The role of peer, parental, and school norms in predicting adolescents’ attitudes and behaviours of majority and different minority ethnic groups in Croatia

Autoři: Lana Pehar aff001;  Dinka Čorkalo Biruški aff001;  Tea Pavin Ivanec aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia aff001;  Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227512


Social norms in general have an important role in the regulation of intergroup relations. However, the effects of one specific type of social norms–in-group norms about intergroup contact–have not yet been extensively studied, especially among groups of different status or in different intergroup contexts. The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of three types of contact norms (peer, parental and school) on four intergroup outcomes (in-group bias, social distance, tendency to discriminate, prosocial behaviour towards the outgroup) among ethnic majority and minority adolescents from four different intergroup contexts of the Republic of Croatia, as well as to test for moderating effects of age, social status and intergroup context in the strength of these effects. The research was carried out on a sample of 1440 elementary and high school students, members of Croatian majority, and Serbian, Hungarian, Czech, and Italian minority. The results indicated that although all three types of norms predict most of the intergroup outcomes, their relative importance depends on the specific type of intergroup outcome (attitudinal or behavioural), group social status (majority or minority), intergroup context (history of a recent intergroup conflict or not), and for peer norms on the age of the adolescent.

Klíčová slova:

Adolescents – Behavior – Language – Parenting behavior – Prosocial behavior – Schools – Social status – Croatian people


1. Allport GW. The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley; 1954.

2. Sherif M, Sherif CW. Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies of intergroup relations. Oxford, England: Harper & Brothers; 1953.

3. Crandall CS, Stangor C. Conformity and prejudice. In: Dovidio JF, Glick P, Rudman LA, editors. On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2005. pp. 295–309.

4. Pettigrew TF. Regional differences in anti-Negro prejudice. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1959;59: 28–36. doi: 10.1037/h0047133 13664407

5. Jetten J, Spears R, Manstead ASR. Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation: The influence of group norms. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1997;27: 603–609. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199709/10)27:5<603::AID-EJSP816>3.0.CO;2-B

6. Crandall CS, Eshleman A, O’Brien L. Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82: 359–378. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359 11902622

7. Mähönen TA, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Liebkind K, Finell E. Perceived normative pressure and majority adolescents’ implicit and explicit attitudes towards immigrants. Int J Psychol. 2010;45: 182–189. doi: 10.1080/00207590903487412 22043931

8. Nesdale D, Maass A, Durkin K, Griffiths J. Group norms, threat, and children’s racial prejudice. Child Dev. 2005;76: 652–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00869.x 15892784

9. Tropp LR, O’Brien TC, González Gutierrez R, Valdenegro D, Migacheva K, de Tezanos-Pinto P, et al. How school norms, peer norms, and discrimination predict interethnic experiences among ethnic minority and majority youth. Child Dev. 2016;87: 1436–1451. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12608 27684397

10. Sechrist GB, Milford LR. The influence of social consensus information on intergroup helping behavior. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2007;29: 365–374. doi: 10.1080/01973530701665199

11. Sechrist GB, Stangor C. Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;80: 645–654. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.645 11316227

12. Blanchard FA, Crandall CS, Brigham JC, Vaughn LA. Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. J Appl Psychol. 1994;79: 993–997. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.993

13. Monteiro MB, de França DX, Rodrigues R. The development of intergroup bias in childhood: How social norms can shape children’s racial behaviours. Int J Psychol. 2009;44: 29–39. doi: 10.1080/00207590802057910 22029439

14. Stangor C, Sechrist GB, Jost JT. Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27: 486–496. doi: 10.1177/0146167201274009

15. Ata A, Bastian B, Lusher D. Intergroup contact in context: The mediating role of social norms and group-based perceptions on the contact–prejudice link. Int J Intercult Relations. 2009;33: 498–506. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.05.001

16. De Tezanos-Pinto P, Bratt C, Brown R. What will the others think? In-group norms as a mediator of the effects of intergroup contact. Br J Soc Psychol. 2010;49: 507–523. doi: 10.1348/014466609X471020 19807942

17. Gómez A, Tropp LR, Fernández S. When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Gr Process Intergr Relations. 2011;14: 161–173. doi: 10.1177/1368430210391119

18. Turner RN, Hewstone M, Voci A, Vonofakou C. A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95: 843–860. doi: 10.1037/a0011434 18808263

19. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90: 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 16737372

20. Zhou S, Page-Gould E, Aron A, Moyer A, Hewstone M. The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2018;23: 132–160. doi: 10.1177/1088868318762647 29671374

21. Duckitt JH. The social psychology of prejudice. Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group; 1992.

22. Ruble DN, Alvarez J, Bachman M, Cameron J, Fuligni A, Coll CG, et al. The development of a sense of “we”: The emergence and implications of children’s collective identity. In: Bennett M, Sani F, editors. The Development of the Social Self. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press; 2004. pp. 29–76.

23. Davies K, Wright SC, Aron A, Comeau J. Intergroup contact through friendship: Intimacy and norms. In: Hodson G, Hewstone M, editors. Advances in intergroup contact. London, UK and New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2013. pp. 200–229.

24. Capozza D, Falvo R, Favara I, Trifiletti E. The relationship between direct and indirect cross-group friendships and outgroup humanization: Emotional and cognitive mediators. TPM—Testing, Psychom Methodol Appl Psychol. 2013;20: 383–398. doi: 10.4473/TPM20.4.6

25. Stathi S, Husnu S, Pendleton S. Intergroup contact and contact norms as predictors of postconflict forgiveness. Gr Dyn Theory, Res Pract. 2017;21: 20–39. doi: 10.1037/gdn0000060

26. Degner J, Dalege J. The apple does not fall far from the tree, or does it? A meta-analysis of parent–child similarity in intergroup attitudes. Psychol Bull. 2013;139: 1270–1304. doi: 10.1037/a0031436 23379964

27. Mähönen TA, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Liebkind K. The impact of perceived social norms, gender, and intergroup anxiety on the relationship between intergroup contact and ethnic attitudes of adolescents. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2011;41: 1877–1899. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00793.x

28. Edmonds C, Killen M. Do adolescents’ perceptions of parental racial attitudes relate to their intergroup contact and cross-race relationships? Gr Process Intergr Relations. 2009;12: 5–21. doi: 10.1177/1368430208098773

29. Brown BB, Larson J. Peer relationships in adolescence. In: Lerner RM, Steinberg L, editors. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2009.

30. Turner RN, Tam T, Hewstone M, Kenworthy J, Cairns E. Contact between Catholic and Protestant schoolchildren in Northern Ireland. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013;43: 216–228. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12018

31. McKeown S, Taylor LK. Perceived peer and school norm effects on youth antisocial and prosocial behaviours through intergroup contact in Northern Ireland. Br J Soc Psychol. 2018;57: 652–665. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12257 29663432

32. Berndt TJ. Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Dev Psychol. 1979;15: 608–616. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608

33. Steinberg L, Monahan KC. Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Dev Psychol. 2007;43: 1531–1543. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531 18020830

34. Sumter SR, Bokhorst CL, Steinberg L, Westenberg PM. The developmental pattern of resistance to peer influence in adolescence: Will the teenager ever be able to resist? J Adolesc. 2009;32: 1009–1021. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.010 18992936

35. Miklikowska M. Development of anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy. Br J Psychol. 2017;108: 626–648. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12236 28105654

36. Schachner MK, Brenick A, Noack P, Van De Vijver FJR, Heizmann B. Structural and normative conditions for interethnic friendships in multiethnic classrooms. Int J Intercult Relations. 2015;47: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.02.003

37. Nesdale D, Lawson MJ. Social groups and children’s intergroup attitudes: Can school norms moderate the effects of social group norms? Child Dev. 2011;82: 1594–1606. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01637.x 21883158

38. Tropp LR, Pettigrew TF. Relationships between integrup contact and prejudice among minority and majority groups. Psychol Sci. 2005;16: 951–957. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x 16313659

39. Jugert P, Noack P, Rutland A. Friendship preferences among German and Turkish preadolescents. Child Dev. 2011;82: 812–829. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01528.x 21410914

40. Feddes AR, Noack P, Rutland A. Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Dev. 2009;80: 377–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x 19466998

41. Hogg MA, Smith JR. Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2007;18: 89–131. doi: 10.1080/10463280701592070

42. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin WG, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers; 1986. pp. 7–24.

43. Terry DJ, Hogg MA. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1996;22: 776–793. doi: 10.1177/0146167296228002

44. Vezzali L, Stathi S, Giovannini D, Capozza D, Visintin EP. “And the best essay is.”: Extended contact and cross-group friendships at school. Br J Soc Psychol. 2015;54: 601–615. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12110 25875133

45. Corkalo Biruski D. Lessons learned from the former Yugoslavia: The case of Croatia. In: Landis D, Albert RD, editors. Handbook of ethnic conflict: International perspectives. New York, US: Springer, Boston, MA; 2012. pp. 327–348.

46. Čorkalo Biruški D, Ajduković D. Od dekonstrukcije do rekonstrukcije traumatizirane zajednice: primjer Vukovara [From deconstruction to reconstruction of a traumatised community: The example of Vukovar]. Rev za Soc Polit. 2009;16: 1–24. doi: 10.3935/rsp.v16i1.774

47. Blažević Simić A. Socijalna distanca hrvatskih srednjoškolaca prema etničkim i vjerskim skupinama [Social distance of Croatian secondary school students towards ethnic and religious groups]. Pedagog istraživanja. 2011;8: 153–168. Available:

48. Dugački V. Svoj svome: Češka i slovačka manjina u međuratnoj Jugoslaviji (1918.-1941.) [To your own: Czech and Slovak minority in Yugoslavia between two wars (1918–1941)]. Zagreb: Ibis grafika; 2013.

49. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48: 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

50. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6: 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

51. Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80: 99–103. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18 12584072

52. Wilcox RR. Robust generalizations of classical test reliability and Cronbach’s alpha. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1992;45: 239–254. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00990.x

53. Čorkalo Biruški D, Ajduković D. Što određuje međuetničke stavove adolescenata u podijeljenoj zajednici? [What determines adolescents’ interethnic attitudes in a divided community?]. Društvena istraživanja. 2012;21: 901–921. doi: 10.5559/di.21.4.05

54. Štambuk M. Prosocijalno ponašanje u situacijama međuetničkih sukoba: Što određuje otpor vlastitoj grupi? [Prosocial behaviour in interethnic conflict: What determines resistance to in-group?]. In: Jelić M, Tomas J, editors. 24 Dani Ramira i Zorana Bujasa. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Odsjek za psihologiju; 2019. p. 55. Available:

55. Jelić M, Čorkalo Biruški D, Ajduković D. Ideološki stavovi većinske grupe u dvije višeetničke sredine [Ideological attitudes of majority groups in two multiethnic environments]. Rev za Soc Polit. 2014;21: 19–41. doi: 10.3935/rsp.v21i1.1149

56. Jamshidian M, Jalal S, Jansen C. Missmech: An R package for testing homoscedasticity, multivariate normality, and missing completely at random (MCAR). J Stat Softw. 2014;56: 1–31. doi: 10.18637/jss.v056.i06

57. Cheema JR. Some general guidelines for choosing missing data handling methods in educational research. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2014;13: 53–75. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1414814520

58. Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001;66: 507–514. doi: 10.1007/BF02296192

59. Guinote A, Cotzia I, Sandhu S, Siwa P. Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 731–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414550112 25561527

60. Lickel B. Retribution and revenge. In: Tropp LR, editor. Oxford library of psychology The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 89–105.

61. Spector PE. Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34: 125–137. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8

62. Rivas-Drake D, Saleem M, Schaefer DR, Medina M, Jagers R. Intergroup contact attitudes across peer networks in school: Selection, influence, and implications for cross-group friendships. Child Dev. 2018 [cited 14 Apr 2019]. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13061 29785741

63. Lapinski MK, Rimal RN. An explication of social norms. Commun Theory. 2005;15: 127–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1