Page 192 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 192
positive youth development in contexts
of ethnic majority (k2 = 40, d+= 0.40, 95% CI [0.17, 0.64]) and minority (k2 =
7, d+= 0.23, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.52]) groups.
Three studies included ethnic minorities. The sample of Berger et al.
(2016) was comprised of 50% ethnic minority students native to their coun-
try of residence. Intervention effectiveness did not differ significantly de-
pending on the participants’ ethnic status, although a slightly bigger re-
duction of the propensity to discriminate for ethnic majority students
was reported compared to ethnic minority students right after the inter-
vention. Recently migrated participants or participants with a migratory
background comprised approximately 26% of the sample in Liebkind et al.
(2013) and Vezzali et al. (2018). Both found ethnic status to be unrelated to
intervention effectiveness.
Contact-based interventions can be effective regardless of the partic-
ipants’ ethnic status, yet the results show a slightly bigger effect of inter-
ventions on ethnic majority students. This difference may be explained by
ethnic minority children already having favourable attitudes towards eth-
nic majority members. Yet this proposed explanation cannot be applied to
the results of an intervention executed in an Israeli-Palestinian context (i.e.
Berger et al., 2016) because studies have shown that Palestinians, an ethnic
minority, hold similar negative beliefs towards ethnic majority members,
Israeli Jews, as they have toward them (Bar-Tal, 1996; Brenick et al., 2010).
Another explanation of the general results may be that this effect is
due to most interventions’ primary focus on altering the prejudice of ethnic
majority children (Aboud et al., 2012). In most studies, prejudice expressed
by ethnic majority members towards stigmatised ethnic groups was the
primary target of the intervention, as reflected in the selection of the par-
ticipants (see Table 1), structure and content of the intervention (e.g. leading
discussions on the topics of refugees and explaining their cultural specif-
ics). Subsequently, not much attention was given to measuring and reduc-
ing any potential negative beliefs of ethnic minorities towards ethnic ma-
jority members. Again, this cannot be said for the intervention described
by Berger et al. (2016) since prejudice on both sides was addressed equally
and both groups were treated as equals (e.g. speaking in the native languag-
es of both communities). Still, nothing of substance can be said since the
sample size for mixed ethnic group participants was too small, even though
most studies found that ethnic status is not a significant predictor of inter-
vention effectiveness.
2 Number of studies included in the meta-analysis by Ülger et al. (2018)
192
of ethnic majority (k2 = 40, d+= 0.40, 95% CI [0.17, 0.64]) and minority (k2 =
7, d+= 0.23, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.52]) groups.
Three studies included ethnic minorities. The sample of Berger et al.
(2016) was comprised of 50% ethnic minority students native to their coun-
try of residence. Intervention effectiveness did not differ significantly de-
pending on the participants’ ethnic status, although a slightly bigger re-
duction of the propensity to discriminate for ethnic majority students
was reported compared to ethnic minority students right after the inter-
vention. Recently migrated participants or participants with a migratory
background comprised approximately 26% of the sample in Liebkind et al.
(2013) and Vezzali et al. (2018). Both found ethnic status to be unrelated to
intervention effectiveness.
Contact-based interventions can be effective regardless of the partic-
ipants’ ethnic status, yet the results show a slightly bigger effect of inter-
ventions on ethnic majority students. This difference may be explained by
ethnic minority children already having favourable attitudes towards eth-
nic majority members. Yet this proposed explanation cannot be applied to
the results of an intervention executed in an Israeli-Palestinian context (i.e.
Berger et al., 2016) because studies have shown that Palestinians, an ethnic
minority, hold similar negative beliefs towards ethnic majority members,
Israeli Jews, as they have toward them (Bar-Tal, 1996; Brenick et al., 2010).
Another explanation of the general results may be that this effect is
due to most interventions’ primary focus on altering the prejudice of ethnic
majority children (Aboud et al., 2012). In most studies, prejudice expressed
by ethnic majority members towards stigmatised ethnic groups was the
primary target of the intervention, as reflected in the selection of the par-
ticipants (see Table 1), structure and content of the intervention (e.g. leading
discussions on the topics of refugees and explaining their cultural specif-
ics). Subsequently, not much attention was given to measuring and reduc-
ing any potential negative beliefs of ethnic minorities towards ethnic ma-
jority members. Again, this cannot be said for the intervention described
by Berger et al. (2016) since prejudice on both sides was addressed equally
and both groups were treated as equals (e.g. speaking in the native languag-
es of both communities). Still, nothing of substance can be said since the
sample size for mixed ethnic group participants was too small, even though
most studies found that ethnic status is not a significant predictor of inter-
vention effectiveness.
2 Number of studies included in the meta-analysis by Ülger et al. (2018)
192
