Minority- and majority-status bystander reactions to, and reasoning about, intergroup social exclusion

Abstract

We examined minority-status (non-Cypriot immigrant) and majority-status (Cypriot national) preadolescents’ bystander reactions to, and reasoning about, intergroup social exclusion (N = 367; Mage = 11.7 years; 50% Cypriot). Participants read one of three contexts where victim group identity was either non-Cypriot or Cypriot or a context where identity was not mentioned (i.e., control). Cypriot participants reported higher prosocial bystander responses when Cypriot victims were excluded compared with when non-Cypriot victims were excluded. Non-Cypriot participants reported equally high prosocial bystander responses for Cypriot and non-Cypriot victims, and both were higher than those for the control condition. When choosing to challenge social exclusion, non-Cypriot and Cypriot participants employed moral reasoning, focusing on concerns of welfare and equality. When choosing not to challenge the exclusion, Cypriot bystanders referenced personal choice (e.g., “I would not say anything; it is not my problem”) more when victim identity was salient. Non-Cypriot bystanders referenced personal choice only when not challenging exclusion in the control context. Cypriot participants with high levels of intergroup contact reported higher helping intentions toward non-Cypriot victims. These findings support and extend social reasoning developmental theory and highlight practical implications for tackling intergroup social exclusion in schools and maintaining positive intergroup relations.