite the individuals to clarify their position…and the majority of children in the class are usually both willing and able to challenge such views." (Carrington, p. 172)
Interdisciplinary curriculum programs were also designed with the aim in mind to dispel myths about developing countries, and which also attempted to provide school children with a variety of learning experiences which might enable them to reflect upon their taken for granted assumptions about other religions and countries. "To neglect cultural differences altogether could have grave consequences. Unquestioned assumptions, misconceptions and ignorance about other cultures are likely to provide a fertile breeding ground for prejudice and ethnocentrism. The ethical imperative is not to refrain from teaching about cultural diversity but rather to ensure that the similarities between the groups, as well as the differences, are underlined in the classroom." (Carrington, p. 173) It was also stressed that it was understood that there are some aspects about other cultures that the children might find unacceptable, but that it is wrong to take these feelings further and discriminate in any way against these aspects. The researchers found that it was of benefit to have the children examine their perceptions of various countries, cultures, and religions in pairs. This was done in the hope that "the children might engage with one another's misconceptions and stereo-types…and various follow up activities were devised in an attempt to encourage the children to revise their views…with some evidence to suggest that video material had served to dislodge some of the children's myths and misconceptions." (Carrington, p. 174)
In the second to last article which I examined, a comprehensive program designed to teach tolerance for the various religious faiths was outlined. "Perhaps one of the most important needs for our children in our community is the teaching of empathy, tolerance and understanding of ethnic, racial, sexual, gender and religious differences. Such an unmet need often leads to fear, hate and stereotyping of those who are different from ourselves…and may also lead to violent acts and hate crimes." (Kunin, p. 57) It is a sad statement of affairs, but unfortunately true that "the hate and violence engendered by this unmet need are exacerbated by the passivity of today's youth. Too often, young people's opinions and approach to the world are based on the media-which seems to portray violence and hate as an answer to life's difficulties…however this hate and intolerance are not inherent to the human condition. Children are taught to hate." (Kunin, p. 57) Bearing these facts in mind, this paper focusing on interventions aimed at 11 to 13 year olds. In this age group children are both curious and open-minded, and are, therefore, still receptive to, yet old enough to understand the ideas being taught in this program." (Kunin, p. 57)
The program is unique from the other ideas outlined in this paper, as it does not take place in the school setting, but in a community program setting. It also places great importance in involving the parents, as they are seen to be an essential part of the program. The purpose of the program, as stated by Kunin, is to create understanding and tolerance for the different religious faiths of the world. This tolerance will naturally be transferred to other areas as well, thus combating prejudice in many areas. There are four goals in the program: "To strengthen the positive relationship between children and their parents; To encourage children and their parents to interact with and get to know people of different faiths in positive ways; To enable children and their parents to understand the similarities between different faith expressions, and; To allow the children and their parents to appreciate the differences of religions which form our community." (Kunin, p. 58)
There is another unique perspective which Kunin's program has, and that is that of the many programs in existence which focus on prejudice and intolerance, "the programs most often approach these topics from a negative point of view…their premise is that many of the students may already be racist or intolerant…and the programs focus on combating these trends…Kunin et al believe that if we catch the children early enough then they will not yet be racist or intolerant…the program therefore focuses on the values of appreciation and respect, creating positive reinforcement and tools which will enable the students to avoid the pitfalls of intolerance and hatred as they reach their teenage years." (Kunin, p. 59)
The program is led by facilitators, who are intended to be "seen as positive role models for the different religious expressions within the community." (Kunin, p. 59) Ideally, both the facilitators and the parents and children would be from (in this case) all three major faiths (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). The program itself is divided into three segments, each one being three hours long. The first segment focuses on introducing the concept of intolerance, as well as tools with which to combat prejudice and intolerance. The second segment focuses on highlighting the similarities between the three major religions. "It is essential that students feel comfortable with similarities before discussion of differences. Stressing similarities and commonalities will also demonstrate to the students the arbitrary and illogical nature of intolerance." (Kunin, p. 60) The third segment focuses on the differences between the three major religions, which would have the goal in mind of encouraging "students to appreciate rather than fear differences between the three religions." (Kunin, p. 60) During the entire program, participants would be using a journal, which would provide them with the opportunity to think and learn about their own religions, as well as allow them to process information learned during the program.
The last article focused on the use of co-operative learning methods as a method to combat prejudice. In this article, the idea was set forth that "prejudice may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional support." (Singh, p. 158) In research performed by Allport (1954), he found that there were "certain conditions that might decrease prejudice between groups: conditions where the groups co-operate with each other to achieve a common goal, where groups enjoy equal status and where members of these groups meet as individuals in relatively informal situations. Allport's research has since been expanded upon and it has been found that "one's behavior and attitudes towards members of a disliked social category will become more positive after direct interpersonal interactions, but only under certain conditions." (Singh, p.160) The conditions are that "contact must occur in circumstances that define the status of the participants from the two social groups as equal; that the attributes of the disliked group members with whom the contact occurs must disconfirm the prevailing stereotyped beliefs about them; that the contact situation must encourage mutually independent relations…cooperation in the achievement of a joint goal; that the contact situation must have high contact potential…encouraging seeing the member of the out-group as an individual rather than as a person with stereotyped group characteristics; and that the social norms of the contact situation must favor group equality and egalitarian inter-group association." (Singh, p. 161)
The method proposed in this article was one which is referred to as the jig-saw technique. This technique creates "inter-dependence among pupils by dividing the learning task among them and structuring peer-interaction in teams…so that completion of the task is contingent on mutual co-operation." (Singh, p. 161) This method has been proven to be successful, as each member holds information needed by every other member, this making every body equally valuable. "Co-operation leads individuals to treat their partners in the same kind of ego-enhancing manner in which they treat themselves…students in inter-dependent classrooms or learning groups show increased self-esteem, decreases in preference for competitive behavior, and view their classmates as learning resources and not merely as persons to compete against." (Singh, p. 162) The information gained from this method can also be generalized to other facets of life. "The jigsaw method can produce benefits in peer liking, attitudes toward school and improvement in self-esteem…and should give the minority group child status in the team by affording each child exclusive access to a given unit of information. High status pupils in the group must accept information from their low status peers if they are to succeed." (Singh, p. 171) Conclusions drawn from this method points to "evidence which shows that co-operation promotes a lower fear of failure and higher feeling of safety than do other methods…If self-esteem and prejudice are negatively related then an increase in self esteem would result in a decrease in prejudice.If competition is a variable in racial tension, then interdependent methods that reduce competition should decrease racial tension caused by inter-ethnic competition." (Singh, p. 171)
ConclusionIt seems evident from all of the information available currently that we have a great resource in the schools, as well as in our communities, for combating the continued development of prejudice in children. If we can stop prejudice in our youngest citizens, our children, then we can hope for a future much better than the present-one devoid of prejudice and hatred for people different than ourselves. We must all as a society place our focus on using the schools to accomplish this goal. It is still a largely untapped resource, and we would be doing all of our children (and future generations) a great disservice if we did not take advantage of it.
