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mean (cruel), withdrawn, learning disabled, unathletic, and poor.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.
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.
Hl 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.
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,
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;
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.
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).
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, Fs (2,872) = 4.19-105.49,~s < .O 1 (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, Fs (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, Fs (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
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)
Coworker 3.92 (1.59)
Similarity 2.08 (1.07)
3. Learning disabled:
Friend 4.07 (1.46)
Coworker 2.12 (1.09)
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)
Coworker 3.92 (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
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 mi l ari ty
Unathletic:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Learning disabled:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Mean:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Poor:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Withdrawn
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
B. Japan
Aggressive:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Unathletic:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Learning disabled:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l ari ty
Mean:
Fri end
Coworker
Si mi l 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.
-
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) Schef f e 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. : fifth 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).
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
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 Learning Disabilities. 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 .OO 1, and coworker, X2 (1, N =
905) = 30.3op < .OOl.
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
J apan
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.
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
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
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
Bfv 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
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.
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). Applied 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 assessment and intervention (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). The 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.
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. J ournal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology. I 32,40%426.
Wall, J.E. & Holden, E.W. (1994). Aggressive, assertive, and submissive behaviors in disadvantaged inner-city
preschool children. J ournal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23,382-390.
Weisz, J.R., Sigman, M., Weiss, B. & Mosk, J. (1993). Parent reports of behavioral and emotional problems among
children in Kenya, Thailand, and the United States. Child Development, 64, 98-109.
Whitley, B.E., Schofield, J.W. & Snyder, H.N. (1984). Peer preferences in a desegregated school: A round robin
analysis. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 79% IO.
Wiener, J. (1987). Peer status of learning disabled children and adolescents:A review of the literature. Learning
Disabilities Research, 2, 62-79.
Williams, J.E. SC Best, D. (1990). Sex andpsyche: Gender and selfviewed cross-culturally. Newberry Park, CA:
Sage.
Zakin, D.F. (1983). Physical attractiveness, sociability, athletic ability, and childrens preference for their peers.
J ournal 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). Revision ofthe Chinese norm ofthe Sports Competition Anxiety Test. Psychological Science China,
Z6,99-103.