Creating Inclusive Environments: Enabling Children to Reject Prejudice and Discrimination
Open accessAbstract
Developmental psychology researchers who investigate the multifaceted nature of prejudice, shown within everyday peer interactions, emphasize the importance of creating inclusive environments for children where equity and justice are promoted. This article uses the Social Reasoning Developmental (SRD) model to explore how children and adolescents reason about social inclusion and exclusion, drawing on moral, social group, and psychological considerations. The role of bystanders in challenging social exclusion is highlighted, with a focus on promoting proactive bystander intervention to create inclusive environments. This review identifies age, group identity, group norms, intergroup contact, empathy, and theory of mind as key influences on children's and adolescents’ bystander reactions. It emphasizes that interventions promoting inclusive peer and school norms, confidence in intergroup contact, empathy, and social perspective-taking can foster inclusive environments and empower bystander action that challenges intergroup social exclusion.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Moral development is relational and situated rather than linear or stage-bound.
“consistent with contemporary accounts of moral development as relational and situated rather than linear or stage-bound (Rutland et al., 2024)”
From Children's perceptions of bullying, exclusion and defending in English primary schools: A qualitative study (2026) · cites this paper as Rutland et al., 2024
The Social Reasoning Developmental Model section (p. 204) describes moral reasoning as intertwined with group identity, norms, and social interactions, supporting the relational and situated part of the claim. The discussion of developmental trends (p. 206) does not explicitly reject linear or stage-bound accounts of moral development, so that contrast goes beyond what the paper says. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPupils' reasoning illustrates the evaluative and context-sensitive nature of moral action in peer relationships.
“Pupils ' reasoning therefore illustrates the evaluative and context-sensitive nature of moral action in peer relationships, consistent with contemporary accounts of moral development as relational and situated rather than linear or stage-bound (Rutland et al., 2024).”
From Children's perceptions of bullying, exclusion and defending in English primary schools: A qualitative study (2026) · cites this paper as Rutland et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Abbott N, Cameron L. 2014. What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness, and in-group bias on assertive bystander intervention intentions. J. Soc. Issues 70:167–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12053 · DOI
- Abbott N, Cameron L, Thompson J. 2020. Evaluating the impact of a defender role-play intervention on adolescent's defender intentions and responses towards name-calling. Sch. Psychol. Int. 41(2):154–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319893410 www.annualreviews.org • Creating Inclusive Environments for Children 217 https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12053 https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319893410 · DOI
- Aboud FE. 2008. A social-cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In Handbook of Race, Racism, and the Developing Child, ed. SM Quintana, C McKown, pp. 55–71. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
- Abrams D, Rutland A. 2008. The development of subjective group dynamics. In Intergroup Attitudes and Relations in Childhood Through Adulthood, ed. SR Levy, M Killen, pp. 47–65. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
- Abrams D, Rutland A. 2011. Children's understanding of deviance and group dynamics: the development of subjective group dynamics. In Rebels In Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference and Defiance, ed. J Jetten, MJ Hornsey, pp. 135–57. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
- Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor António R, Guerra R, Moleiro C. 2020. Stay away or stay together? Social contagion, common identity, and bystanders' interventions in homophobic bullying episodes.Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 23(1):127–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218782741 · DOI
- Bagci SC, Cameron L, Turner RN, Morais C, Carby A, et al. 2020. Cross-ethnic friendship self-efficacy: a new predictor of cross-ethnic friendships among children.Group Processes Intergroup Relat.23(7):1049–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219879219 · DOI
- Bagci SC, Rutland A,Kumashiro M, Smith PK, Blumberg H. 2014. Are minority status children's cross-ethnic friendships beneficial in a multiethnic context? Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 32:233–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjdp.12028
- Bagci S, Turnuklu A, Tercan M, Cameron L, Turner R. 2023. Have some confidence in contact: Self- efficacy beliefs among children moderate the associations between cross-group friendships and outgroup attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 53:101–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12929 · DOI
- Bayram Özdemir S, Sun S, Korol L, Özdemir M, Stattin H. 2018. Adolescents' engagement in ethnic harass- ment: prejudiced beliefs in social networks and classroom ethnic diversity. J. Youth Adolesc. 47(6):1151–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0795-0 · DOI
- Benner AD,Wang Y. 2017. Racial/ethnic discrimination and adolescents' well-being: the role of cross-ethnic friendships and friends' experiences of discrimination. Child Dev. 88(2):493–504. https://doi.org/10. 1111/cdev.12606
- Bigler RS,Liben LS. 2007.Developmental intergroup theory: explaining and reducing children's social stereo- typing and prejudice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16(3):162–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007. 00496.x · DOI
- Birkett M, Espelage DL, Koenig BW. 2009. LGB and questioning students in schools: the moderating ef- fects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. J. Youth Adolesc. 38(7):989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1 · DOI
- Bucchianeri MM, Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D. 2016. Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: shared forms of harassment in adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 59(4):402–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2016.05.018 · DOI
- Burkholder AR,Elenbaas L,KillenM. 2021.Giving priority to race or wealth in peer group contexts involving social inclusion.Dev. Psychol. 57(5):651–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001178 · DOI
- Caravita SC, Di Blasio P, Salmivalli C. 2010. Early adolescents' participation in bullying: Is ToM involved? J. Early Adolesc. 30:138–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609342983 · DOI
- Chahar Mahali S, Sevigny PR. 2022. Multicultural classrooms: culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy among a sample of Canadian preservice teachers. Educ. Urban Soc. 54(8):946–968. https://doi.org/10. 1177/00131245211062526
- Chu SY,Garcia S. 2014.Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special education teachers. Remedial Spec. Educ. 35(4):218–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513520511 · DOI
- Cruz RA,Manchanda S, Firestone AR,Rodl JE. 2020. An examination of teachers' culturally responsive teach- ing self-efficacy. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 43(3):197–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419875194 · DOI
- Dahl A. 2019. The science of early moral development: on defining, constructing, and studying morality from birth. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 56:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2018.11.001 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pervez, A., Masrani, T., & Pemberton, E. (2026) · School Psychology International · doi:10.1177/01430343261422416
“More recent work emphasises that children ’ s moral understanding develops through everyday relationships and emotionally meaningful interactions rather than through abstract reasoning alone (Killen & Smetana, 2022; Rutland et al., 2024).”
Influential
- Authors
- Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Killen, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- University of Kent (GB)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Developmental Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2024-12-09
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 203-221
- ISSN
- 2640-7922 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405182715
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- prejudice, discrimination, social inclusion, social exclusion, bystander intervention, intergroup contact, empathy, theory of mind, group identity, group norms, peer interaction, inclusive environment, adolescents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
