14_Intolerance of Human Differences a

8/12/2019 14_Intolerance of Human Differences a

1/19

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 18,149-l 67 (1997)

ISSN 0193-3973

All rights of reproduction in ony form reserved.

0 1997 Ablex Publishing Corporation

Intolerance of Human Differences: A

Cross-Cultural and Developmental

Study of American Japanese and

Chinese Children

DAVID S. CRYSTAL

Georgetown University

HIROZUMI WATANABE

Ehime University

WU CHIN

School Board of Shandon, Shandong Province

This study investigated intolerance of human differences among fifth-, eighth-, and

eleventh-graders in the United States (N = 266), Japan (N = 408), and the Peoples

Republic of China (N = 232). Intolerance was measured by childrens reactions to

nontypical peers. Students were administered a self-explanatory questionnaire, present-

ing brief scenarios describing the following six types of nontypical children: aggressive,

mean (cruel), withdrawn, learning disabled, unathletic, and poor. For each nontypical

child, students were asked how much they would want to be friends with that child, how

they would feel working closely with the child on a class project, and how similar or

dissimilar they were to the child. Childrens intolerant reactions varied by culture

depending on the nature of the specific situation with which they were confronted.

Overall, fifth- and eighth-graders were more intolerant of nontypical children than

eleventh-graders. Various theories that might explain cross-cultural and developmental

differences in the expression of intolerance are discussed.

Intolerance of human differences, whether in regard to personality, race, or religion, poses

a threat to the harmonious functioning of any group or society. It follows that, from a societal

perspective, the elimination in children of intolerant attitudes toward dissimilar others would

seem to constitute one of the chief aims of childrearing. On an individual level as well,

childrens intolerance, as expressed in unadaptability, has been found to be correlated with

Direct all correspondence to: David S. Crystal, Georgetown University, Department of Psychology,

301 -D White-Gravenor, Washington, DC 20057-l 001.


2/19

150

CRYSTAL WATANABE

later aggressive problems (Bierman, Smoot Aumiller, 1993). Since the elements of social

prejudice-i.e., stereotypes, values, communication styles-are strongly influenced by

cultural factors (Gudykunst, 1983; Kluckhohn Strodtbeck, 1961; Triandis, Lisansky,

Setiadi, Chang, Marin Betancourt 1982), within a cross-national context, the developmen-

tal study of intolerance of human differences can reveal much about the socialization of

children in diverse societies. Despite the considerable social and psychological significance

of the topic, we could find very few reports that explored the issue of intolerance from both

a developmental and cross-cultural perspective (Lambert Kleinberg 1967). The present

investigation fills this gap by examining intolerance of difference in children at three grade

levels in three different cultures.

Our main purpose in this study is to evaluate several theories and hypotheses that could

be used to explain how cultural context might affect childrens intolerance of human

differences. For example, Berrys (1984) theory of multiculturalism suggests that a weak

sense of security within an ingroup will result in a more intolerant attitude toward members

of an outgroup. It may be assumed that societal factors such as racial heterogeneity and an

individualist orientation, where competition is emphasized and the chief value lies in

maximizing the potential of the individual, would tend to promote a relatively weak sense

of security among ingroup members. In contrast, cultures that are racially homogeneous and

collectivist in orientation, where cooperation is stressed and promoting the harmony and

well-being of the group is highly valued, would seem to foster a stronger sense of ingroup

security. Therefore, we would expect children in heterogeneous, individualist cultures, such

as that of the United States, to be more intolerant of outgroup, or nontypical peers than their

counterparts in homogeneous, collectivist societies, such as that of Japan and China.

l The theory of multiculturalism suggests that a weak sense of security within an

ingroup will result in a more intolerant attitude toward members of an outgroup.

A second model, known as the contact hypothesis, reflected in the work of investigators

such as Newberry and Parish (1987) and Royal and Roberts (1987), implies that greater

contact with diverse types of people leads to more tolerance of diversity. From this

perspective, it could be argued that intolerance of human differences would be more

prevalent in homogeneous societies, where the ethnic and racial similarity of individuals

would reduce the opportunity or need to cultivate tolerant attitudes. Similarly, one might

predict that members of collectivist societies, where conformity and convention are stressed,

would be more intolerant of nontypical individuals than would their counterparts in an

individualist culture that celebrates uniqueness and the concept of doing your own thing.

In this view, Japanese and Chinese children, brought up in homogeneous and collectivist

cultures, should be more intolerant of outgroup, nontypical children than their heterogeneous

and individualist American peers.

H2: The contact hypothesis implies that greater contact with diverse types of people

leads to more tolerance of diversity.


3/19

INTOLERANCE

151

A third hypothesis, demonstrated in research by Sigelman and Toebben (1992), concep-

tualizes intolerance as a strongly context-dependent phenomenon. These researchers found

that the nature of intolerance in children strongly depended on what children were asked to

tolerate and the sense in which they were required to be tolerant. Given that cultures stress

certain situations as significant and make available specific patterns of behavior for these

situations (Pfeiffer 1982), it might be expected that social values and cultural traditions

would affect childrens degree of intolerance differently according to the specific nature of

the situation. According to the context-dependent model, then, any predictions regarding

intolerant reactions among Japanese, Chinese, and American children would chiefly depend

on the particulars of the situation with which the children were presented.

H3: Intolerance is conceptualized as a strongly context-dependent phenomenon. Any

predictions regarding intolerant reactions among Japanese, Chinese, and American

children would chiejly depend on the particulars of the situation with which the

children werepresented.

Although being intolerant of human differences is a hindrance to socialized individuals

of any age, it would seem to be especially detrimental for children in middle childhood and

adolescence. During this period, children begin to develop a social self (Damon 1983),

define themselves in terms of interpersonal traits (I am kind, I am friendly, I am shy)

(Benenson Dweck, 1986), compare themselves with others (Ruble, Boggiano, Feldman

Loebl, 1980), and acquire a sense of peer group (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood Sherif,

1961). While the process of differentiating the self and identifying with groups generally

calls for a narrowing of social preferences, at the same time, an increased tolerance of

difference is demanded of the child to cope with the greater variety of peers encountered in

middle school and high school in all three cultures (Cremin, 1988; Hayhoe, 1984; Rohlen,

1983). Therefore, to capture the growing complexity of the social milieu that children

experience moving from one educational level to another, we have included in the present

study children in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades in each culture.

A second major goal of this study is to examine several theories that might explain how

age differences affect levels of tolerance. Specifically, we test two competing theoretical

frameworks: the cognitive-developmental theory of Piaget (1928), and social learning

theory, as suggested by the work of Allport (1954). Cognitive-developmental theory postu-

lates that the development of greater cognitive abilities allows for multiple classifications

and the understanding that members of different categories may have similar traits. Such an

understanding, in turn, is thought to lead to greater flexibility and a diminishing of intoler-

ance. From the cognitive-developmental perspective, we would expect intolerance to de-

crease with age, a finding reported by various researchers (Aboud, 1988; Katz Zalk, 1978;

Powlishta, Serbin, Doyle White, 1994).

In contrast, social learning theory asserts that children learn intolerance by picking up

cues from their environment, specifically, by imitating adult models. Since children are

thought to begin life without prejudice and to acquire negative judgments gradually over

time, social learning theory would predict that intolerance would tend to increase, on average,


4/19

152

CRYSTAL WATANABE

throughout childhood. In partial support of this viewpoint, investigators have found that

attitudes become more extreme with age: positive feelings toward ingroups become more

positive, negative feelings toward outgroups become more negative (Brand, Ruiz Padilla,

1974). Due to the confusion in the literature, we refrain from making specific predictions

regarding developmental trends in intolerance of human differences.

Many current theories that might be applied to the expression of intolerance in various

cultures often focus on the nature of ingroups and outgroups (Berry, 1984). Rather than

define these groups on the basis of race or ethnicity, the connotations ofwhich are extremely

culture-specific and difficult to interpret, we decided to use as our measure of intolerance

childrens reactions to nontypical peers, a phenomenon which can be observed in all cultures.

The term nontypical refers to children who, by virtue of certain cognitive, physical, or

personality characteristics, are likely to be regarded by the majority of their peers as

abnormal, handicapped, or different.

Childrens reactions to nontypical peers are important for several reasons. First, they play

a crucial role in either fostering positive peer relationships or increasing the likelihood of

creating a rejected child who may be at risk for future social and emotional difficulties

(Olson, 1992; Parker Asher, 1987). Second, intolerance of nontypical peers bears on the

question of how to educate children with special needs, such as those with learning

disabilities or emotional problems. A number of studies suggest that, because of normal

childrens reactions, certain types of nontypical children do better in separate classrooms

while others learn best in mainstream settings (Harris Connolli, 1993; Sandberg, 1982).

Because of their prominence in the American and Asian literatures, we chose to focus on

the following six types of nontypical children: (1) Aggressive (Chen Rubin, 1994; Coie

Kupersmidt, 1983; Morishita, 1990); (2) Mean (cruel) (Ascione, 1993; Weisz, S man,

Weiss Mosk, 1993); (3) Withdrawn (Rubin, 1985; Rubin, Li, Li Li, 1992); (4) Learning

disabled (Cheng, Liu Gong, 1993; Sato, 1992; Wiener, 1987); (5) Unathletic (Nishida

Sawa, 1993; Zakin, 1983; Zhu, 1993); and (6) Poor (Dubow Ippolito, 1994; Wall

Holden, 1994).

According to Byrnes (1971) effectance-arousal model, people are attracted to those

possessing similar attitudes or behaviors. This notion, known as the attraction-similarity

hypothesis, has been confirmed in numerous investigations (Drigotas, 1993; Rubin, Lynch,

Coplan, Rose-Krasnor Booth, 1994). Intolerance may be thought of as behavior that

carries the attraction-similarity hypothesis to the opposite extrem hat is, being repulsed

by those who are dissimilar to oneself. Repulsion toward dissimilar others is the definition

of intolerance used in this study.

In summary, this study seeks to examine three conflicting hypotheses regarding the

cross-cultural expression of intolerance of human differences in children:

1. Berrys (1984) model of multiculturalism, suggesting that individualist and heteroge-

neous American children should be more intolerant of nontypical peers than collectivist

and homogeneous Japanese and Chinese children;


5/19

INTOLERANCE

153

2. The contact hypothesis, predicting that Japanese and Chinese children, growing up in

homogeneous cultures, will be more intolerant than their American peers, brought up

in a heterogeneous culture; and

3. The context-dependent model, asserting that childrens intolerant reactions will vary by

culture depending on the nature of the specific situation with which they are confronted.

This study also tests competing theories in regard to the influence of development on the

prevalence of intolerance among children in different cultures: the cognitive-developmental

theory of Piaget (1928), predicting that intolerance will decrease with age, and the social

learning theory (Allport, 1954; Bandura, 1977), predicting that intolerance will increase as

development progresses.

METHOD

Participants

Data were collected in 199 1 and 1992 in three metropolitan areas: Detroit-Ann Arbor,

Michigan; Matsuyama, Japan; and Jinan, Peoples Republic of China. The American and

Japanese participants were representative samples, covering a wide range of socio-economic

and achievement levels. The Chinese participants attended an experimental school in Jinan

where students, although from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, were specially selected

on the basis of scholastic aptitude. The Chinese sample, therefore, should not be considered

as representative of the city of Jinan.

Participants at the same grade level were similar among the three cultures in the

demographic variables: age, sex, mothers education, and the number of adults in the home

(see Appendix). The only obvious demographic differences were that Chinese fifth graders

were a year older than their American and Japanese peers, and the educational level of

Chinese mothers was lower and that of Japanese mothers was slightly higher than that of

their counterparts in the other two locations, findings reported in other cross-cultural studies

with Asian subjects (Chao, 1994).

Measures

The present analysis is based on measures that were part of a larger questionnaire used in a

cross-national study of childrens reactions to nontypical peers. The questionnaire was

originally constructed simultaneously in English and Japanese. Simultaneous composition,

which has been used in a number of large-scale cross-cultural studies (Stevenson, Chen

Lee, 1993), allows for immediate discussion of terms by participants before the selection of

the items. It also assures that subtle connotations of words and questions are agreed upon

and accurately rendered by psychologists familiar with the conceptual and linguistic prob-

lems of both languages. The instrument was translated from Japanese into Chinese, and then

back-translated from Chinese into English and Japanese by American and Japanese native

speakers, respectively.


6/19

154

CRYSTAL WATANABE

Participants were administered a self-explanatory questionnaire that they filled out

by themselves in the classroom. The questionnaire presented six scenarios, each 2 or 3

sentences long, briefly describing different types of nontypical children. The exact

descriptions of the nontypical peers as they appeared in the English version of the

questionnaire were as follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Aggressive--A is always saying that he/she is not afraid of anybody.

A

often gets into

arguments and physical fights with other kids.

Unathletic-B is not interested in sports and is not very good at team sports. B is a slow

runner. He/she often fumbles when trying to catch a ball or return a volleyball serve.

Learning Disabled-C has a hard time learning what is taught in school. C understands

very little of what the teacher teaches in class. He/she always gets low grades on tests.

Mean-D likes to tease and make jokes about kids. D also plays mean tricks like putting

tacks on kids seats, or hiding kids textbooks before a test.

Poor-Es family doesnt have a lot of money. Sometimes E looks as if he/she doesnt

get enough to eat. Es clothes are old and dont fit him/her well.

Withdrawn-F is shy and seems to have trouble talking to other kids. When other kids

are joking around or playing together, F often goes off by him/herself to a comer of the

room, as if afraid to join in with the others.

To measure childrens attraction and similarity to nontypical peers, after each description

of a target child, students were asked three questions. One question dealt with friendship,

one with working together in school, and one with the subjects perception of his or her

degree of similarity to the target child. We clearly recognize the limitations of using

single-item self-report indices to measure a complex phenomenon such as intolerance.

However, since so few cross-national studies on intolerance have been done before, espe-

cially among English-, Japanese-, and Chinese-speaking children, we believed that it was

better to begin with global measures before attempting to construct a more detailed and

comprehensive instrument. We specifically chose to focus on the areas of peer relationships

and academic achievement because they represent the most important domains of develop-

mental mastery for children in fifth through eleventh grades in all three cultures (Chen, Rubin

Li, 1995; Rubin, et al., 1992; Sroufe Cooper, 1988; Stevenson, Azuma Hakuta, 1986).

Furthermore, questions pertaining to friendship and schoolwork have long been used in

investigations of prejudice and intolerance among children (Katz Zalk, 1978; Aronson

Osherow, 1980; Whitley, Schofeld Snyder, 1984). The specific questions we asked were

as follows: 1) Would you want to be friends with someone like ?; 2) Would you want

to work on a school event or school project with someone like _?; and 3) How similar

do you think you are to someone like

? The items regarding wanting to be friends and

wanting to work with the target child both had 7-point scales, with 1 (definitely not) and

7 (definitely yes). The item tapping similarity used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1

(completely different) to 5 (just like 2).


7/19

INTOLERANCE

155

RESULTS

Attraction and Similarity

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) by location and grade was performed on

the three measures of attraction and similarity for each of the six types of nontypical peers.

Gender was found to have few significant effects on students reactions to nontypical

children and was dropped from the analysis. When significant multivariate effects were

found, they were followed up by Scheffe contrasts to determine the nature and direction of

the differences between pairs of locations or pairs of grades.

Cross Cultural Comparisons

The MANOVAs yielded significant location effects for nearly all measures of attraction and

similarity in all scenarios, s (2,872) = 4.19-105.49,~s < .O1 (see Table 1). Although results

differed depending on the scenario, in a majority of cases, Chinese students reported

significantly lower mean ratings of attraction and similarity than American or Japanese

students. Only on the question about wanting to be friends with the poor child did Chinese

children give higher ratings than their American and Japanese peers.

On the whole, Japanese students appeared to be the most empathic toward the nontypical

children. In three of the six scenarios, those related to the aggressive, unathletic, and poor

peers, Japanese students indicated that they were significantly more similar to the target child

than did the students in the other two locations. In contrast, American children saw

themselves as being more similar to the child with learning disabilities than did their Japanese

and Chinese counterparts. In almost every case, ratings of similarity to the nontypical peer

were lowest among Chinese students.

Developmental Comparisons

As with location, grade yielded significant effects on almost every measure of attraction and

similarity, s (2, 872) = 3.33-23.54, ps c .05 (see Table 2). Overall, eleventh-graders most

consistently gave the highest ratings of attraction to nontypical children. Specifically, they

were more likely than fifth- and eighth-graders to want to be friends with peers who were

aggressive and who had learning disabilities, and to want to work with the peers who had

learning disabilities, who were unathletic, and who were poor. There was no measure of

attraction or similarity on which fifth- or eighth-graders gave higher ratings than the other

two grade levels.

Interactions between location and grade were significant for a number of attraction and

similiarity measures, s (4,872) = 3.83-8.15,~s < .Ol (see Table 2.) In the U.S., reaction to

the withdrawn peer elicited significant grade differences on all three indices, with fifih-

graders indicating greater attraction and similarity to this type of child than children in the

other two grades. American children were most in agreement in their reactions to the

aggressive child. In Japan, grade differences on all three measures of attraction and similarity

were found for the child with learning disabilities and for the poor child; in both cases,

eleventh-graders overall gave the highest ratings. Japanese children showed the highest

degree of concordance in their attraction and similarity to the mean child. In China, as in the


8/19

156

CRYSTAL &WATANABE

TABLE 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Indices of Attraction and Similarity to Nontypical Peers

Among American, Japanese, and Chinese Students

U.S. (U)

Type of Peer

N=264M(SD)

1. Aggressive:

Friend

2.94 (1.58)

Coworker 2.17 (1.60)

Similarity

2.17 (0.99)

2. Unathletic:

Friend

4.09 (1.50)


Similarity

2.08 (1.07)

3. Learning disabled:

Friend

4.07 (1.46)


Similarity 2.93 (1.72)

4. Mean:

Friend 2.44 (1.76)

Coworker

1.95 (1.47)

Similarity

1.93 (1.23)

5. Poor:

Friend

3.74 (1.57)

Coworker

3.92 (1.59)

Similarity

1.52 (0.78)

6. Withdrawn:

Friend

3.77 (1.88)


Similarity 2.03 (0.99)

Japan (J) China (C)

N = 406 M (SD)

N = 232 M (SD)

3.05 (1.38)

2.30 (1.64)

2.78 (1.43)

2.68 (1.73)

2.39 (0.86)

1.76 (1.14)

4.07 (1.18)

3.61 (1.90)

3.89 (1.23)

3.28 (1.88)

2.40 (1.08)

1.80 (0.96)

4.05 (1.25)

4.00 (1.96)

3.92 (1.24)

4.19 (1.77)

2.50 (0.97)

1.67 (0.93)

1.84 (1.30)

1.77 (1.57)

1.91 (1.34)

2.09 (1.69)

1.76 (0.90)

1.35 (0.82)

3.74 (I .36)

5.42 (1.68)

3.89 (1.23)

3.28 (1.88)

1.75 (0.77)

1.32 (0.65)

3.78 (1.60)

3.39 (1.93)

3.67 (I .51)

3.55 (1.76)

1.97 (0.96)

1.78 (1.00)

Scheffe Contrasts

U,J>C

J,C>U

J>U>C

U,J>C

U,J=-C

J>U>C

J, :t U

UrJzC

U>J,C

ns.

U,J>C

C>U,J

U,J>C

J>U>C

J>C

un;sc

Note. All ps c .005.

other two locations, eleventh-graders most consistently reported the greatest attraction and

similarity to the nontypical peers. Chinese children were in highest agreement in their

response to the child who was poor.

Intolerance of Difference

As noted above, we detined intolerance as repulsion toward those who are dissimilar to

oneself. We therefore categorized as intolerant those students who indicated either that they

did not want to be friends or did not want to work with the nontypical peer (a rating of 1

or 2 on either of the attraction scales), and who, at the same time, described themselves as

being dissimilar to the target child (a rating of 1 or 2 on the similarity scale). Cross-

cultural and developmental differences in the percentages of students classed as intolerant

were determined by conducting chi-square analyses. Analyses were performed separately


9/19

I NTOLERANCE

157

TABLE 2

Means and Standard Deviations for Indices of Attraction and Similarity Among Fifth-, Eighth-,

and Eleventh-Graders According to Location

Grades

Type of Peer

Fiih Eighth Eleventh

N = 284 M (SD) N = 408 M (SD) N = 232 M (SD) Scheffe Contrasts

A.

U.S.

Aggressive:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Unathletic:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Learning disabled:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Mean:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Poor:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Withdrawn

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

B. Japan

Aggressive:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Unathletic:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Learning disabled:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

Mean:

Fri end

Coworker

Si ml ari ty

2.89

(1. 84) 3. 14 (1. 56)

2. 23 (1. 82) 2. 36 (1. 63)

2. 22 (1. 03 2. 24(1. 00)

4. 39 (1. 87)

4. 18 (1. 92)

2. 16(1. 11)

4. 23 (1. 69)

3. 19 (1. 96)

2. 02 (1. 00)

1. 70 (1. 40)

1. 52 (1. 22)

1. 70 (1. 22)

4. 18 (1. 90)

4. 08 (1. 70)

1. 56 (0. 85)

4. 31 (2. 15)

4. 77 (2. 04)

2. 17 (1. 11)

2. 97 (1. 52)

2. 62 (1. 51)

2. 64(0. 90)

3. 96 (1. 37)

3. 61 (1. 35)

2. 37 (1. 14)

3.89

(1. 39)

3. 60 (1. 40)

2. 27 (0. 96)

1. 67 (1. 37)

1. 74(1. 42)

1. 71 (0. 93)

3. 66 (1. 29)

3. 52 (1. 41)

2. 01 (1. 04)

3. 70 (1. 31)

2. 43 (1. 44)

2. 14 (1. 23)

2. 84 (1. 85)

1. 91 (1. 40)

2. 08 (1. 28)

3. 26 (1. 36)

3. 52 (1. 40)

1. 49 (0. 70)

3. 27 (1. 57)

3. 31 (1. 64)

1. 80 (0. 78)

2. 97 (1. 43)

2. 75 (1. 50)

2. 30 (0. 84)

4. 09 (1. 20)

4. 01 (1. 22)

2. 32 (1. 08)

4. 06 (1. 32)

3. 97 (1. 26)

2. 50 (1. 02)

1. 85 (1. 20)

1. 96 (1. 31)

1. 77 (0. 88)

-

2. 77 (1. 26)

1. 88 (1. 26)

2. 02 (0. 94)

ns.

ns.

n. s.

4. 23 (1. 14)

4. 06 (1. 27)

2. 06 (1. 08)

5, 11>8

5, 11 >8

n. s.

4. 28(1. 26)

3. 16 (1. 60)

2. 18 (1. 04)

I I >8

5, l l >8

n. s.

2. 87 (1. 77)

2. 51 (1. 64)

2. 02 (1. 18)

8, 11>5

11 >5, 8

ns.

3. 75 (1. 21)

4. 02 (1. 27)

1. 48(0. 79)

5,11 r8

I I >8

n. s.

3. 71 (1. 71)

5>8

3.63 (1.60) 5>8,11

2.13 (1.02) 5.11 >8

3. 29 (1. 05)

3. 06 (1. 44)

2. 17 (0. 77)

. .

l K5

5~8. 11

4. 20 (0. 80)

4. 15 (0. 93)

2. 56 (0. 97)

n. s.

11>5>8

n. s.

4. 28 (0. 83)

4. 30 (0. 75)

2. 85 (0. 79)

I I >5

8,1115

11>5, 8

2. 08 (1. 31)

2. 10 (1. 23)

1. 82 (0. 89)

n. s.

n. s.

ns.

-


10/19

158

CRYSTAL&WATANABE

TABLE 2

(conti nued)

Grades

Fifth

Eighth

Tvpe of Peer N=264M(SD)

N = 408 M (SD)

-

Poor:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

Withdrawn:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

C. China

Aggressive:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

Unathletic:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

Learning disabled:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

Mean:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

3.45 (1.55)

3.37 (1.45)

1.48 (0.70)

3. 79 (1. 34)

3. 88 (1. 35)

1. 76 (0. 77)

3. 78 (1. 82)

3. 67 (1. 74)

1. 76 (0. 95)

3. 75 (1. 62)

3. 64(1. 51)

1.99 (0.94)

2. 00 (1. 58)

2. 23 (1. 65)

1. 91 (1. 29)

1.74 (1.26)

2.57 (1.63)

1.60 (1.02)

3. 75 (2. 19)

3. 13 (2. 05)

1. 71 (0. 94)

2.93 (1.81)

2.88

(1. 72)

1.74 (0.98)

3. 80 (2. 20)

3. 89 (2. 15)

1. 33 (0. 59)

3. 75 (1. 93)

3. 94(1. 60)

1. 79 (1. 22)

1. 36 (1. 03)

1. 69 (1. 39)

1. 28 (0. 73)

2. 07 (1. 91)

2. 43 (1. 90)

1. 49 (1. 02)

Eleventh

N = 232 M (SD)

Scheffe

Contrasts

4.09 (0.90)

11 >8

4.20 (0.77)

8,ll >5

2.12 (0.72)

11>8>5

-

Poor:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

Withdrawn:

Friend

Coworker

Similarity

3. 85 (1. 16)

3. 73 (1. 08)

2. 24(0. 94)

ns.

n.s.

11

>5

3.10 (1.70)

3.25 (1.75)

1.74 (1.03)

11>5, 8

11~ 5, 8

ns.

4. 08(1. 47)

3. 80 (1. 75)

1. 94 (0. 96)

5,ll >8

11 >8

ns.

4. 44 (1. 64)

4. 73 (1. 35)

1. 91 (0. 80)

ns.

11>5, 8

8, l l 25

1.90 (1.62)

2.18 (1.71)

1.31 (0.69)

8,ll >5

8>5

ns.

5. 46 (1. 69)

5. 32 (1. 78)

1. 39(0. 82)

5.44

(1. 42)

5.24

(1. 47)

1. 35 (0. 58)

5. 35 (1. 91)

5. 16 (1. 99)

1. 23 (0. 55)

ns.

ns.

n.s.

2. 82 (1. 83)

3. 64(1. 51)

1. 50 (0. 95)

3. 68 (1. 89)

3.73

(1.08)

2. 05 (0. 98)

5,ll >8

n.s.

11 >8

3. 63 (1. 96)

3. 67 (1. 74)

1. 75 (1. 00)

Note,

U. S. :

ifth grade, N = 93; eighth grade, N = 88; eleventh grade, N = 83. Japan: fifth

grade, N = 152; eighth grade, N= 153; eleventh grade, N = 103. China: fifth grade, N = 80;

eighth grade, N = 72; eleventh grade, N = 80. Allps -z .016 (Bonferroni Correction).

on each of the

attraction variables

for each of the nontypical peers. When the results of the

3-way chi-square tests proved to be significant, a series of pairwise comparisons were made

to determine the precise source of the differences. For these pairwise tests, alpha levels were

lowered to p < .016 in accordance with the Bonferroni Correction (Neter, Wasserman

Kutner, 1985).


11/19

INTOLERANCE

159

Cross Cultural Comparisons

Two points stand out regarding the results of the chi-square analyses on intolerance of

difference among the three cultures (see Table 3). First, on the majority of measures,

American, Japanese, and Chinese students were found to be significantly different in the

prevalence of children classified as being intolerant. Second, cross-cultural differences in

the proportions of intolerant students varied considerably depending on the type of nontypi-

cal peer with which students were presented, and on whether students were asked to be

friends or to work with this peer.

Aggressive Child. Significantly more Chinese than American, and more American than

Japanese students were intolerant of the aggressive peer as a friend, and more Chinese than

Japanese students were intolerant of the aggressive peer as a coworker. Among the three

groups, Japanese students were the most tolerant of the aggressive peer both as a friend and

as a coworker.

TABLE 3

Percentages and Chi-Square Values for Intolerance Toward Nontypical Peers Among Students

in the United States (U), Japan (J), and China (C)

Type of Peer

of Students X2

U

J

C U-J-C U-J u-c J-C

1. Aggressive:

Friend 36

Coworker 53

2. Unathletic:

Friend 14

Coworker 17

3. Learning disabled:

Friend 13

Coworker 37

4. Mean:

Friend 59

Coworker 65

5. Poor:

Friend 21

Coworker 15

6. Withdrawn:

Friend 26

Coworker 21

23

54 63.92

12.82

17.36

64.11

27

43 49.27

47.70

n.s.

17.17

7

9

27

47.65

6.96

14.44

46.70

32

55.58

10. 09

15.23

55.42

9

10

22

24.57

ns.

8.05

24.10

16 77.06 70.61

28.65

n.s.

69 78

19.88

66

68

n.s.

6.03* 19. 77 6.47

ns.

n.s.

ns.

18 5 27.94

16 7

12.83

27.37 22.43

9.94 12.12

n.s.

n.s.

20 33 12.74*

18

25 ns.

n.s. 12.75

n.s. ns.

n.s.

n.s.

Note. All ps c .OOl, except where noted. U = United States. J = Japan. C = China. U-X,

N = 906, df = 2. U-J, N = 674; U-C, N = 498; J.C, N = 640, df = 1.

*p < .05, p < .Ol


12/19

160

CRYSTAL WATANABE

Unathletic Child.

More Chinese than American, and more American than Japanese

children were intolerant ofthe unathletic child in both the friend and the coworker situations.

Child with Learni ng Di sabili ties.

In terms of friendship, Chinese students were more

likely to be intolerant of the child with learning disabilities than were American and Japanese

students. When it came to working in school with this type of child, however, American

students were more likely to be intolerant than their East Asian peers.

Mean Child.

In regard to being friends with the mean child, Chinese were the most

intolerant, followed by the Japanese, and then by the American students. No significant

cross-cultural differences emerged in childrens reactions to the mean child as a coworker.

Poor Child. In both the friend and coworker situations, more American and Japanese

students exhibited intolerance toward the poor child than did Chinese students.

Withdrawn Child.

Chinese were more likely than Japanese children to be intolerant of

the withdrawn child as a friend. There were no cross-cultural differences in childrens

intolerance of the withdrawn child as a coworker.

Developmental Comparisons

In support of the cognitive-developmental theory, in all three locations, eleventh graders,

overall, were more tolerant of nontypical peers than fifth- and eighth-graders. As shown in

Table 4, however, the great majority of the developmental differences occurred among

Japanese and Chinese children. Except for reactions to the mean child, who was particularly

disliked by fifth-graders, American students generally showed few differences among grade

levels in their responses to nontypical children. The most pronounced developmental

differences among Japanese students emerged in their reactions to the child with learning

disabilities and to the poor child. In both cases, intolerance in the friend and coworker

situations was most prevalent among fifth-graders, and least prevalent among eleventh-

graders. In China, reactions to the aggressive child and to the child with learning disabilities

produced the largest discrepancies among grade levels; in general, more fifth- and eighth-

than eleventh-grade Chinese students indicated intolerance toward these peers both as friends

and coworkers.

Gender Comparisons

On the whole, the prevalence of intolerance of nontypical peers was similar among boys and

girls. A few significant differences, however, did emerge. Specifically, boys were more

intolerant than girls of the unathletic and withdrawn peer as a friend, and of the poor peer as

a coworker, X2 (1, N = 905) = 5.72-7.35, ps < .05. Girls were more intolerant than boys of

the mean child both as friend, X2 (1, N = 905) = 4 1.70, p c .OO1, and coworker, X2 (1, N =

905) = 30.3op < .OOl.


13/19

INTOLERANCE

161

TABLE 4

Percentages and Chi-Square Values for Intolerance Toward Nontypical Peers Among Fiih-,

Eighth-, and Eleventh-Graders According to Location

of Students Grades

X2 Grades

Type of Peer 5th 8th 11th 5-8-11 5-8 5-11 8-11

United States

Aggressive:

Friend

Coworker

Unathletic:

Friend

Coworker

Learning disabled:

Friend

Coworker

Mean:

Friend

Coworker

Poor:

Friend

Coworker

Withdrawn:

Friend

Coworker

Japan

Aggressive:

Friend

Coworker

Unathletic:

Friend

Coworker

Learning disabled:

Friend

Coworker

Mean:

Friend

Coworker

Poor:

Friend

Coworker

Withdrawn:

Friend

Coworker

37 32 40

n.s. n.s. ns. ns.

53 51 57

n.s. n.s. n.s. ns.

15

17 8 n.s. n.s. ns. ns.

19 20 12

n.s. n.s. ns. n.s.

15

18 5 7.28*

n.s. ns. 7.24 m

38

44 29 n.s. n.s. ns.

n.s.

76 53

47 17.95

80

60 54

14.06

20 26 16

ns.

17 20 8 ns.

22 32 24

ns.

17 26 22 n.s.

20 30 18 6.99*

23 33 23

n.s.

11 8 2 6.73*

14 8 4 7.79*

11 11 2 7.79*

16

11 1

14.96

6.83

8.94

74 68 61 n.s.

71 66 59 n.s.

28 16 6 21.90

26 14 3

25.55

25 21 12 6.92*

22

18 10 6.84*

11.05- 16.13- n.s.

8.64 12.87- n.s.

n.s.

ns.

ns.

n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s. ns. ns.

n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s.

ns. n.s.

n.s. ns.

n.s.

n.s. n.s.

ns. ;::5* n.s.

n.s. 7.61

n.s.

15.25-

ns. ns. n.s.

ns. n.s. n.s.

7.07ff 19.96-

6.71* 23.99-

n.s. 6.94 n.s.

n.s. 6.89* n.s.


14/19

162

CRYSTAL WATANABE

TABLE 4

(Continued)

of Students Grades

X2 Grades

Type

of Peer 5th

8th 1 Ith

5-8-11 5-8

5-11 8-11

China

Aggressive:

Friend

Coworker

Unathletic:

Friend

Coworker

Learning disabled:

Friend

Coworker

Mean:

Friend

Coworker

Poor:

Friend

Coworker

Withdrawn:

Friend

Coworker

71

36

18.77

47

29 10.11*~

ns.

n.s.

7.25

9.35

18.18*

n.s.

30 40

13

15.28

38 38

23

ns.

ns.

ns.

7.32**

n.s.

15.33=*

ns.

30

28

29 9

17

3

13.12

t-is.

19.18

n.s.

11.56-

10.51**

19.61*

9.09

86

74

74 ns.

79 58

65

7.62*

9

6

0 6.93*

11

7

1 6.65

n.s.

ns.

ns.

n.s.

ns.

n.s.

n.s.

ns.

30

29

46

24 8.88*

35

14 9.50H

n.s.

8.21

n.s.

9.22

ns.

n.s.

Note.

Allps < .OOl, except where noted. U.S., 5-8-l 1, N = 265, df = 2; 5-8, N = , df=2. 5-

8,N=639;5-11,N=591;8-11,N=580,df=1.

p < .05, p < .Ol

DISCUSSION

A predominant aim of this study was to test three theoretical models regarding the relative

expression of intolerance among members of diverse cultures: (1) Berrys (1984) model

linking a sense of ingroup security to intolerance of outgroups; (2) the contact model

suggesting that contact with diverse types of individuals increases tolerance of diversity

(Royal Roberts, 1987); and (3) the context-dependent model asserting that the degree of

intolerance will vary depending on the specific situation with which children are presented

(Sigelman Toebben, 1992).

The results of the present study clearly support the context-dependent model, and

underscore the importance of the interplay among situational context and cultural values in

understanding how tolerance and intolerance manifests itself in different societies. For

example, the American students in our sample were less likely than the Chinese, andas likely

as the Japanese students to be intolerant of the child with learning disabilities when asked

to be his or her friend. But when asked to work in school with such a child, the American

students were significantly more likely than either the Japanese or Chinese students to give

an intolerant response. The greater intolerance of learning disabled students in the classroom

setting shown by the American respondents may be seen as consistent with the highly

competitive orientation of individualist cultures (Markus Kitayama, 1991), and with the


15/19

INTOLERANCE

163

high value that American students have been found to place on academic achievement

relative to their Japanese and Chinese peers (Crystal Stevenson, 1995). Similarly, the

higher frequency of tolerant responses in regard to the aggressive child by Japanese students,

and to the poor child by Chinese students is also in accord with widespread cultural values:

in the former case, Japanese beliefs about the beneficial role of fighting in childrens social

development (Peak, 1991; Tokyo Board of Education, 1982, p. 25) and, in the latter case,

Chinese Communist beliefs about the moral superiority of poor peasants and laborers (Lin,

1993). In all three examples, the prevalence of tolerance and intolerance may be best

understood by applying specific cultural values to specific situational contexts, rather than

by reference to broad-based theories such as that of multiculturalism (Berry, 1984) or the

contact hypothesis (Newberry Parish, 1987).

The findings also provide some support for the cognitive-developmental theory of

prejudice (Piaget, 1928), which predicts that intolerance will decrease as cognitive abilities

expand with age. Overall, significantly fewer eleventh- than fifth- and eighth-graders were

categorized as being intolerant of nontypical peers in the majority of cases. It may be argued

that a social desirability effect was partly responsible for these developmental differences,

with eleventh-graders being more consciously aware of the politically correct response

than their younger counterparts. Given the nature of the task, it is difficult to separate

increasing awareness of social desirability from decreasing intolerance. However, if such an

awareness did enter into students responses, it was by no means linearly correlated with

age. There were several instances in all three cultures where more eighth- than fifth-graders

gave intolerant responses in a certain scenario. Moreover, the developmental results of the

present study accord with a fairly substantial body of literature linking increasing age with

a diminishing of intolerance (Aboud, 1980; Doyle, Beaudet Aboud, 1988; Powlishta,

Serbin, Doyle, and White, 1994; Zinser, Rich Bailey, 198 1).

The few gender differences in intolerance that emerged may be viewed as reflecting

gender stereotypes that appear to be common among various cultures--that of the male as

physical, assertive, and insensitive, and that of the female as docile, shy, and sympathetic

(Williams Best, 1990). Specifically, more boys than girls were intolerant of the unathletic

and withdrawn peer as a friend, and more girls than boys were intolerant of the mean child

both as friend and coworker. Apart from these differences, boys and girls were generally

similar in the proportion of students classified as being intolerant, a finding reported in

numerous studies on children and prejudice (see Aboud, 1988, for a review).

The intellectual selectivity of the Chinese sample, and the consequent assumption of

higher cognitive abilities among the Chinese students, poses a potential problem in terms of

sample comparability and the generalizability of the results presented above. Since higher

intelligence has been positively related to higher moral reasoning (Eisenberg, 1979; Hanks,

1985), any findings of greater tolerance on the part ofthe Chinese students may be interpreted

as resulting from their superior cognitive skills relative to the American and Japanese

students. Our results, however, show just the opposite: in the vast majority of situations, a

higher percentage of Chinese than American and Japanese students were found to be

intolerant. We do not, therefore, believe that sampling bias has significantly affected the


16/19

164

CRYSTAL WATANABE

findings we have presented. Nevertheless, future studies should seek to obtain either more

academically comparable samples, or measures of intelligence that may be controlled for in

the statistical analysis.

Although considerably more cross-national research is needed, several practical implica-

tions for American culture emerge from these initial findings. First, the relative intolerance

of American children toward slow learners in the classroom suggests that we may want to

examine once again our educational policies regarding the segregation and labelling of

students with learning disabilities. Already by fifth grade, American children seem to be

exhibiting a kind of academic elitism that may contribute to the development of other kinds

of discriminatory and intolerant attitudes as well. Second, in a related vein, the intolerant

reactions shown by one fifth of the American students toward the poor child indicate that

further education about the plight of the economically disadvantaged, regardless of race or

ethnicity, may be advisable.

In summary, the present study represents an attempt to measure developmental variations

in intolerance of human differences among diverse cultures. The results indicate that broad

cultural dichotomies, such as collectivist versus individualist, or homogeneous versus

heterogeneous, are insufficient to predict how intolerance will manifest itself within a given

population. The clearly context-dependent nature of the intolerant reactions of the children

in our sample is consistent with the findings of other studies (Sigelman Toebben, 1992).

In the future, identifying key contextual cues of intolerant responses, and relating these cues

to specific cultural values held by individual students and their parents, may deepen our

understanding of how diverse societies socialize children to interact with individuals who

do not fit the norm.

Acknowledgment:

The authors wish to thank Dr. Arthur Kirsch for his generous help with

the statistical conceptualization of the paper.

APPENDIX

Demographic Characteristics of the American, Japanese, and Chinese Samples

U.S.

Japan China

N = 266 N=466 N = 232

Grades

5th 6th 11th 5th 6th

11th

5th 6th

11th

Age

10.7 13.8 16.9 10.7

13.6 16.6 11.7 13.6

16.3

Sex

fv

48 44 42 74

76

50 40 37

41

Girls

45 45 42 78

77

53 40 35

39

Mothers education

12.9 11.9 11.9 13.5

13.4 12.0 10.6 10.1

10.6

Adults in home

2.2 2.1 2.7 2.3

2.2

2.3 2.1 2.3

2.5


17/19

INTOLERANCE

165

REFERENCES

Aboud, F.E. (1980). A test of ethnocentrism with young children. Canadian Journal qfBehaviorul Science, 12,

195-209.

Aboud, F.E. (1988). Children andprejudice. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature ofprejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Aronson, E., Osherow, N. (1980) Cooperation, prosocial behavior, and academic performance: Experiments in

the desegregated classroom. Applied Social Psychology Annual, I 16 196.

Ascione, F.R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental

psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 6,22&247.

Bandura, A. (I 977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Benenson, J. Dweck, C. (1986). The development of trait explanations and self-evaluations in the academic and

social domains. Child Development, 57,

I

179-l 187.

Berry, J.W. (1984). Muliculturalism policy in Canada: A social psychological perspective. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Sciences, 16,353370.

Bierman, K.L., Smoot, D.L. Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristics of aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonre-

jetted). and rejected (nonaggressive) boys. Child Development. 64. 139-l 5 I.

Brand, E.S., Ruiz, R.A. Padilla, A.M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: A review. Psychological

Bulletin, 81, 86@890.

Byrne, D. (I 97 I). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting

through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, I

I

I I-l I 19.

Chen, X. Rubin. K.H. (1994). Family conditions, parental acceptance, and social competence and aggression in

Chinese children. Social Development, 3.269290.

Chen, X., Rubin, K.H. Li, Z. ( 1995). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study.

Developmental Psychology, 31, 531-537.

Cheng, Z., Liu, S. Gong, Y. (1993). Stability of intellectual structure of learning disabled and normal children.

Psychology Science China, 16, 158-l 6 I.

Coie, J. Kupersmidt, J. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys groups. Child

Development, 54, 140 1416.

Cremin, L.A. (I 988). American education: The metropolitan experience. New York: Harper Row.

Crystal, D.S. Stevenson, H.W. (1995). What is a bad kid? Answers of adolescents and their mothers in three

cultures. Journalfor Research on Adolescence, 5, 71-91.

Damon, W. (1983). Social andpersonality development. New York: Norton.

Doyle, A.B., Beaudet, J. Aboud, F.E. (1988). Developmental patterns in the flexibility of childrens ethnic

attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 318.

Drigotas, S.M. (1993). Similarity revisited: A comparison of similarity-attraction versus dissimilarity-repulsion.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 36>377.

Dubow, E.F. Ippolito, M.F. (1994). Effects of poverty and quality of the home environment on changes in the

academic and behavioral adjustment ofelementary school-age children. Journalof Clinical Child Psychology,

23.401412.

Eisenberg, N. (1979). Relationship of prosocial moral reasoning to altruism, political liberalism, and intelligence.

Developmental Psychology, 15,87-89.

Gundykunst, W.B. (Ed.) (I 983). Intercultural communication theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hanks, R. (1985). Moral reasoning in adolescents: A feature of intelligence or social adjustment? Journalof Moral

Education, 14,4355.

Harris, A.M. Connolli, A.A. (1993). Academic engagement of students with learning disbilities in mainstream

classrooms: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Educational and Ps)ichological Consultation, 4,

38 389.

Hayhoe, R. (1984).

Contemporary Chinese education.

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.


18/19

166

CRYSTAL WATANABE

Katz, P.A. Zalk, S.R. (1978).

Modification of childrens racial attitudes. Devehqnnentul Psychologv, 14,

447-46 1.

Kluckhohn, F. Stodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Lambert, WE., Kleinberg, 0. (1967). Childrens viavs offoreignpeoples. New York: Appleton-Century Croft.

Lin, J. (1993). Education in post-Mao China. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Markus, H. Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.

Psychologicul Review, 98,224-252.

Morishita, M. (1990). The influence of perceived mother model attitudes on childrens aggressive or prosocial

behavior. Japanese Journal ofPsychotogy. 61, 103-l IO.

Neter, J., Wasserman, W. Kutner, M.

(1985).

pplied linear stutisticul models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Newberry, M.K. Parish, T.W. (1987). Enhancement of attitudes toward handicapped children through social

interactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 127,59-62.

Nishida, T. Sawa, J. (1993). Determinants ofachievement motivation for learning in physical education. Japanese

Journal of Educational Psychotogv, 41, 125134.

Olson, S. (1992). Development of conduct problems and peer rejection in pre-school children: A social systems

analysis. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 20,327-350.

Parker, J.G., Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?

Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Peak, L. (1991). Learning togo toschoolin Japan: The transitionfrom home topreschoollife. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Pfeiffer, W. M. (1982). Culture-bound syndromes. In 1. Al-lssa (Ed.), Culture andpsychopathology (pp. 201-2 18).

Baltimore: University Park Press.

Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Powlishta, K.K., Serbin, L.A., Doyle, A.B. White, D.R. (1994). Gender, ethnic, and body-type biases: The

generality of prejudice in childhood. Developmental Psychology. 30,52&536.

Rohlen, T. (1983). Japanese high schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Royal, G.P. Roberts, M.C. (1987). Students perceptions of and attitudes toward disabilities: A comparison of

twenty conditions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 16, 122-132.

Ruble, D., Boggiano, A., Feldman, N. Loebl, J. (1980). A developmental analysis of the role of social comparison

in self-evaluation. Developmental Psychologv, 16, 105115.

Rubin, K.H. (1985). Socially withdrawn children: An at risk population? In B. Schneider, K.H., Rubin J.

Ledingham (Eds.), Children speer relations: Issues in assessmentnd ntervention (pp. 125-140). New York

Springer-Verlag.

Rubin, K.H., Li, D., Li, Z. Li, B.

(I

992). Socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior in Chinese and Western

children. Psychology Science China, 2, l-7.

Rubin, K.H., Lynch, D., Coplan, R., Rose-Krasnor, L. Booth, C.L. (1994). Birds of a feather.

. . :

Behavioral

concordances and preferential personal attraction in children. Child Development, 65, 17781785.

Sandberg, L.D. (1982). Attitudes of non-handicapped elementary school students toward school-aged trainable

mentally retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17, 3&34.

Sato, G.

(1992).

he effect of a behavioral method on the learning problems of a learning disabled child. Japanese

Journal of Special Education. 29,5>59.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O., White, B., Hood, W. Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup co@ictandcooperation: The Robbers

Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sigelman, C.K. Toebben, J.L. (1992). Tolerant reactions to advocates of disagreeable ideas in children and

adolescents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 542-557.

Sroufe, L.A. Cooper, R.G. (1988). Child development: Its nature and course. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Stevenson, H., Azuma, H. Hakuta, K. (1986). Child development and education in Japan. New York: Freeman.

Stevenson, H.W., Chen, C. Lee, S.Y. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American

children: Ten years later. Science, 259,5 58.

Tokyo Board of Education (1982). Gendai oya to shite [As a contemporary parent]. Tokyo: Tokyo Board of

Education.


19/19

INTOLERANCE

167

Triandis, H.C., Lisansky, J., Setiadi, B., Chang, B., Marin, G. Betancourt, H. (1982). Stereotyping among

Hispanics and Anglos: The uniformity, intensity, direction, and quality ofauto- and heterostereotypes.

Journal

of Cross-Cul tur al Psychology. I 32,40%426.

Wall, J.E. Holden, E.W. (1994). Aggressive, assertive, and submissive behaviors in disadvantaged inner-city

preschool children. Journal of Clini cal Child Psychology, 23,382-390.

Weisz, J.R., Sigman, M., Weiss, B. Mosk, J. (1993). arent reports of behavioral and emotional problems among

children in Kenya, Thailand, and the United States. Chil d Development, 64, 98-109.

Whitley, B.E., Schofield, J.W. Snyder, H.N. (1984). Peer preferences in a desegregated school: A round robin

analysis.

Jour nal of Personali ty and Social Psychology, 46, 79%

IO.

Wiener, J. (1987). Peer status of learning disabled children and adolescents:A review of the literature. Learning

Disabil iti es Research, 2, 62-79.

Williams, J.E. SCBest, D. (1990). Sex andpsyche: Gender and self viewed cross-cultu ral ly. Newberry Park, CA:

Sage.

Zakin, D.F. (1983). Physical attractiveness, sociability, athletic ability, and childrens preference for their peers.

Journal of Psychology, 115, I 17-122.

Zinser, O., Rich, M.C. Bailey, R.C. (1981). Sharing behavior and racial preference in children. Motivation and

Emotion, 5, 17 W 87.

Zhu, P. (1993). evision ofthe Chinese norm ofthe Sports Competition Anxiety Test.Psychologi cal Science China,

Z6,99-103.

14_Intolerance of Human Differences a

Documents

Transcript of 14_Intolerance of Human Differences a