A big red dog as a moral compass : the influence of exposure to prosocial television and peer presence on children’s peer stigmatization, exclusion attitudes, and helping behavior

A Big Red Dog as a Moral Compass: The Influence of Exposure to Prosocial Television and Peer Presence on Children’s Peer Stigmatization, Exclusion Attitudes, and Helping Behavior

Jiska van de Leur 10914552 Master’s Thesis

Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science

Sindy Sumter 24-06-2016

Abstract

The aim of this experimental study was to examine whether prosocial inclusion messages in children’s television programs affect children’s peer stigmatization, their exclusion attitudes and helping behavior. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate whether the social viewing context had an influence on these effects. We looked at attitudes towards different types of children (normal, overweight, with crutches, and in a wheelchair). In this study a total of 80 Dutch children (5-6 years old) participated. Three conditions were studied, with (1) a control group, (2) a view-alone condition, and (3) a co-view condition. The latter two also formed the experimental condition in which the children were exposed to the 10-minute episode of the prosocial television program Clifford the Big Red Dog, which promoted inclusive attitudes towards people that are different. The results indicate that there is an effect of exposure on exclusion attitudes, but not on children’s peer stigmatization or helping behavior. Social viewing context only had an influence on the peer stigmatization of children with crutches, with children in the view-alone condition exhibiting lower peer stigmatization compared to children in the co-view condition.

A Big Red Dog as a Moral Compass: The Influence of Exposure to Prosocial Television and Peer Presence on Children’s Peer Stigmatization,

Exclusion Attitudes, and Helping-Behavior

Why don’t we look at positive effects more often? Research in the field of media is predominantly driven by concerns about the harmful effects of media, and consequently the effect of exposure to violent media or to sexual content in media, on children’s behavior has been studied extensively (e.g. Paik & Comstock, 1994; Huston, Wartella, & Donnerstein, 1998). Although these concerns are legitimate and important, the positive impact that television can have on children is quite under researched. For this reason several scholars have called for a change. For example de Leeuw and Buijzen (2016) argue that “a more balanced perspective is needed to fully understand the effects of media on children and adolescents, one that also considers the benefits of media use” (p. 39). Thus, more studies on possible positive effects of media are needed to be able to paint a bigger picture.

The assumption that media can be beneficial to children is based on (1) our knowledge that children can and do learn from television (e.g., Piotrowski, 2010), and (2) the fact that television content aimed at children includes a variety of positive messages (e.g., Padilla-Walker, Coyne, Fraser, & Stockdale, 2013). Educational components, positive role models and positive moral reference frames make a big part of children’s media (de Leeuw & Buijzen, 2016). Disney animated films, one of the most popular media types for children, all contain stories about specific moral principles (Padilla-Walker, et al, 2013).

Up to now, empirical evidence that supports the assumption that exposure to prosocial media will actually lead to increased morality and pro-social behaviors is limited (de Leeuw & Buijzen, 2016). Therefore, the current study will focus on the positive influence media may or may not have on children’s behavior and attitudes. Specifically, we will examine if and how preschool children aged 5 to 6 are affected by prosocial messages that promote inclusion

in TV programs. Research has shown that social setting, e.g. the presence of a parent, when viewing prosocial content can have an influence on these kinds of effects (Cingel, Krcmar, Olsen, Pietrantonio, 2016), and we would like to know whether viewing with or without a peer present has any influence. After a discussion of the emergence of pro-social media, I will discuss theory on how children can learn from prosocial media, I will explain the concept of social exclusion, and discuss how social viewing context may affect children’s learning from television.

Educational Media: The Emergence of Pro-Social Media Content

Nearly all children in the Netherlands live in a home with at least one television in it (Stichting Kijkonderzoek, 2015). Households with children own the most televisions with an average of two TV’s (Stichting Kijkonderzoek, 2015). Moreover, Dutch toddlers, aged two to four years old, spend around one hour each day on media such as television, gaming, and mobile phones (Nederlands Jeugdinstituut, 2013). These numbers are similar to other western countries, for example in the US; in 2008 99% of the children living in the United States lived in a house with at least one television (Roberts & Foehr, 2008). With regard to time spent on watching television, American children aged 2 through 18 watch between two and three hours of television per day (Roberts & Foehr, 2008).

Although it is important to know how many hours young children spend in front of the TV, it is more important to know what type of content they are exposed to. Over the last decades the type of media that are available for children has changed in a positive way. In the 1970’s and 1980’s children’s programs aired on the three major US broadcast networks were more violent, containing 90% violence, than prime-time programming, 70% of which

contained violence (e.g., Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980; Gerbner, Gross, Signorielli, Morgan, & Jackson-Beeck, 1979). Since then things have changed, and many producers of children’s television programs started to implement more prosocial messages in

their narrative to promote pro-social behavior and attitudes among their audience. Prosocial behaviors are often defined as “overt actions intended to benefit others” (Carlo, 2014, p. 209; Batson, 1998; Carlo, 2006) and include behaviors like helping or assisting others,

volunteering, and comforting others.

The increase in the number of US shows that contained pro-social messages was kickstarted by the Three Hour Rule in 1996 (Jordan, 2004). The rule set by the Federal

Communications Commission meant that broadcasters had to air a minimum of three hours of educational/informational (E/I) programming each week (Piotrowski, 2010; Jordan, 2004). Thus, while in the early 1990s the 20 top-rated shows specifically designed for children included only one show with prosocial messages (Woodard, 1999), in 1996 nearly 75% of children’s television shows contained at least one act of altruism (Wilson, Kunkel, & Drogos, 2008). Even though no content analyses are available for Dutch programs, many of these US shows are aired on Dutch TV (e.g. Sesame Street, Care Bears Adventures, Clifford the Big Red Dog).

Although content analyses have shown that media can offer prosocial messages, they do not allow us to draw any conclusions about their effects. Therefore, we need to take a closer look at how children can learn from prosocial media.

Learning from Pro-Social Media

In recent years several studies have become available that looked at how pro-social media content affects children’s behavior and attitudes (Mares & Woodard, 2005; Mares, Palmer, & Sullivan, 2008; Cingel et al, 2016). These studies mostly apply the framework of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, which is based on the idea that televised models may teach viewers certain behaviors (Bandura, 2001). Television characters can function as positive role models and children may copy their on-screen behavior in real world situations (Smith, Smith, Pieper, Yoo, Ferris, Downs, & Bowden, 2006). And over time those matching

responses may be internalized and serve as a normative guide or template for prosocial behavior (Bandura, 2001; Smith et al., 2006).

Mares and Woodard (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of the research on prosocial effects of watching prosocial television on children. Their meta-analysis of 34 studies showed that both in experimental settings and at home “children who watched prosocial content behaved significantly more positive or held significantly more positive attitudes than others” (p. 315-316). It must be mentioned though, that these effects were weak to moderate. Another interesting finding in this study was that prosocial content was no less effective than violent media (Mares & Woodard, 2005). Violence and prosocial content had equal effect sizes (Mares & Woodard, 2005). This finding emphasizes the importance of focusing on the media content children view.

Although the meta-analysis demonstrated positive effects of prosocial media, some other studies indicate that children do not pick up the pro-social message included in the program. For example Mares and Acosta (2008) conducted an experiment amongst 64

kindergarteners and found that the majority of the children misunderstood the intended moral lesson in the video they had seen. The authors suggested that programs would be more effective if “there were more explicit content about the moral lesson rather than leaving it to the children to notice that a lesson is present and infer what it is” (Mares & Acosta, 2008, p. 395). However, as Cingel, et al. (2016) argue, Mares and Acosta (2008) may not have used the best possible measurement strategy; they only used verbal measurements and asked the children directly what the moral message in the program was. It is possible that young children are unable to articulate a prosocial message, but are still influenced by it (see Cingel et al, 2016). Furthermore, they state that Mares and Acosta (2008) did not consider social viewing context, such as the role of parent presence and mediation, which could have a positive influence on children’s understanding of the moral messages. For children especially,

measurement strategy is very important, since they may find verbalizing their thoughts difficult. In the current study we will therefore use verbal as well as non-verbal

measurements. Furthermore, we will also look at a social viewing context, and in our case we look at peer presence, for reasons that will be addressed later.

Social Exclusion: a Case Study of Pro-Social Media Content

Prosocial behavior is a very broad concept and within the present study the focus lies on the effect of social inclusion messages in television content on five to six year old children. There are at least three reasons why it is especially interesting to investigate the influence of social exclusion messages among this age group. First, the largest increases in prosocial behaviors appear between preschool and adolescence (Carlo, 2014), thus this is a crucial period. Second, from the age of three, children are active media users and by the age of five preschool children understand the representational nature of video, which means that they can copy behavior seen on television (Kirkorian, Wartella, & Anderson, 2008). And third, from the age of five, children develop a “moral self”, thus a moral awareness (Thompson, 2014). Their conscience grows during this age as they perceive themselves as people who try to do the right thing, feeling bad when they misbehave, and attempting to make amends when necessary (Thompson, 2014). This development establishes the foundation for their later lives. Social attitudes developed through childhood have implications for how they behave as adults, and these (social exclusion) behaviors are much more difficult to change at a later age than for children (Abrams & Killen, 2014; Killen, 2007). Therefore it is important to

investigate how we can positively influence these attitudes at a young age.

Social exclusion has been studied mostly by assessing how children evaluate a group’s decision to exclude someone from the group on the basis of different personal characteristics, such as race and gender (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrel, 2009; Killen, Henning, Kelly, Crystal, & Ruck, 2007; Gasser, Malti, Buholzer, 2012). Already between the ages of three to

six years old children are much more likely to prefer members of in-groups than out-groups (Abrams & Killen, 2014). Research has shown that peer groups are likely to influence

children’s judgments and emotion attributions about exclusion, especially when children find themselves in the role of the bystander, as when they witness another child being excluded (Malti & Ongley, 2014, p. 175). Television can be an important socializing agent (Smith et al, 2006), and perhaps television characters can even function as super peers, having similar influence on children’s exclusion behavior as children’s peers.

In the current study we will examine how children judge different situations of social exclusion after co-viewing a television program that contains social inclusion messages. We want to find out whether children can transfer developmentally advanced moral lessons seen in a television program to novel moral situations.

Reviewing the previous literature (e.g. Mares meta-analysis), we expect that children who are exposed to the television show that includes pro-social messages about inclusion will exhibit lower peer stigmatization, a more negative attitude towards exclusion of others, and more helping behavior than children who are not exposed (H1). At the same time, in line with Mares meta-analysis, we expect that this effect will be small. Therefore, we aim to better understand under which viewing conditions exposure to pro-social media has stronger or weaker effects.

Does Social Viewing Context Affect Learning?

To date most research on the effects of prosocial media consumption have not taken into account the context in which viewing took place. However, evidence is emerging that viewing context matters. For instance, viewing in the presence of parents or other adults has proven to have positive effects on children’s comprehension of the media content (Nathanson, 1999; Valkenburg, Kcmar, & De Roos, 1998). Cingel et al (2016) found in their study on prosocial behavior and children’s morality, that children who had a parent present who gave

comments on and pointed out important cues to the children (active mediation) while

watching television, had greater perspective-taking gains than children who watched the video alone. Moreover, this kind of co-viewing may increase a child’s learning from prosocial television, especially when the co-viewer actively mediates by explicitly drawing attention to the program and by asking and answering questions (Kirkorian, et al., 2008; Valkenburg et al., 1998).

Although we know that children also watch television in the presence of peers of the same age (Lyle & Hoffman, 1972), our knowledge about the influence of co-viewing with a peer is limited. There are at least three expectations about how co-viewing might affect learning and processing of media content, namely (1) co-viewing creates an orienting response increasing the learning outcome, (2) co-viewing distracts, diminishing the learning outcome, and (3) co-viewing triggers in-group favoritism, decreasing the learning outcome. It is important to note that these theoretical expectations are mutually incompatible as they either predict a positive outcome (expectation 1) or a negative outcome (expectations 2 and 3) of co-viewing with a peer.

The first and positive expectation suggests that co-viewing creates an orienting

response, thus children who view television together strengthen each other’s attention towards the television. As previous research has shown, especially active mediation by parents during television viewing is related to positive child outcomes (Kirkorian et al., 2008; Cingel et al., 2016). In the context of prosocial media, mediation by a second person can influence the child’s attention to prosocial content and benefit their content comprehension (Cingel et al., 2016). In our case, we want to examine whether the same is true for child mediation, thus whether two children could help each other focus on the program by maybe commenting on and drawing attention to the right important cues. This would mean that learning and the processing of prosocial media would be positively affected.

With regard to the second and opposite expectation, some research suggests that certain viewing contexts have a negative influence on the attention and comprehension of television programs by children (Anderson, Lorch, Smith, & Bradford, 1981). For example, Anderson et al. (1981) found that when children viewed television together with peers, in groups of either two or three, they influenced each other’s TV-viewing behavior in such a way that they would synchronize each other’s movements. When one child would look to the left, the other would most often follow and also look to the left (Anderson et al., 1981). The results were compared to a condition in which one child watched the TV program alone. Thus, as the researchers concluded, the children were more distracted when they viewed together than when they viewed TV alone (Anderson et al., 1981).

To explain how this co-viewing may decrease the effect of exposure to pro-social media content we can look at Fisch’s Capacity Model (Fisch, 2000) of children’s

comprehension of television programs based on the limited cognitive recourses people have available for processing information at any time (Fisch, 2000; Kirkorian et al., 2008). This model posits that our working memory is limited, especially for children, and, for effective processing, the viewing demands cannot exceed the available recourses in working memory. When children distract each other while watching TV, the viewing demands may exceed the available recourses they have and therefore the effects of exposure to prosocial media content may decrease.

The third expectation suggests that co-viewing can trigger in-group favoritism. Thus, when children are exposed to prosocial media content (about exclusion) together with someone from their in-group, they may be less affected by the message. This expectation is based on the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which is a relatively new framework for understanding morality (Cingel et al., 2016; Haidt & Joseph, 2004; 2007). Furthermore, the MFT framework is used in several media studies (e.g. Cingel et al., 2016). Haidt and Joseph

(2007) argue that morality involves at least five foundations of intuitive ethics, and we focus on one of them, which is in-group/loyalty (Haidt & Joseph, 2007). They argue that everyone is born with a blank slate, but with a few innate characteristics that are present even before any experiences have been gained. These characteristics involve for example the

in-group/loyalty foundation, which explains the tendency of people to form groups on the basis of sometimes even trivial similarities (Haidt & Joseph, 2007). This is thus already present in children, and for them the basis might be for example appearance or gender. Research shows that even infants like individuals who are similar to themselves more and prefer to be around individuals who share the same attributes or personal tastes over those who do not (Hamlin, Mahajan, Liberman, & Wynn, 2013). A threat to this group may trigger their in-group loyalty (Haidt & Joseph, 2007). In our case, having to judge an out-group member who is being excluded may be perceived as a threat to the in-group, because it could change group dynamics. Furthermore, research has shown that the presence of another in-group member, who functions as a bystander, might elicit children’s intentions to preserve group norms and group identity (Malti & Ongley, 2014), and therefore children may be more comfortable with excluding an out-group member.

Since the current literature leads to such diverse expectations, no clear hypothesis can be formulated about the effects of co-viewing. We therefore formulated the following neutral research question: How does co-viewing influence the effect of learning and processing prosocial messages on young children at the age of 5 and 6 years old (RQ1)?

Method Participants

A total of 80 children participated in this study. The average age in months of the participants was 70.65 (SD = 6.13) with a range of 60 months to 82 months, and 57.5 % (n = 46) were female. The participants were recruited from three elementary schools in Delft (two)

and Bergschenhoek (one). These schools were selected via a list of all schools in Delft (they all received an email in which we asked them to participate and the researcher paid some personal visits to schools) and via personal connections of the researcher (the school in Bergschenhoek). The data collection took place in April and May 2016.

Experimental Design

An experimental study among 80 children was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions. In both conditions participants watched the same animated episode of Clifford the Big Red Dog, titled Welcome to Birdwell Island. The conditions differed as a function of viewing experience: in the first condition 28 children watched (View Alone Condition) and participated alone and in the second condition 52 children were paired to watch together (Co-View Condition). Half of these participants (n = 26) functioned as a control group, since they answered the questions before watching the video. The teachers formed these duos specifically on the basis of who were friends. Also, almost all pairs were of the same gender (with the exception of one male/female duo, but they were friends).

Procedure

We contacted 50 elementary schools via e-mail, phone and personal contact. In the end three schools agreed to participate. These sent the consent forms to the parents of the children. We used passive consent with the parents, thus when they did not object via e-mail, phone or otherwise, their child could participate in our study. All 80 children were allowed to participate. The children provided verbal assent and signed a customized version of a consent form prior to the beginning of the study. An available room (almost always a classroom) in the school building was used as the experiment setting. The same props were used in each experimental occasion, such as flowers, a cup with pencils and some coloring tools. The

researcher used the same laptop each time to show the stimulus video. The duration of each session, per participant, was about half an hour to 40 minutes long.

In the View Alone condition children were invited into the room where the experiment took place. There, the child signed a consent form and confirmed his or her name and age. Then the researcher started with a short introduction about the experiment. In this

introduction, the researcher explained that questions would be asked about the television program they would get to watch. Then the child watched an episode of Clifford the Big Red Dog for 11 minutes. Afterwards, the researcher asked the child the questions (see the measure section below).

The Co-View condition consisted of three phases. First, one child was taken from the classroom and the researcher assessed all main outcome variables, except narrative

comprehension. These children were used as a Control Group. Then the second child would join and together the two children watched the episode of Clifford the Big Red Dog. When the show was over, the first child was brought back to the classroom. The second child would then answer the researchers’ questions. Then, the experiment was over.

Stimulus Video

The stimulus video is an unedited episode from the television series Clifford the Big Red Dog which is known for its pro-social messages (Clifford the Big Red Dog, Season 1, episode 12, part two, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Clifford_the_Big_Red_Dog_ episodes). The episode is 10 minutes and 50 seconds in length. The main message in this episode was an inclusion message, i.e. that you should not exclude someone on the basis of his or her appearance. You should get to know someone before you judge him or her. In this episode, Clifford and his “family” (Emily Elizabeth and her parents) moved to a new place, an island, because Clifford was literally getting too big for the city. The people in the new

place found Clifford very scary and did not like him because he was so big, but after Clifford helps them put down a big fire, they all learn that he is actually really nice.

Measures

Narrative comprehension. To establish whether the participants understood the narrative of the stimulus three questions were asked regarding the video. Questions such as: “Why did the people on the island think Clifford was scary?” “Why did Clifford and his family have to move from the city to an island?” and “There was a big fire in the end. Who put the fire out and became the big hero?” These were multiple-choice questions with four possible answers (including an “I do not know” option). Responses to these questions were summed so scores ranged between 0 to 3 (M = 2.75, SD = 0.52).

Peer stigmatization. To assess children’s level of peer stigmatization we used the measure Rating of Kids: Obese or Disabled (based on Latner, Rosewall, & Simmonds, 2007). In contrast to the original we used four figures instead of six (we left out the child with a missing hand and the child with the facial disfigurement). Furthermore, the questions about the figures were adjusted slightly so they were age appropriate. The participants were

presented four pictures of children of the same age and sex as themselves. The children in the pictures were either (1) non-overweight, non-disabled (i.e. normal), (2) carried crutches, (3) overweight or (4) in a wheelchair (see Appendix A for the figures).

Firstly, the participants were shown a same sex figure (one of the four options described above) and one by one and asked to indicate whether they would like to be friends with them: “Let’s play a pretend game. Let’s pretend that some girls/boys could come be in your class at preschool. They can’t really but it’s fun to pretend. What if this girl was in your class at school? How would you feel about that? Would you be happy?” After they answered with a yes or a no, they were asked to elaborate on that answer by saying how much they did or did not want to be friends using a 5 point smiley-face scale (1= very happy, 2 = happy, 3 =

in the middle, 4 = unhappy, 5 = very unhappy). This way they answered on a 5-point scale (see Appendix C for the smiley scale).

Then they were asked three more questions about this figure. The questions were “Do you think this boy/girl is kind?”, “Would you like to play with this boy/girl?”, and “How smart would you guess this boy/girl is?” Firstly, the participants answered with yes/no options and after they answered they were asked how much (so when they say “yes I like this girl” they were asked “how much”). This way they answered on a smiley-face 5-point scale.

The four questions were asked for the four types of figures, and average scores were

calculated for each figure. Lower scores indicated greater liking of the figure and hence lower stigma. The subscales were all reliable, respectively for the subscale normal, Cronbach’s alpha = .79, overweight: Cronbach’s alpha = .75, crutches: Cronbach’s alpha = .81, wheelchair: Cronbach’s alpha = .81).

Exclusion attitudes. To assess the children’s attitude towards exclusion of other children we used an adapted version of an existing scale (Krcmar & Valkenburg, 1999). The researcher read the child four different vignettes. The vignettes were stories about a normal child, an overweight child, a child with crutches, or a child in a wheelchair. The children in the stories were excluded in some way and the participants were asked to indicate whether they thought the perpetrator was “right, wrong, or in the middle”. After they answered they were asked how right or wrong the perpetrator was (i.e. a little right/wrong, very right/wrong) and this was coded from 1 (very wrong) to 5 (very right). This way they answered on a 5-point smiley scale (see Appendix C for the scale). The full stories can be found in the appendix A. High scores reflect a positive attitude towards exclusion; low scores reflect a negative attitude towards exclusion. A more detailed description of the measure is included in the appendix. The scale for all types together was adequately reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = .67.

Helping behavior. To assess to what extent exposure to prosocial media has an effect on children’s helping behavior, the following test was conducted. The researcher told the participant that she would start with the questions, and that she needed a pencil to fill in the answers. With grabbing a pencil, the researcher “accidentally” knocked over all of the pencils on the floor. The researcher acted like she did not notice this because she was looking in her bag. If the participant did not pick up the pencils, the researcher slowly picked them up, starting with the one farthest away from the participant. From the time that the researcher dropped the pencils to the time she wrote down the name of the participants the researcher says nothing, except she thanked him/her if he/she picked up the pencils. This was coded from 0 (does not help) to 0.5 (moderately helping) to 1 (enthusiastic helping), M = 0.51, SD = 0.46.

Data Analyses Plan

To examine the research question and the hypothesis we will conduct six Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs). The independent variable consists of three groups; the Control Group, and two experimental groups, i.e. the View Alone Group and the Co-View Group. All analyses controlled for gender and age of the participants. First, using Helmert planned contrasts we compared the control group with the experimental groups. We expected that children who are exposed to the television show that includes pro-social messages about inclusion (experimental groups) exhibit (1) lower peer stigmatization, (2) a more negative attitude towards exclusion of others, and (3) more helping behavior than children who are not exposed (control group). Second, we tested whether viewing context has an effect on the effect of exposure to prosocial media content using a planned contrast analyses between the view alone group and the co-view group.

Results

To investigate whether condition had an effect on the outcome variables, we

conducted six ANCOVAS. For each analysis the first comparison is made between exposure (i.e. the experimental groups) versus non-exposure (i.e. the control group), the second comparison is between viewing alone and viewing together. See Table 1 for the respective means, which are referred to when discussing the results of the analyses. The means reported are the estimated marginal means as all analyses controlled for gender and age.

Does Exposure to Pro-social Media Lower Stigmatization?

An ANCOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and the stigmatization normal (i.e. the stigmatization of normal children) as the dependent variable. See Table 1 for the estimated marginal means. There was no significant effect of condition on stigmatization normal, F (2, 74) = 0.53, p = .593, partial η2 = .02. Notably, gender was

significantly related to stigmatization normal, F = (1, 74) = 7.03, p = .010, with girls exhibiting lower peer stigmatization than boys. Age was not significantly related to stigmatization normal, F (1, 74) = 0.24, p = .625.

A second ANCOVA was performed with condition as the independent variable and the stigmatization overweight (i.e. the stigmatization of overweight children) as the dependent variable. See Table 1 for the estimated marginal means. There was no significant effect of condition on stigmatization overweight, F (2, 74) = 0.61, p = .548, partial η2 = .02. Gender, F (1, 74) = 1.36, p = .247, partial η2 = 0.02, and age, F (1, 74) = 0.05, p = .828, partial η2 = .00, were not related to stigmatization overweight.

A third ANCOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and the stigmatization crutches (i.e. the stigmatization of children with crutches) as the dependent variable. See Table 1 for the estimated marginal means. There was a main effect of condition on stigmatization crutches, F (2, 74) = 4.88, p = .010, partial η2 = .12. Using Helmert planned

contrasts we compared the control group with the two experimental groups to assess the main effect of media exposure. There was no significant difference between the control group and the experimental groups, t (74) = -1.80, p = .075, partial η2 = .04. The Helmert planned

contrast comparing the view alone to the co-view condition revealed a significant difference, t (74) = -3.11, p = .003, partial η2 = .12. Specifically, children in the view alone condition exhibited lower peer stigmatization towards children with crutches than children in the co-view condition. The covariates were both significantly related to the stigmatization of children with crutches, Gender, F (1, 74) = 11.26, p = .001, partial η2 = 0.13, and age, F (1, 74) = 4.38, p = .040, partial η2 = .06. Girls exhibited lower peer stigmatization towards children with crutches than boys, and younger children exhibited lower peer stigmatization towards children with crutches than older children.

A fourth ANCOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and stigmatization wheelchair (i.e. the stigmatization of children in a wheelchair) as the dependent variable. See Table 1 for the estimated marginal means. There was no main effect of

condition on stigmatization wheelchair, F (2, 74), p = .141, partial η2 = .05. Notably, gender was marginally significantly related to stigmatization wheelchair, F (1, 74) = 2.87, p = .094, partial η2 = 0.04, with girls exhibiting lower peer stigmatization towards children in a wheelchair than boys. Age was not significantly related to stigmatization wheelchair, F (1, 74) = 2.17, p = .145, partial η2 = .03.

Does Exposure to Prosocial Media Influence Attitudes Towards Exclusion?

An ANCOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and attitude towards exclusion as the dependent variable. See Table 1 for the estimated marginal means. The main effect of condition on attitudes towards exclusion was marginally significant, F (2, 75) = 2.40, p = .098, partial η2 = .06. To further examine this effect we ran a Helmert planned contrast with the aims (1) to compare the control group with the two experimental groups, and

(2) to compare the View Alone group with the Co-View group. The planned contrast indicated a marginally significant difference between the control group and the two

experimental groups, t (75) = -1.35, p = .066, partial η2 = .02, but not between the view alone and the co-view group, t (75) = 0.82, p = .180, partial η2 = .01. The children in the

experimental groups were more opposed to exclusion than the children in the control group. Gender, F (1, 75) = 0.83, p = .365, partial η2 = 0.02 was not related to attitudes towards exclusion. The covariate age was marginally significantly related to attitudes towards exclusion, F (1, 75) = 3.27, p = .074, partial η2 = .04, with younger children being more opposed to exclusion than older children.

Does Exposure to Prosocial Television Influence Children’s Helping Behavior?

An ANCOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and helping behavior as the dependent variable. There was no significant effect of condition on helping behavior, F (2, 74) = 0.32, p = .728, partial η2 = .01. None of the covariates were significantly related to helping behavior, gender, F (1, 74) = 0.07, p = .799, partial η2 = .00, and age, F (1, 74) = 0.01, p = .919, partial η2 = .00.

Table 1

Estimated Marginal Means and Standard Error per Condition For Stigmatization, Exclusion, and Helping Behavior

Control group M (SE) Experimental groups

Variables View alone

M (SE) Co-view M (SE) Stigma Normal 2.97 (0.21) 2.63 (0.23) 2.87 (0.23) Stigma Overweight 3.55 (0.20) 3.19 (0.23) 3.39 (0.22) Stigma Crutches 2.47 (0.18) 1.98a (0.20) 2.94b (0.20) Stigma Wheelchair 2.81 (0.21) 2.44 (0.23) 3.14 (0.23) Exclusion 2.34a (0.18) 1.74b (0.19) 2.14b (0.19) Helping Behavior 0.44 (0.10) 0.53 (0.10) 0.54 (0.10) N 26 28 25

Note: All analyses controlled for age and gender. All means based on estimated marginal means. Means with different subscribes differ significantly from each other.

Discussion

The current study aimed to understand whether children who were exposed to the television episode that included pro-social messages about inclusion, would exhibit lower peer stigmatization, a more negative attitude towards exclusion of others, and more helping behavior than children who were not exposed. We found marginal to small effects on respectively children’s exclusion attitudes and stigmatization of one group of children who can be considered different. This indicated that children who watched the TV episode exhibited slightly more pro-social attitudes than those who did not watch the episode. This finding suggests that children are at least to some extent able to transfer the inclusion lesson they had seen in the TV episode to a novel situation. This finding is in line with existing research (Cingel et al., 2016; Mares et al., 2008), which has shown that it is possible to teach children moral lessons via television.

More specifically, the results indicated that children who were exposed to the TV episode, were more disapproving of exclusion than the children who did not see the TV episode. Furthermore, children who were exposed to the TV episode also exhibited lower peer stigmatization towards children with crutches than the children who were not exposed.

However we should take into account that this last finding was very specific for one group, the children with crutches, as we did not find evidence that children who watched the TV show exhibited lower peer stigmatization towards the other children (normal, overweight and in a wheelchair). Also, we did not find any evidence that exposure to prosocial media had an effect on children’s helping behavior.

The second aim of the study was to investigate how co-viewing influenced the effect of learning and processing prosocial messages on young children at the age of 5 and 6 years old. We found that children who viewed the TV episode alone showed less peer

someone from their in-group. The results indicated no difference in the effect of viewing condition on the stigmatization of normal children, overweight children, and children in wheelchairs. Also, there was no evidence that viewing condition had any effect on children’s exclusion attitudes and their helping behavior.

It seems that the peer context (i.e. the presence of one other peer) in which children watch prosocial TV has no real impact on the effects of pro-social TV. Only for the

stigmatization of children with crutches did children in the alone condition exhibit lower peer stigmatization than the children in the co-view condition. Considering the fact that this is the only significant effect, we should be careful interpreting this finding.

We had formed two opposing expectations with regard to co-viewing having a negative effect: co-viewing distracts, diminishing the learning outcome, and co-viewing triggers in-group favoritism, decreasing the learning outcome. Unfortunately however, this study could not provide an answer to this matter, as we did not find enough differences regarding the viewing context to say anything significant about it. Future research should investigate these two possibilities more and differently. For example video taping the sessions could be a valuable addition. By video taping the experiment the children can be studied and evaluated afterwards and their attention to the screen and each other can be measured more accurately.

An explanation for the lack of effects measured in this study could lie in the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001). As mentioned before, children can learn prosocial norms and standards from television (Smith et al., 2006). However, this process is more successful when children are repeatedly exposed to the message (Smith et al., 2006). In this study the children were only exposed to the TV episode for 10 minutes, and they were exposed only once. It could be that there are effects when children are exposed longer and more often. This specific issue is a challenge for research on prosocial media effects in general.

Limitations

As with any study, there are limitations that should be discussed. First of all, the small sample size could be a reason for the lack of significant results. With a total sample of 80 children and an average of 26 children per condition this is not a very strong sample size, moreover because we looked at both 5 and 6 year olds. This age difference within the sample may have influenced the results negatively. Moreover, there might have been stronger results if we would have looked only at one age group. Future research should use a smaller age range. They should take into account the fast cognitive development of young children, thus looking at even smaller age groups (i.e. only children from 5 to 5.5 years old) is

recommended. Furthermore, a small sample makes it difficult to control for the individual differences within the participants.

Second, although great care was taken in the selection of the measures, the measures should be improved for future research. For instance, children reacted somewhat surprised or scared, sometimes strongly, to the figures we used as a measurement for their peer

stigmatization attitudes (see Appendix B). Especially the male figure version had a quite angry look, which the children responded to in different ways. Some children were scared of the figures because of their physical appearance, or thought they looked really angry, and therefore disliked them all. Thus, they scored high on the stigmatization scale, not because they disliked the figures’ disabilities, but because they reacted to other characteristics. This obviously distorts the measurement. It could mean that children find physical appearance (i.e. whether they smile and look realistic) more important than their disability. Future research should use different and more suitable figures to avoid this possible confounding factor. For example, the figures could smile or at least look neutral and not angry, be drawn in full color and more realistic. Pre-testing the figures could improve the quality of this measurement.

Not only the stigmatization measure caused problems, also the exclusion measure could be improved. The reasoning behind the answers of a lot of children was unexpected. Namely, they had practical explanations for excluding some of the children, which were unrelated to what we had intended to measure. For example, they would exclude a child with crutches from the dance floor, because they can simply not dance with crutches. Or they would not allow an overweight child to join hide and seek, because he or she might be too visible behind a lantern. So even though they did not intend to exclude because of how children were different, which is what we wanted to measure, they excluded them because of what they could not do. Hence the results from this measurement misrepresent their exclusion attitudes. Thus it is important to probe their reasoning and perhaps develop a measurement with which their responses can be categorized more specifically on the basis of their relevance. The exact formulation of the questions obviously influences this as well. Future Prosocial Media Effect Research

In the field of youth and media, most researchers believe that media affect not all children in the same way or degree (Piotrowski & Valkenburg, 2015). Children have different characteristics, thus they are affected differently (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013a). Moreover, this might be the reason why we found no to small effects in this study. As Valkenburg and Peter (2013b) noted, since there are so many individual differences between children, such as developmental differences, social-context variables or temperament, the effects of media may be small because they vary with all these individual differences. Thus, there may be effects of prosocial television containing inclusion messages on children’s stigmatization, exclusion attitudes, and helping behavior, but this could possibly be so only for a specific group of children with specific characteristics, which we did not identify and take into account in this study.

One important individual difference in the current study might have been ADHD. Children with this specific condition could have responded differently, because of this

specific individual difference, than those who did not suffer from it. We do not know whether or to what extent this might have had an influence on the results in this current study, but we cannot be sure it did not either. Therefore, future research should be more aware of these individual differences and take them into account.

Another suggestion for further research has to do with the social viewing context. We only looked at the effects of the presence of one peer. It might be that peer presence has an effect when children are exposed to prosocial media in the presence of the entire class, or with a group of friends. Different social viewing contexts should be investigated further to really understand what are the most beneficial social viewing contexts for children when they watch television.

Furthermore, future research should use a more broad form of prosocial attitudes and behaviors. We only looked at three dimensions (stigmatization, exclusion, helping behavior), but to get a more nuanced view on the influence of prosocial television on children’s

prosocial behavior, we should also look at different types of prosocial behavior, such as complimenting and encouraging others (Padilla-Walker, et al., 2013). Or look at different prosocial attitudes, for example children’s attitude towards certain ethnic groups.

Measuring children’s behavior right after exposing them to a prosocial TV episode seems to be very problematic. The measurement we used in this study may have been too one-dimensional and therefore insufficiently representative of the complex structure of actual behavior. By looking at more aspects of behavior, important information may be measured.

Conclusion

This study is part of a small body of work that has been conducted on positive effects that television can have on young children. With this study I hoped to contribute to a more

balanced perspective on the effects of media on children. Although the results of this research were not very strong, it showed that television can have an influence, even if it is only small. The question remains whether the lack of strong effects observed means that there are no effects or that it is simply very hard to design a study that brings them out.

If we want to know more about the effects of Dutch prosocial television, there are several avenues of research that need to be pursued. We should know more about Dutch television itself. There should be more Dutch content analyses. An American content analysis found that “if a child watches three hours of children’s programming per day, then s/he will be exposed to –on average- 12 incidents of helping/sharing daily, 360 per month, and 4,320 per year” (Smith, et al., 2006, p. 721). Although we know that a lot of American television shows and movies are aired in the Netherlands (e.g. Sesame Street), it is a pity that we do not have the same knowledge about Dutch television content. With this knowledge we could improve the quality of research in this field, for example by being able to choose stronger stimulus material.

References

Abrams, D., & Killen, M. (2014). Social exclusion of children: Developmental origins of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 1-11.

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Pelletier, J., & Ferrell, J. M. (2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child development, 80(1), 224-243.

Anderson, D. R., Lorch, E. P., Smith, R., Bradford, R., & Levin, S. R. (1981). Effects of peer presence on preschool children's television-viewing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 446.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media psychology, 3(3), 265-299.

Batson, C. D. (1998). Prosocial behavior and altruism. The handbook of social psychology, 4, 282-316.

Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically-based morality. Handbook of moral development, 551-579.

Carlo, G. (2014). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. Handbook of moral development, 208-234.

Cingel, D. P., Krcmar, M., Olsen, M. K., & Pietrantonio, F. (2016). Using Moral Foundations Theory and parent mediation to understand the effect of child exposure to televised moral lessons on transfer to moral situations. Paper presented at the 66th

annual conference of the International Communication Association, Fukuoka, JA. de Leeuw, R. N., & Buijzen, M. (2016). Introducing positive media psychology to the field of

children, adolescents, and media. Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 39-46. Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content on

television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63-91.

Gasser, L., Malti, T., & Buholzer, A. (2013). Children's moral judgments and moral emotions following exclusion of children with disabilities: Relations with inclusive education, age, and contact intensity. Research in developmental disabilities, 34(3), 948-958. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of

America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of communication, 30(3), 10-29. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., Morgan, M., & Jackson‐Beeck, M. (1979). The

demonstration of power: Violence profile no. 10. Journal of communication, 29(3), 177-196.

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55-66.

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. The innate mind, 3, 367-392.

Hamlin, J. K., Mahajan, N., Liberman, Z., & Wynn, K. (2013). Not like me= bad infants prefer those who harm dissimilar others. Psychological science, 24(4), 589-594. Huston, A. C., Wartella, E., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Measuring the Effects of Sexual

Content in the Media: A Report to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Jordan, A. B. (2004). The three-hour rule and educational television for children. Popular Communication, 2(2), 103-118.

Krcmar, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (1999). A scale to assess children's moral interpretations of justified and unjustified violence and its relationship to television viewing.

Communication Research, 26(5), 608-634.

Killen, M. (2007). Children's social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 32-36.

Killen, M., Henning, A., Kelly, M. C., Crystal, D., & Ruck, M. (2007). Evaluations of interracial peer encounters by majority and minority US children and adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 491-500.

Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young children's learning. The Future of Children, 18(1), 39-61.

Latner, J. D., Rosewall, J. K., & Simmonds, M. B. (2007). Childhood obesity stigma: association with television, videogame, and magazine exposure. Body image, 4(2), 147-155.

Lyle, J., & Hoffman, H. R. (1972). Explorations in Patterns of Television Viewing. Television and Social Behavior: Television in day-to-day life: patterns of use, 4, 257.

Malti, T., & Ongley, S. F. (2014). The development of moral emotions and moral reasoning. Handbook of moral development, 2, 163-183.

Mares, M. L., & Acosta, E. E. (2008). Be kind to three-legged dogs: Children's literal interpretations of TV's moral lessons. Media Psychology, 11(3), 377-399.

Mares, M. L., Palmer, E., & Sullivan, T. (2008). Prosocial effects of media exposure. The handbook of children, media, and development, 268-289.

Mares, M. L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children's social interactions: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7(3), 301-322.

Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children's aggression. Communication Research, 26(2), 124-143. Nederlands Jeugdistituut. (2013). Media-risico’s voor kinderen. Utrecht: P. Nikken.

Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Fraser, A. M., & Stockdale, L. A. (2013). Is Disney the nicest place on earth? A content analysis of prosocial behavior in animated Disney films. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 393-412.

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis1. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.

Piotrowski, J. T. (2010). Evaluating Preschoolers’ Comprehension of Educational Television: The Role of Viewer Characteristics, Stimuli Features, and Contextual Expectations. Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Finding Orchids in a Field of Dandelions

Understanding Children’s Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(14), 1776-1789.

Roberts, D. F., & Foehr, U. G. (2008). Trends in media use. The future of children, 18(1), 11-37.

Smith, S. W., Smith, S. L., Pieper, K. M., Yoo, J. H., Ferris, A. L., Downs, E., & Bowden, B. (2006). Altruism on American television: Examining the amount of, and context surrounding, acts of helping and sharing. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 707-727. Stichting Kijkonderzoek, (2015), TV in Nederland. Amsterdam.

Thompson, R. A. (2014). Conscience development in early childhood. Handbook of moral development, 2.

Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., & de Roos, S. (1998). The impact of a cultural children's program and adult mediation on children's knowledge of and attitudes towards opera. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(3), 315-326.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013a). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013b). Five challenges for the future of media-effects research. International Journal of Communication, 7, 197-215.

Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., & Drogos, K. L. (2008). Educationally/insufficient? An analysis of the availability & educational quality of children's E/I programming. Oakland, CA: Children Now.

Woodard IV, E. H. (1999). The 1999 State of Children's Television Report: Programming for Children over Broadcast and Cable Television.

Appendix A

Vignettes for the Exclusion Measure Male Versions

Story “Normal” Child (Daan)

Daan is a very normal boy. He is new in school. At lunchtime he asks Koen if he can sit at his table. Koen answers “no I do not want you to sit at my table” and sends Daan away.

Story “Obese” Child (Reinier)

Reinier is a boy that is chubbier than all of his other classmates. One day, during the break, Reinier asks a group of kids if he can also play hide and seek with them. The kids say “no you can not play with us because you are fat”.

Story “Wheelchair” Child (Wessel )

Pepijn is a boy in a wheelchair. One day Joep is celebrating his birthday and inviting all his classmates to his birthday party. But he does not invite Pepijn. Pepijn asks Joep why and Joep tells him it is because of he is in a wheelchair.

Story “Crutches” Child (Roeland)

Roeland has problems with his legs and therefore wears crutches. One day the school is giving a school party and everyone is dancing with each other. But no one wants to dance with Roeland, because he has crutches.

Female Versions

Story “Normal” Child (Kirsten)

Kirsten is a very normal girl. She is new in school. At lunchtime she asks Rahel if she can sit at her table. Rahel answers “no I do not want you to sit at my table” and sends Kirsten away.

Marlies is a girl that is chubbier than all of her other classmates. One day, during the break, Marlies asks a group of kids if she can also play hide and seek with them. The kids say “no you can not play with us because you are fat”.

Story “Wheelchair” Child (Lucy)

Lucy is a girl in a wheelchair. One day Judith is celebrating her birthday and inviting all of her classmates to her birthday party. But she does not invite Lucy. Lucy asks Judith why and Judith tells her it is because she is in a wheelchair.

Story “Crutches” Child (Dide)

Dide has problems with her legs and therefore wears crutches. One day the school is giving a school party and everyone is dancing with each other. But no one wants to dance with Dide, because she has crutches.

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Document Used During the Experiment

School: Klas: Dag: Tijd: Naam Kind: Ppn: Leeftijd:

Sekse: Jongen / Meisje

Conditie:

Conditie 1 Alleen □ Conditie 2 Samen, kind 1

□

Opmerkingen:

Kind 2: aandacht tijdens kijken Kind 2 en 1

kijken elkaar aan

Kind 2 kijkt van het scherm weg

Kind 2 zegt wat

Pencil-experiment 0 Nee

0.5 <medium>

Narrative Comprehension

Vraag 1: Waarom vinden de mensen op het eiland Clifford eng?

□

□

□

□

Vraag 2. Waarom moesten Clifford en zijn familie verhuizen vanuit de stad naar het eiland?

□

□

□

□

Vraag 3. Er was een grote brand. Wie heeft uiteindelijk het vuur geblust en was de grote held?

□

□

□

□

Stgm Questions Plaatje 1 (normaal)

Laten we een “alsof” spelletje spelen. Laten we doen alsof er wat meisjes/jongens in je klas op school zouden komen. Dat gebeurt niet echt, maar het is leuk om te doen alsof. Wat als dit meisje/jongen bij jou in de klas zou komen?

Hoe zou je je daarover voelen? Zou je blij zijn?

□ 2 = niet blij □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = blij

□ 5 = echt heel erg blij

Denk je dat hij/zij aardig is? Hoe aardig denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet aardig □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = aardig

□ 5 = echt heel erg aardig

Hoe graag zou je met hem/haar willen spelen?

□ 2 = niet graag □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = graag

□ 5 = echt heel erg graag

Denk je dat hij/zij slim is? Hoe slim denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet slim □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = wel slim

Plaatje 2 (obese)

Laten we een “alsof” spelletje spelen. Laten we doen alsof er wat meisjes/jongens in je klas op school zouden komen. Dat gebeurt niet echt, maar het is leuk om te doen alsof. Wat als dit meisje/jongen bij jou in de klas zou komen?

Hoe zou je je daarover voelen? Zou je blij zijn?

□ 2 = niet blij □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = blij

□ 5 = echt heel erg blij

Denk je dat hij/zij aardig is? Hoe aardig denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet aardig □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = leuk

□ 5 = echt heel erg aardig

Hoe graag zou je met hem/haar willen spelen?

□ 2 = niet graag □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = graag

□ 5 = echt heel erg graag

Denk je dat hij/zij slim is? Hoe slim denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet slim □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = wel slim

□ 5 = echt heel erg slim

Laten we een “alsof” spelletje spelen. Laten we doen alsof er wat meisjes/jongens in je klas op school zouden komen. Dat gebeurt niet echt, maar het is leuk om te doen alsof. Wat als dit meisje/jongen bij jou in de klas zou komen?

Hoe zou je je daarover voelen? Zou je blij zijn?

□ 2 = niet blij □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = blij

□ 5 = echt heel erg blij

Denk je dat hij/zij aardig is? Hoe aardig denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet aardig □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = aardig

□ 5 = echt heel erg aardig

Hoe graag zou je met hem/haar willen spelen?

□ 2 = niet graag □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = graag

□ 5 = echt heel erg graag

Denk je dat hij/zij slim is? Hoe slim denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet slim □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = wel slim

□ 5 = echt heel erg slim

Laten we een “alsof” spelletje spelen. Laten we doen alsof er wat meisjes/jongens in je klas op school zouden komen. Dat gebeurt niet echt, maar het is leuk om te doen alsof. Wat als dit meisje/jongen bij jou in de klas zou komen?

Hoe zou je je daarover voelen? Zou je blij zijn?

□ 2 = niet blij □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = blij

□ 5 = echt heel erg blij

Denk je dat hij/zij aardig is? Hoe aardig denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet aardig □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = aardig

□ 5 = echt heel erg aardig

Hoe graag zou je met hem/haar willen spelen?

□ 2 = niet graag □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = graag

□ 5 = echt heel erg graag

Denk je dat hij/zij slim is? Hoe slim denk je dat hij/zij is?

□ 2 = niet slim □ 3 = in het midden □ 4 = wel slim

□ 5 = echt heel erg slim

1 = helemaal geen gelijk 2 = niet echt gelijk 3 = weet ik niet 4 = een beetje gelijk 5 = heel erg gelijk

Story “Normal” Child (Daan or Kirsten)

Daan is een hele normale jongen. Hij is nieuw op school. Tijdens de lunchpauze vraagt hij aan Koen of hij bij hem aan tafel mag zitten. Koen zegt “nee ik wil niet dat je bij mij zit” en stuurt Daan weg.

Kirsten is een heel normaal meisje. Ze is nieuw op school. Tijdens de lunchpauze vraagt ze aan Rahel of ze bij haar aan tafel mag zitten. Rahel zegt “nee ik wil niet dat je bij mij zit” en stuurt Kirsten weg.

Vraag: Heeft Koen/Rahel gelijk? □ ja

□ nee

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □

Story “Obese” Child (Reinier or Marlies)

Reinier is een jongen die wat dikker is dan al zijn klasgenootjes. Op een dag, tijdens de pauze, vraagt Reinier of hij mee mag doen met verstoppertje. De kinderen zeggen “nee” je kan niet met ons spelen want jij bent dik.

Marlies is een meisje die wat dikker is dan al haar klasgenootjes. Op een dag, tijdens de pauze, vraagt Marlies of ze mee mag doen met verstoppertje. De kinderen zeggen “nee” je kan niet met ons spelen want jij bent dik.

Vraag: Hebben de kinderen gelijk? □ ja

□ nee

Story “Wheelchair” Child (Pepijn or Lucie)

Pepijn is een jongen die in een rolstoel zit. Op een dag viert Joep zijn verjaardag en hij nodigt al zijn klasgenootjes uit. Maar hij nodigt Pepijn niet uit. Pepijn vraagt aan Joep waarom hij niet is uitgenodigd en Joep vertelde hem dat dat is omdat hij in een rolstoel zit.

Lucie is een meisje die in een rolstoel zit. Op een dag viert Judith haar verjaardag en ze nodigt al haar klasgenootjes uit. Maar ze nodigt Lucie niet uit. Lucie vraagt aan Judith waarom ze niet is uitgenodigd en Judith vertelt haar dat dat is omdat ze in een rolstoel zit.

Vraag: Heeft Joep/Judith gelijk? □ ja

□ nee

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □

Story “Crutches” Child (Wessel or Dide)

Wessel heeft problemen met zijn benen en daarom moet hij krukken gebruiken. Op een dag geeft de school een feestje en iedereen is met elkaar aan het dansen. Maar niemand wil dansen met Wessel, want hij heeft krukken.

Dide heeft problemen met haar benen en daarom moet ze krukken gebruiken. Op een dag geeft de school een feestje en alle kinderen zijn met elkaar aan het dansen. Maar niemand wil dansen met Dide, want zij heeft krukken.

Vraag: Hebben de kinderen gelijk? □ ja

□ nee