Educational Psychologist

ISSN: 0046-1520 (Print) 1532-6985 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational Settings:

Challenges and Opportunities

Jaana Juvonen, Leah M. Lessard, Ritika Rastogi, Hannah L. Schacter &

Danielle Sayre Smith

To cite this article: Jaana Juvonen, Leah M. Lessard, Ritika Rastogi, Hannah L. Schacter &
Danielle Sayre Smith (2019) Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational Settings: Challenges and
Opportunities, Educational Psychologist, 54:4, 250-270, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645

Published online: 15 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 54(4), 250–270, 2019
Copyright # 2019 Division 15, American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645

Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational

Settings: Challenges and Opportunities
Jaana Juvonen1, Leah M. Lessard2, Ritika Rastogi1, Hannah L. Schacter3,
and Danielle Sayre Smith1
1
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles
2
Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Connecticut
3
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University
The goal of this article is to provide a critical analysis of barriers to social inclusion and
integration in schools and propose inclusive educational practices that help connect and
unite diverse students. Diversity is defined broadly to refer to a range of differences (i.e.,
overall heterogeneity) across students. We review theoretical frameworks that help explain
group dynamics and contextual conditions that contribute to exclusion (i.e., peer victimiza-
tion, rejection, friendlessness) of students based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, body
weight, and so on. We argue that to be able to facilitate inclusion (acceptance by peers,
cross-group friendships), educators and school administrators need to be aware of group
and interpersonal dynamics. They must also comprehend how some common school practi-
ces highlight differences and segregate students in ways that further promote divisions and
reinforce negative stereotypes. We propose proactive school-based practices as “built-in”
preventions to increase social inclusion. Also, relevant intervention approaches are
reviewed. To conclude, we discuss teacher education and professional development and
make recommendations for future research.

In this opening article to the special issue on social inclu- and instructional practices (i.e., the “how”) affect lack of
sion, we approach the topic of inclusion from a social inclusion. Consistent with recent calls for schools to act
developmental perspective. We presume that peer accept- as “agents of change” to reduce bias and discrimination
ance and having friends are developmental necessities— (Losinski, Ennis, Katsiyannis, & Rapa, 2019), we contend
rather than luxuries—that help students do better in school that school administrators and teachers play critical roles
(Ladd, 1990). Although social inclusion does not guaran- in facilitating social inclusion.
tee that students excel academically, their engagement and In this article, social inclusion refers to more than just
performance are easily compromised by experiences of a shared physical space (i.e., attending the same school or
exclusion. It is therefore critical to understand why some classroom). Relying on a developmental perspective (cf.
students are marginalized or isolated in school. Here, we Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2018), we use the term inclu-
focus on contextual accounts of social exclusion. Rather sion to indicate social acceptance by peers and having car-
than presuming that social exclusion is the problem of the ing friends. Accordingly, inclusive climate refers to
rejected, bullied, or friendless, we suggest that environ- environments characterized by positive peer relationships
mental conditions contribute to the marginalization and and intergroup harmony. By focusing on social experien-
isolation of students with stigmatized attributes (e.g., ces and relationships across a range of student identities
those with disabilities, those with overweight) or identities and attributes, we extend prior analyses of inclusion that
(e.g., ethnic minority, immigrant, and sexual minority focus on students’ subjective perceptions of school
youth). We specifically discuss how both the student body belonging. For the purposes of this article, we define
composition (i.e., the “who”) and school organizational diversity broadly to refer to a range of differences (i.e.,
greater heterogeneity) across students. An expansive def-
Correspondence should be addressed to Jaana Juvonen, Department
inition is used to identify commonalities in the school-
of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Portola Plaza, based experiences of youth with a wide range of identities
Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail: [email protected] and attributes, including but not limited to gender,
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 251

ethnicity, social class, immigrant status, sexual orienta- schools fare worse academically. For example, when eth-
tion, and disability status. By focusing on the general, nic minority students contend with discrimination and
rather than group-specific or unique, challenges (see mistreatment by their schoolmates, they become less
Gray, Hope, & Matthews, 2018) facing diverse students, engaged and more likely to drop out of school (Uma~na-
we are not implying that the aforementioned social identi- Taylor, 2016). Similarly, sexual minority youth, who
ties and individual attributes are all the same. Rather, our experience greater school-based social isolation relative to
goal is to “still the waters” to be able to identify shared their heterosexual counterparts (Hatzenbuehler,
issues across a wide array of groups. Specifically, we seek McLaughlin, & Xuan, 2012), are more frequently absent
to understand some of the conceptually consistent envir- and have lower expectations for educational attainment
onmental predictors of exclusion (as opposed to inconsist- compared to their heterosexual peers (Aragon, Poteat,
ent predictors that vary across groups and stigmatized Espelage, & Koenig, 2014). Also, students with over-
attributes; cf. Brandt & Crawford, 2019), with the goal of weight are overrepresented as friendless (Strauss &
identifying educational policies and practices that can Pollack, 2003), receive lower grades, and are less likely to
facilitate the social inclusion of all youth. attend college than their peers (Crosnoe, 2007; Crosnoe &
To make a case for why social inclusion matters in K- Muller, 2004). Although there is not necessarily research
12 schools, we start this article by briefly reviewing the documenting all the links between lack of social inclusion
educational costs (e.g., academic disengagement, lower and school performance for each of the aforementioned
grades) associated with peer victimization, social rejec- groups of students, the following summary sheds light on
tion, and friendlessness. Relying on multiple theoretical the general processes by which exclusion impairs aca-
frameworks and concepts, we then identify reasons why demic success. We summarize the research on social
different groups of students (e.g., boys and girls, different exclusion separately for peer victimization, rejection, and
ethnic groups) are not necessarily socially integrated and friendlessness because these topics are typically studied in
why particular students (e.g., sexual minorities and stu- isolation, although the experiences frequently overlap
dents with overweight) are at higher risk for peer victim- (i.e., victimized or bullied students are also rejected and
ization and social isolation than others. That is, we friendless). The premise of the following summary is that
describe the challenging peer dynamics that easily unfold academic difficulties often reflect students’ negative social
“organically” unless they are disrupted. In the next sec- experiences in school.
tion, we address environmental reasons for lack of social
inclusion by reviewing commonly implemented organiza- Peer Victimization
tional and instructional practices in K-12 schools (e.g.,
academic tracking, resource rooms) that highlight differ- School can be a very unpleasant place for students who
ences and separate groups of students. are bullied or victimized by their classmates. Peer victim-
Following analyses of problematic school practices, we ization experiences—ranging from covert rumors to overt
discuss ways to facilitate social inclusion in school set- name-calling and physical aggression—are potent stres-
tings. Based on theories and empirical evidence, specific sors for school-age youth (Juvonen & Graham, 2014) and
practices are suggested as “built-in” preventions (e.g., take a toll on students’ academic performance (Nakamoto
instructional approaches, providing extracurricular & Schwartz, 2010). For example, students who are bullied
options) that help unite diverse students. Specifically, by their peers are absent from school more frequently and
teachers’ and school administrators’ awareness and sensi- receive lower grades in elementary (van Lier et al., 2012)
tivity to situations that potentially divide and marginalize and secondary (Ladd, Ettekal, & Kochenderfer-Ladd,
students are highlighted (Gray et al., 2018). Finally, we 2017) school.
summarize several promising intervention and curriculum- Several potential pathways from victimization to aca-
based approaches for schools to facilitate social inclusion, demic outcomes have been proposed and tested in past
prevent exclusion, and provide recommendations for research. First, when students are made fun of or called
future research and inclusive educational practices. names, they typically experience emotional distress that
can explain why they fall behind academically. Findings
have shown that experiences of peer victimization predict
SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND loneliness, depression, and low self-worth, and such dis-
SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT tress indicators in turn predict poorer grade point averages
and test scores in elementary school (Schwartz, Gorman,
Students’ academic and social lives are integrally inter- Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005) as well as increased truancy,
twined (Juvonen & Wentzel, 1996), and therefore lack of absences, and lower grades in middle school (Juvonen,
inclusion can have significant educational costs. Indeed, Nishina, & Graham, 2000). Such patterns may also
students who are relegated to the social margins of their become cyclical, as suggested by studies documenting
252 JUVONEN ET AL.

low achievement as a precursor to peer victimization of a particular peer. Consistent with the findings of
(Estell et al., 2009) and subsequent distress symptoms research on peer victimization, students who are rejected
over time (Vaillancourt, Brittain, McDougall, & Duku, are unlikely to engage in class. Elementary school stu-
2013). Another potential pathway from victimization to dents who are rejected by their classmates display lower
academic problems is through physical health. Bullied classroom participation, demonstrate greater school avoid-
youth experience greater somatic complaints (e.g., head- ance (Ladd, Herald-Brown, & Reiser, 2008), and receive
aches) and other physical ailments that increase school lower grades (Buhs et al., 2006). Rejected preadolescents,
absences and disrupt learning processes (Gini & Pozzoli, compared with their more accepted peers, are also more
2013; Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005). likely to subsequently drop out of school (Ollendick,
In addition, peer victimization experiences affect stu- Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992).
dents’ cognitive resources, in turn interfering with their There are multiple ways to interpret the links between
ability to adapt to, and engage with, the demands of rejection and compromised academic outcomes. Peer
school (Schwartz et al., 2005). For example, with a bully rejection may indicate underlying behavioral (e.g., aggres-
present in the classroom, concern for ridicule and humili- sive behaviors) or psychological (e.g., emotion regulation
ation may preoccupy victimized children to the point that difficulties or impulsivity; Parker & Asher, 1987) prob-
they cannot focus on instruction. Such hypervigilance and lems. Indeed, rejected youth display a range of disruptive
negative expectations can, in turn, significantly impede behaviors (specifically aggression in early and middle
academic performance. Indeed, starting in the elementary childhood; Asher & Coie, 1990), and aggressive-rejected
grades, bullied children exhibit lower levels of effortful students are often academically disengaged (Wentzel &
control (Iyer, Kochenderfer-Ladd, Eisenberg, & Asher, 1995). Moreover, because aggression is associated
Thompson, 2010) and greater difficulty focusing on with school disengagement—independent of peer rejection
school tasks (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). In one study (e.g., Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006)—
following students from kindergarten through fifth grade, rejection may amplify the risks associated with behavioral
lack of classroom participation and increased school or emotional difficulties affecting academic disengage-
avoidance explained why earlier peer victimization pre- ment (Juvonen, 2006). For example, when classmates
dicted lower test scores (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006). leave an emotionally reactive classmate out of a group or
Some students experience greater risk for peer victim- an activity, the student is likely to get more dysregulated
ization than others, and particular groups of students and be unable to focus on schoolwork. Similarly, experi-
experience mistreatment and, in turn, academic difficul- ences of rejection among anxious or depressed students
ties, because of their social identities. For example, youth can exacerbate low self-esteem in ways that make them
exposed to peer racial discrimination at school display withdraw from, rather than engage in, classroom activities
lower levels of interest in school (Chavous, Rivas-Drake, (cf. Lopez & DuBois, 2005).
Smalls, Griffin, & Cogburn, 2008) and have lower grade There are also other attributes and identities, besides
point averages in high school (Huynh & Fuligni, 2010). aggressive behaviors and emotional dysregulation, that
Also, middle and high school victims of homophobic increase risk for peer rejection because of societal stigma.
bullying report lower grades, greater truancy, and lower For example, even as early as first grade, children have
perceived importance of graduating; these effects are been shown to reject peers with overweight (Goldfield &
explained in part by increases in suicidality and decreased Chrisler, 1995). By adolescence, more than two thirds of
school belonging (Poteat et al., 2011). Notably, the afore- youth have witnessed students with overweight being
mentioned effects of homophobic victimization were ignored or avoided in school (Puhl, Luedicke, & Heuer,
documented over and above overall/general victimization, 2011). High school students also report that it is more
suggesting that there may be particularly negative social- acceptable to exclude peers who are gay or lesbian, as
emotional and academic consequences of identity- or opposed to those who are straight (Heinze & Horn, 2014).
bias-based harassment experiences (see also Mulvey et al., In addition, immigrant youth experience greater rejection
2018). Being targeted by peers on the basis of uncontrol- by peers compared to their native-born classmates (Plenty
lable and/or stable personal characteristics (e.g., race, & Jonsson, 2017).
sexual orientation) may heighten students’ feelings of
self-blame and corresponding distress (Graham & Friendlessness
Juvonen, 1998).
Although many rejected and bullied students lack friends
Peer Rejection (Boulton, Trueman, Chau, Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999),
friendlessness can independently contribute to under-
Peer rejection refers to low social status in a classroom, achievement. Although few studies have directly assessed
typically manifesting in classmates’ dislike and avoidance friendlessness (see Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004 for
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 253

exception), research documenting how friends enhance Latner, 2007) leave youth with higher weight even fewer
school-related adjustment sheds light on the potential aca- options for academic assistance when friendless.
demic consequences of lacking friends. As early as kin-
dergarten, friendless students, compared to peers with Summary
friends, are less likely to engage adaptively in class and
are more likely to perform poorly (Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, Taken together, past research demonstrates that certain
1999). By adolescence, having a close pal at school pro- groups of students experience heightened risk for peer
vides youth with the support and confidence to engage victimization, rejection, and friendlessness. Such
academically in ways that facilitate achievement (Hamm social challenges, in turn, are related to school absences,
& Faircloth, 2005). For example, high school students lack of engagement, and low academic performance.
with more in-school friendships receive higher grades, in Victimization by peers increases emotional distress and
part because of greater school engagement (Witkow & somatic problems in ways that contribute to students’ tru-
Fuligni, 2010). Moreover, insofar as friends—especially ancy, disengagement, and inability to focus on learning.
those who are high achieving—serve as sources of aca- Peer rejection is likely to amplify the behaviors that elicit
demic help (Wentzel, Jablansky, & Scalise, 2018; Zander, peer rejection in the first place (aggression, emotion regu-
Chen, & Hannover, 2019), friendlessness can hinder lation difficulties, etc.), thereby interfering with learning.
access to school-related information critical for educa- Lack of friends, in turn, restricts opportunities to seek and
tional success. gain academic support from classmates. Regardless of the
Students with no friends receive lower grades and are specific pathways, it is critical to understand that when
less academically engaged compared to those with even ethnic minority and immigrant students, sexual and gender
just one friend (Ladd, 1990; Wentzel et al., 2004). minority youth, and children with overweight fare worse
Although some friendless youth may be preoccupied with academically, it is likely that their negative social experi-
attempts to gain acceptance and establish friendships at ences at least partly contribute to lack of engagement and
lower achievement. To understand why certain groups of
the expense of investment in academic work, others are
youth experience heightened risk for social mistreatment
likely to disengage and withdraw from school because of
and academic maladjustment—and in which contexts they
psychological distress (e.g., loneliness, depression; Ladd
may be particularly susceptible—we now turn to theoret-
& Troop-Gordon, 2003; Witvliet, Brendgen, van Lier,
ical and conceptual accounts that explain social exclusion.
Koot, & Vitaro, 2010). Indeed, friendless youths’ height-
ened perceptions of social threat and unsafety at school
(Lessard & Juvonen, 2018) can compromise focus on
CONCEPTUAL ACCOUNTS FOR PEER
school-related tasks and contribute to school disengage-
EXCLUSION AT SCHOOL
ment. Even when students who lack friends are able to
stay academically motivated, their isolated status limits Rather than assuming that there is something inherently
access to the direct academic help and support from peers problematic about the excluded students, here we shed
that is increasingly important across high school. light on social processes and contextual factors that help
Although students can compensate for lack of aca- account for why classmates bully, reject, and avoid
demic support from friends with academic support from befriending some of their peers. In so doing, social exclu-
other sources (e.g., parents, teachers), not all students sion is approached mainly from the perspective of those
have such opportunities. For example, parents who have who show prejudice toward, avoid, and mistreat their
not graduated from high school or immigrant parents with peers, although we also discuss the ways in which student
limited English proficiency may not be in a position to fears or concerns about exclusion further promote divi-
help with their children’s homework in middle or high sions. We consider both intra- and intergroup processes
school (Cooper, Chavira, & Mena, 2005). Alternatively, (cf. Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003; Rutland,
some students may hesitate to approach teachers. Nesdale, & Brown, 2017) and highlight social context-
Immigrant or ethnic minority students, for example, may ual factors.
be concerned that help-seeking from teachers would
reinforce negative stereotypes about them (e.g., Preference for Similar Others
Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007), and sexual and gender minor-
ity youth avoid approaching their teachers because they Starting from an early age, children show robust ingroup
anticipate being treated in a biased manner (Poteat, favoritism—that is, they prefer the group(s) they belong
Scheer, & Mereish, 2014). Similarly, teachers’ and to more than any other group (Hailey & Olson, 2013).
parents’ stereotypic expectations that students with over- Although ingroup favoritism does not imply that children
weight are lazy, unsuccessful, and unintelligent (Puhl & are prejudiced against outgroups (Allport, 1954), the
254 JUVONEN ET AL.

behavioral manifestations of it may look like exclusion. school. For example, by ridiculing an overweight class-
Brewer (1999) captured this idea well, as she suggested mate, high-status bullies make weight norms salient, as
that forms of bias may develop not because of hate, but they determine who is “in versus out” (cf. Juvonen &
because positive feelings and actions (e.g., helping, car- Galvan, 2009). We have examined such norm “policing”
ing for) are withheld from outgroup members. Consistent for body weight (Juvonen, Lessard, Schacter, & Enders,
with ingroup favoritism, individuals affiliate with similar 2018) and gender typicality (Smith, Schacter, Enders, &
others (i.e., McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). In Juvonen, 2018) across urban middle schools. Our findings
diverse settings, such homophily (“birds of a feather show that schools vary in the degree to which specific
flocking together”) often then divides groups (Stark & attributes are targeted and that norm policing matters over
Flache, 2012). That is, students sort themselves into and above school-level peer victimization. For example,
groups that are often more homogeneous than the over- controlling for school-level victimization and students’
all setting. victim reputations, the loneliness of students with a higher
In settings where some students are not part of the weight (for their age and gender) is intensified in schools
main groups (e.g., transgender students), homophily of with stronger weight policing (Juvonen, Lessard, et al.,
other groups can result in their marginalization or isola- 2018). Similarly, gender policing amplifies the social anx-
tion. For example, small numerical minority groups may iety and loneliness of boys who do not see themselves as
“hunker down” and not seek the company of others gender typical (Smith et al., 2018). Also, in schools with
because they are concerned about not being accepted. stronger policing of gender norms, boys report higher
Indeed, ingroup friend selection is intensified for racial depressed mood regardless of their gender typicality.
minorities when they are small in number (Quillian & Thus, exclusion of students with particular characteristics
Campbell, 2003). Students with stigmatized identities or makes specific norms salient, thereby increasing
attributes, in turn, easily become socially isolated because conformity pressures that adversely affect the emotional
they do not find refuge in similar others. For example, well-being of students who merely observe such
students with obesity display a negative bias toward obes- norm policing.
ity, similar to their nonoverweight peers (Cramer & Also, the basic social structure of schools and class-
Steinwert, 1998). Thus, exclusion frequently involves rooms affects exclusionary behaviors. Although some
ingroup preferences, homophily, negative expectations of school contexts are fairly egalitarian, in other settings
others’ reactions, and self-protective biases. there are great differences in—or greater dispersion of—
social status, implying a more hierarchical structure of
Social Norms peer relationships (e.g., Faris & Felmlee, 2011;
Garandeau, Lee, & Salmivalli, 2014). Garandeau et al.
Social norms or expectations of how classmates should— (2014) specifically showed that greater hierarchical class-
and should not—act also help account for social exclusion. room structure predicts increased aggression over time. In
For example, lack of person–group fit (Wright, other words, greater imbalance of power encourages the
Giammarino, & Parad, 1986) predicts peer rejection. abuse of power (i.e., aggression) at the expense of
Testing such a mismatch effect, researchers manipulate the the excluded.
behavioral composition of small groups to observe how
children react to someone who deviates from the behav- Intergroup Dynamics
ioral norm. For example, aggressive boys in nonaggressive
groups and socially withdrawn boys in aggressive groups In addition to considering ingroup biases and social norms
are most likely to be rejected (Wright et al., 1986). These within classrooms and schools, it is also critical to under-
experimental findings have been replicated by relying on stand how relations across groups are associated with
natural variations in social behaviors across classrooms. exclusion. Lack of physical proximity and absence of
For example, across more than 130 first-grade classrooms, positive contact with diverse peers heightens ingroup
aggressive students were less included in settings with favoritism and contribute to outgroup prejudice (Allport,
lower average levels of aggression, compared to class- 1954), thereby exacerbating divisions between groups.
rooms with higher levels of aggressive behaviors (i.e., That is, when schools admit or select (either explicitly or
when such conduct was more normative; Stormshak, implicitly) students based on gender, race, or social class,
Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, & Coie, 1999). there are few opportunities to get to know diverse peers.
Social norms are also dictated by peers who have high Even in settings with a diverse representation of students
social status. Popular students are influential (Brechwald from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, students
& Prinstein, 2011) and therefore in a position to shape with and without disabilities, and so on, outgroup preju-
what is considered desirable (e.g., Dijkstra & Gest, 2015) dice can be maintained when students lack positive inter-
as well as what is not tolerated within a classroom or actions with one another. However, creating opportunities
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 255

for contact requires more than simply placing students conflict with goals for social inclusion. Organizational
from different groups in the same classroom, because of practices refer to how schools group students for instruc-
the aforementioned biases toward one’s own group. tional purposes based on their level of performance or
Allport (1954) identified conditions that hinder positive educational needs. Teacher behaviors include creating
intergroup relations. When groups have unequal status, goal structures that increase competition and relying on
students are particularly unlikely to interact across groups practices that highlight differences between groups or
in ways that help reduce prejudice and exclusionary marginalize specific groups of students. We provide a crit-
behaviors. One might conceptualize and operationalize ical analysis of some commonly used practices from the
power or status in several ways: based on societal pos- perspective of social inclusion, recognizing that schools
ition, social status, or popularity within a classroom, or and teachers rely on such strategies for practical peda-
numerical representation in a given context. Social exclu- gogical reasons or because of inadequate training or
sion of outgroup members is also facilitated when groups resources. Regardless, schools need to be aware of the
(are presumed to) compete with one another and when downsides of their efforts if their goal is indeed to pro-
authorities do not positively sanction intergroup interac- mote diversity and inclusion.
tions (Allport, 1954). Competition implies that for one
group to gain or succeed, another must lose or fail. Thus, Organizational Practices
competitors pose a threat. According to Allport (1954),
such group dynamics are likely to arise in settings when A number of school organization practices group similar
authority figures do not make any effort to sanction posi- students for instructional purposes. In practice, such
tive intergroup contact. We return to the discussion of the grouping strategies divide students in ways that decrease
conditions of suboptimal and optimal intergroup contact exposure to and physical proximity with other students,
in the subsequent sections of this article. thereby preventing the development of friendships
(Juvonen, 2018). Moreover, instructional practices that
Summary distance groups are problematic as lack of cross-group
interaction maintains stereotypes and negative attitudes
Taken together, there are multiple theoretical and concep- (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). In particular, academic
tual accounts for social exclusion in school contexts. tracking, second-language learner programs, and some
Students of all ages gravitate toward similar peers and special education practices warrant closer inspection.
away from dissimilar classmates, thereby contributing to Academic tracking is the practice of sorting students
lack of integration. Increased homophily does not promote into different “tracks” of coursework based on perceived
inclusion for small groups (e.g., minority ethnic groups) differences in academic competency or ability (Donelan,
and students with stigmatized identities and attributes. In Neal, & Jones, 1994). Although early advocates of the
addition, youth who do not behaviorally “fit in” with class- practice argued that tracking ensures better-quality
room behavioral norms, and particularly those who are bul- instruction and gains in student achievement (e.g., Scott,
lied, remain on the social margins. When bullying targets 1993), the more recent findings based on evidence across
certain attributes (looks or behaviors), the norms of what is 40 countries are mixed (Chiu, Chow, & Joh, 2017). From
not accepted or tolerated become salient and increase con- an intergroup relations perspective, the social ramifica-
formity pressures. Finally, lack of contact and competition tions of tracking are highly questionable given that a dis-
maintain prejudice and therefore result in exclusionary proportionate number of Black and Latino students are
behaviors, especially when instructors do not encourage assigned to lower tracks, relative to White and Asian stu-
cross-groups interactions and relationships. It is critical dents in American schools (Oakes, 2005). Such segrega-
that teachers and school administrators comprehend all tion limits the opportunities for students to interact with
these dynamics to be able to prevent and decrease social one another, precluding them from befriending ethnic out-
exclusion. Moreover, educators need to see how certain group peers (Moody, 2001). Moreover, because tracking
school practices make some of these dynamics worse. tends to reify stereotypes, biases, and status differences
between ethnic groups (Bigler & Liben, 2007; Lee, 1996),
it is likely to increase intergroup divisions.
SCHOOL PRACTICES THAT HIGHLIGHT Similar issues apply to second-language learner pro-
DIFFERENCES AND SEGREGATE STUDENTS grams that separate students for instructional purposes.
Although intended to improve linguistic minority stu-
As just discussed, fostering inclusion with a diverse stu- dents’ English proficiency, both English-language learner
dent body poses many challenges for teachers and school programs and two-way immersion (i.e., bilingual) pro-
administrators. In this section, we provide examples of grams can codify structural inequalities within schools.
school organizational practices and teacher behaviors that For example, English-language learner programs often
256 JUVONEN ET AL.

function to isolate linguistic minority youth from the achievement orientations may be justifiable, they do not
broader student body at school (Cordova & Cervantes, facilitate social inclusion (Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson,
2010; Katz, 1999). Bilingual programs, in contrast, adopt 2008). The negative social ramifications of individualis-
an asset-based approach by framing language education as tic and competitive goal orientations can be understood
“enrichment—rather than remediation” (Cervantes-Soon from the perspective of social interdependence theory
et al., 2017, p. 407). In these programs, both native and (Deutsch & Krauss, 1965). When students focus on
non-native English speakers are included, creating oppor- their own work and improvement, they are not con-
tunities for cross-group interactions. It is in the implemen- cerned for the welfare or achievement of others (Roseth
tation of these programs that inequities arise; with an et al., 2008). Competition, in turn, creates negative
overrepresentation of White English-speaking children interdependencies (Deutsch & Krauss, 1965), wherein
relative to youth of Color (Palmer, 2010), the numerical one student’s achievement detracts from, rather than
imbalance heightens the power differentials. When lin- contributes to, another student’s success. Although
guistic minority youth are viewed as less capable, such teachers may not explicitly foster competitiveness, they
programs increase the risk of school-based discrimination may nevertheless rely on normative—as opposed criter-
(Cordova & Cervantes, 2010). ion-based—evaluation methods (i.e., grading on the
Much like academic tracking and second-language curve) that emphasize social comparisons. When stu-
learner programs, separating students for special educa- dents try to outperform one another, oppositional inter-
tion is presumed to facilitate schools’ ability to provide actions and aggression increase (DeRosier, Cillessen,
them with more individualized instruction (Bauer, Coie, & Dodge, 1994). Thus, neither competitive nor
1994). Currently, youth receiving special education serv- individualistic goal orientations help facilitate
ices receive instruction in the least restrictive environ- social inclusion.
ment appropriate to their needs, based on federal At times, teachers also rely on everyday practices that
guidelines (see Farmer, Hamm, Dawes, Barko-Alva, & call attention to groups in ways that make differences sali-
Cross, 2019/this issue). Students with special needs are ent. For example, teachers may greet students by saying,
often placed in small numbers across general education “Good morning, boys and girls” or asking boys and girls
classrooms and receive individualized instruction in to line up in separate parts of the classroom. This practice
resource rooms that separate them from their classmates implies functional use of categories (Bigler, 1995).
for part of the day. This is in contrast to alternative Although splitting classes by gender is often done out of
practices such as placing a larger proportion of students convenience, as it provides a rough half-and-half split, the
with learning disabilities in a general education class- practice nonetheless often draws attention to gender in
room and having a general education teacher and a spe- ways that impede gender integration.
cial education teacher coteach the class. In such Finally, another way that teachers and school adminis-
integrated settings, students with and without special trators perpetuate negative stereotypes is through discip-
needs perform better academically compared to typical linary action. Teachers are more likely to display bias
practices (Bear & Proctor, 1990), and students with spe- toward ethnic minority students for exhibiting antagonistic
cial needs are as socially accepted as their general edu- behaviors than toward White students for displaying the
cation peers (Juvonen & Bear, 1992). Thus, although very same behaviors (Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015). For
well-intentioned from instructional perspectives, organ- instance, Black students are 2 to 3 times more likely to be
izational practices that place students in small numbers suspended than their non-Black peers (Gregory et al.,
across classrooms and separate them for part of the day 2016). Disproportionate discipline affects other marginal-
highlight their special needs in ways that are likely to ized groups as well—for example, sexual minority girls
hinder peer acceptance and the development of (Mittleman, 2018) and students in special education
friendships. (Sullivan, Van Norman, & Klingbeil, 2014). Observing
teachers discipline certain groups of students more fre-
Teacher Behaviors quently than others is likely to strengthen negative stereo-
types in ways that affect how students relate to one
Classrooms vary in how students are expected to learn another (cf. Bigler & Liben, 2007).
and achieve, which in turn affects how they relate to In sum, teacher actions—whether intentional (e.g., fos-
their classmates. For example, teachers may emphasize tering particular classroom goal structures) or uninten-
individualistic goals (i.e., personal growth and improve- tional (e.g., functional use of categories)—have
ment over time), or they may entice students to work consequences for how students relate to one another. The
hard by highlighting their standing relative to that of question, then, is how teachers can promote equitable
their classmates. Although from a motivational perspec- treatment while recognizing the individual differences and
tive, individualistic and competitive goal structures or needs of their students.
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 257

OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE ethnic groups relatively similar in size) is associated with

SOCIAL INCLUSION students feeling safer, less bullied, and less lonely
(Juvonen, Kogachi, & Graham, 2018; Juvonen, Nishina,
As just discussed, lack of inclusion is likely to arise & Graham, 2006). We presume that in settings with high
unless school administrators and educators disrupt typical levels of diversity, it is easier for all students to “fit in.”
social dynamics (e.g., homophily) and avoid instructional Hence, they feel less socially vulnerable. One question is
practices that highlight differences and segregate groups whether the ethnic diversity findings replicate across other
of students. To facilitate social inclusion, we propose that types of diversity. Thus far, we have extended our analy-
students fare best when schools take a proactive approach ses to study school-based body weight diversity and aca-
to maximizing cross-group contact and purposefully facili- demic performance. Although youth with higher body
tating positive peer interactions and relationships across weight are likely to be marginalized and mistreated by
diverse students. Figure 1 captures the main elements of their peers (Puhl & Latner, 2007) as well as at heightened
our proactive inclusion model. We propose that at the risk for academic difficulties (e.g., Crosnoe, 2007), we
school level, the diversity of the student body needs to be find that weight is unrelated to achievement scores in
maximized (see also Nishina, Lewis, Bellmore, & schools with greater variation in body weight (Lessard &
Witkow, 2019/this issue). Additionally, inclusive strat- Juvonen, 2019a). These findings suggest that greater
egies need to be implemented to increase student opportu- exposure to diverse body shapes and sizes functions as a
nities to connect with dissimilar peers within schools. stigma-reduction mechanism that, in turn, reduces weight-
Next we provide scientific rationale and practical exam- based achievement disparities. Taken together, there are
ples for the four strategies that facilitate social inclusion: multiple reasons to maximize the overall diversity of the
(a) maximizing diversity and ensuring equitable access, student body.
(b) increasing teachers’ awareness and use of inclusive Our research on ethnic diversity also suggests that stu-
strategies, (c) promoting shared goals outside of the class- dents are sensitive to possible structural biases related to
room context, and (d) facilitating cross-group friendships. numerical representation. When considering whether the
ethnic diversity of their classes reflects the overall school
Maximize Diversity and Ensure Equitable Access composition, we found that the positive effects of school-
level diversity on outgroup attitudes and teachers’ fair
As mentioned earlier, providing opportunities for positive treatment no longer held when students were enrolled in
and sustained interactions across groups is critical in classes less diverse than their schools (as may be the case
reducing stereotypes and negative biases toward diverse when academic tracking is used; Juvonen, Kogachi, et al.,
peers. In addition, our research on urban middle schools 2018). These findings suggest how greater overall diver-
demonstrates that greater ethnic diversity (i.e., multiple sity is maximally beneficial when it reflects equitable
practices. Therefore, schools need to carefully monitor the
equitable access and the fairness of their practices
across groups.
In schools with less overall diversity, it is particularly
important to be sensitive to the classroom placement of
youth with potentially stigmatized identities or attributes
(e.g., proportion of students of any ethnic minority group,
students with special needs). As mentioned earlier, when
the representation of any one group is very low in a class-
room, students from that group likely face greater chal-
lenge to be socially accepted by classmates. Also, a recent
review (DuPont-Reyes & Villatoro, 2019) suggests that
ethnic minority students have fewer mental health prob-
lems when their group is larger. Monitoring the relative
representation of any one group at a time is relevant when
considering whether students are fairly distributed across
classes (e.g., in advanced and remedial classes), relative
to their overall size within a school (Moore & Slate,
2008). Such assessments can highlight important inequal-
ities in access that affect students’ sense of inclusion.
FIGURE 1 Proactive approaches for schools to promote Similarly, school administrators need to monitor whether
social inclusion. students of different ethnic groups, genders, language
258 JUVONEN ET AL.

backgrounds, and socioeconomic status (SES) groups are One challenge in effectively promoting inclusion
disproportionately disciplined. through cooperative learning is forming working groups
Identifying disparities is the first step in targeting the that break down homophily but avoid creating negative
source of those disparities. In some cases, policies and intergroup interactions. Imposing contact between students
processes for course enrollment, referrals for special edu- who belong to different friend groups can exacerbate per-
cation, and disciplinary strategies may need to be ques- ceived differences (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009).
tioned and changed. In other cases, the issue may not be To be able to create effective learning groups, teachers
policy but rather professional development. Professional must therefore be highly aware of the social relations
development is especially critical when certain types of among their students; yet, accurate understanding of class-
disparities are difficult to measure. For example, although room social dynamics can be difficult to attain. For
sexual minority youth—particularly girls—appear to example, teachers’ perceptions of who in their classes acts
receive disproportionate disciplinary referrals (Mittleman, aggressively toward others are easily biased by their per-
2018), information on students’ sexual orientation is ceptions of students’ popularity, athleticism, or distress
unlikely to be available to schools. Given that sexual symptoms (Dawes et al., 2017). Thus, cooperative learn-
orientation is rarely addressed in teacher education ing is potentially a highly effective tool to promote both
(Jennings, 2007), instructors are less likely to be aware of academic and social outcomes, but it needs to be used
such disciplinary biases. Hence, it is vital that both admin- with careful and continued monitoring of group dynamics.
istrators and teachers are sensitive to students’ social iden- Sensitive awareness of social relations can be used to
tities and attributes that bias reactions of not only peers manipulate the classroom social structure beyond the use
but also teachers. of cooperative learning as well. If teachers are aware of
patterns of friendship, bullying and victimization, and so
Increase Teacher Awareness and Use of forth, they may be able to provide individualized attention
Inclusive Strategies and structure classrooms in ways that make social status
less relevant or reduce disparities in status. For example,
Beyond assisting school administrators to better under- they might provide aggressive children with positive
stand, monitor, and facilitate greater numerical representa- classroom roles, or foster opportunities to form friend-
tion across settings, and increasing teacher sensitivities to ships among students who are isolated or marginalized—
negative biases, instructors are also in a position to facili- strategies that, in turn, improve students’ sense of commu-
tate optimal conditions for contact between their nity with peers (Gest, Madill, Zadzora, Miller, & Rodkin,
students—that is, to foster cooperation, promote equal sta- 2014). These concepts of teacher attunement and manage-
tus, and support positive cross-group interactions (Allport, ment of social dynamics, discussed by Farmer and
1954). One of the best-documented instructional methods colleagues (2019/this issue), provide a framework through
to facilitate inclusion involves cooperative learning. which teachers can promote social inclusion in their class-
Relative to competitive or individualistic classroom rooms in a manner integrated with their regular
goal structures, cooperative practices are associated with daily activities.
greater acceptance, liking, support, and caring interactions In addition to structuring their classrooms strategically,
among classmates (Roseth et al., 2008). Cooperative teachers and school staff have a critical role in modeling
learning methods, including jigsaw and other group-based inclusive behaviors. Teachers’ attitudes toward students
activities, require input from all group members to make can be seen reflected in peer relations. For example, a
progress toward a common goal, to achieve individual recent study shows how teachers’ liking of particular stu-
and group success (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2013; dents predicts subsequent peer inclusion, which then in
van Ryzin & Roseth, 2018). When teachers strategically turn predicts academic achievement in upper elementary
group students, they capitalize on positive interdepend- school (Sette, Gasser, & Gr€utter, 2019). Also, teachers’
ence to improve intergroup relations and inclusion. use of inclusive language is important. Earlier we dis-
Cooperative learning is robustly associated with the for- cussed how referring to groups as “boys and girls” rein-
mation of cross-group friendships across gender, ethnicity, forces gender categories as important distinctions (e.g.,
SES, and ability status (Slavin, 1995). Such positive find- Hilliard & Liben, 2010). If instead teachers rely on neutral
ings partly reflect perspective taking (Ziegler, 1981)—one language (e.g., refer to “students”), they do not draw
key element assumed to contribute to prejudice reduction. attention to gender categories and therefore do not exacer-
Further, in addition to helping lower prejudice across bate existing divisions between boys and girls. Gender
groups, cooperative learning has been shown to reduce neutral language is particularly important in that it does
bullying behaviors, peer victimization experiences, and not exclude youth who identify as nonbinary, genderqu-
perceived stress among marginalized students in middle eer, gender fluid, and so on. Likewise, teachers can model
school (van Ryzin & Roseth, 2018). use of correct pronouns for their gender minority students.
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 259

Leading the class in using transgender and nonbinary activities in ethnically diverse middle schools, we find
youths’ chosen names may reduce those students’ depres- that cross-ethnic friendships in extracurricular activities
sive symptoms and suicidal ideation (Russell, Pollitt, Li, mediate, in part, the positive association between general
& Grossman, 2018). cross-ethnic contact in extracurricular activities, and atti-
In some cases, modeling of inclusive practices may not tudes toward ethnic outgroups (Knifsend & Juvonen,
be enough, and direct interventions are needed. For 2017). Research is scarce on extracurricular activities and
example, sexual and gender minority youth experience intergroup relations related to identities other than race or
high rates of victimization and verbal harassment from ethnicity. However, theoretically, this type of positive
peers as well as adults at school, and they report school impact should generalize to other identities as long as
personnel rarely intervening (Kosciw, Greytak, Zongrone, activities attract diverse students. Youth with overweight,
Clark, & Truong, 2018). Lack of teacher intervention fre- for example, experience low acceptance from peers but
quently reflects inadequate training. For example, lack of become increasingly accepted over time if they are
knowledge is a barrier for instructors to support sexual involved in extracurricular programs (Mahoney, Lord, &
and gender minority students: More than half of surveyed Carryl, 2005).
teachers say that they do not know how or when to inter- To achieve positive intergroup benefits through extra-
vene in harassment situations, and more than one third curricular activities, various groups of students need equal
cite lack of administrative support as a barrier (Swanson access. For example, low-income students are less likely to
& Gettinger, 2016). Such findings reinforce an important participate in extracurricular activities compared with their
issue: When the weight of promoting inclusion falls on peers from wealthier homes (Pedersen & Seidman, 2005),
teachers, they must receive both training and administra- particularly if they live farther away from their school
tive support. (Malacarne, 2017). Steps such as providing transportation
(e.g., bus passes if public transportation is available) and
Promote Shared Goals Outside Classroom Context limiting out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., engaging in group
fund-raising activities for necessary materials) are critical
In addition to teachers’ awareness and in-class activities to equalize access. Access may also be affected by policies
that promote social inclusion, activities outside the class- (e.g., tryouts for competitive activities or gender-segre-
room can be used to foster connections between students gated sport teams) as well as social norms. For example,
across different groups in a number of ways. dancing tends to be a gendered activity, with boys who par-
Extracurricular activities—particularly those that attract ticipate often being subjected to ridicule from peers
students across groups—as well as alliances or inclusion- (Risner, 2014). Similarly, students of different ethnic back-
oriented clubs that are specifically designed to bridge grounds may feel that they will be less welcome in certain
across groups help all students connect with peers. athletic activities (Bopp, Turick, Vadeboncoeur, & Aicher,
Extracurricular activities, such as sports and perform- 2017). Students with overweight, in turn, are deterred from
ing arts, provide an ideal context for promoting positive physically active extracurricular activities because of high
interdependence and peer relations within schools. Youth rates of teasing (Puhl et al., 2011). Finally, students with
often select which clubs or activities they wish to join special needs have low participation rates in extracurricular
based on shared interests, making them ideal for promot- activities (Agran et al., 2017). One reason for their under-
ing friendship formation through increased proximity and engagement is that they may need more support (i.e., more
awareness of similar interests. Extracurricular activities explicit instruction and a high level of structure) to engage
that explicitly encourage, or require, peer collaboration in these activities alongside students without disabilities
(e.g., team sports, drama, chorus, or orchestra) provide (Strand & Kreiner, 2005). Thus, school personnel must be
particularly important opportunities for youth to work vigilant about a range of obstacles that prevent students
together toward common goals (Fredricks & Simpkins, from joining particular groups and remove these obstacles
2013). Hence, activity involvement that relies on joint when possible.
effort is especially likely to facilitate positive peer inter- Schools can facilitate better intergroup relations by
actions and friendships. also promoting inclusion-oriented clubs and alliances.
In addition to promoting friendship in general, extra- One strong example of a club with shared concern and
curricular activities can facilitate more positive intergroup agenda is gay–straight alliances (GSAs). These alliances
relations (Fredricks & Simpkins, 2013; Knifsend & typically include both sexual and gender minority youth
Juvonen, 2017). For example, when White high school and students who are supportive of their sexual and gen-
athletes have a greater proportion of Black teammates, der minority peers. As such, GSAs provide safe spaces for
they express more positive intergroup attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities to find ingroup members as
Black Americans in general (Brown, Brown, Jackson, well as allies as they share a common goal of advocacy to
Sellers, & Manuel, 2003). Based on a wide range of address social inequalities based on sexual orientation and
260 JUVONEN ET AL.

gender identity/expression. Having a GSA in school rec- body as possible. Although friendships are frequently
ognizes sexual and gender minority students in an inclu- formed based on shared social identities, such as gender
sive way that is educational for the general student body and ethnicity, similar interests also increase friendship for-
(Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2004). Indeed, youth in mation (McPherson et al., 2001). Indeed, when upper
schools with GSAs report greater belongingness (Toomey elementary school students in ethnically diverse schools
& Russell, 2013) and lower rates of health-compromising are asked whether classmates of different ethnicities are
behaviors than youth in schools without GSAs (Poteat, likely to be friends, they focus on shared activities and
Sinclair, DiGiovanni, Koenig, & Russell, 2013). interests (e.g., McGlothlin & Killen, 2005). Hence, pro-
Some schools also have clubs geared toward increasing viding opportunities for students to get to know one
extracurricular and social opportunities for students with another better through shared activities in and out of class
intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) through is critical to promote inclusion across groups.
buddy programs (e.g., Best Buddies: https://www.bestbud- Of all types of cross-group friendships, most is known
dies.org). Such clubs can reduce the barriers for involve- about cross-ethnic relationships. A number of studies
ment of students with IDD, as noted by Strand and highlight the social-emotional and academic benefits of
Kreiner (2005), by providing increased structure and sup- cross-ethnic friendships among school-age youth. For
port in the design of clubs and activities themselves. For example, students learn important perspective-taking skills
example, “buddies” with and without IDD may be paired, in the context of cross-ethnic friendships (cf. Antonio
giving students ample time to learn and get to know one et al., 2004). In addition, cross-ethnic friendships predict
another through structured social activities designed with higher end-of-year grades in academic classes and higher
accessibility as a priority. teacher expectations (Lewis et al., 2018). Cross-ethnic
In addition to clubs and alliances designed to promote friendships are also associated with a less exclusionary
inclusion of particular groups, schools may have peer school climate (Killen, Clark Kelly, Richardson, Crystal,
mentoring programs that pair, for example, older students & Ruck, 2010), and when school social norms support
with groups of younger mentees (e.g., 11th-grade and cross-ethnic relations, students show greater preference
12th-grade students mentoring incoming ninth graders) to for cross-ethnic friends (Tropp, O’Brien, & Migacheva,
ease the transition into a new school environment. 2014). Thus, although cross-ethnic friendships promote
Although the availability of independent program evalua- more inclusive school climate, relevant social norms also
tions for such extracurricular activities is limited, their influence students’ interest in forming and maintaining
design is supported by theoretical principles of contact friendships with a schoolmate from another ethnic group.
theory (Allport, 1954). In addition to such mentorship Friendships bridging gender (Robnett & Leaper, 2013)
programs bridging grade levels, groups of mentees can be and social class (Lessard & Juvonen, 2019b) are also
constructed to be diverse in terms of ethnicity, gender, associated with higher academic outcomes. Such findings
social class, ability, and so forth. As such, these programs imply that cross-group friendships can function as social
can bring students in contact with peers with whom they capital. Insofar as achievement disparities across SES are
might not otherwise get the opportunity to interact. accounted for by access to differential resources, differ-
However, it should not be presumed that student mentors ence-bridging friendships can help level the academic
can facilitate positive interactions among their mentee playing field. For example, when middle school students
groups without explicit training. have even just one cross-class friend, achievement dispar-
ities based on parental level of education are significantly
Facilitate Cross-Group Friendships reduced (Lessard & Juvonen, 2019b). Functioning as an
academic “equalizer,” cross-class friendships appear to
Pettigrew (1998) proposed that cross-group friendships— increase students’ access to practical academic knowledge
close mutual relationships between youth with different they may not get at home, such as insights on how to
social identities, such as race and gender—are one of the study effectively, and provide new enrichment opportuni-
most effective forms of contact to reduce prejudice ties as well as support for meeting academic challenges.
because such relationships typically involve relatively It should be noted that the benefits of cross-group
equal status, shared goals, and cooperation. Indeed, a friendships are not distributed uniformly across youth
growing body of empirical evidence underscores cross- from all backgrounds. Although the academic benefits of
group friendships as an important social context for the cross-class friendship come at no cost to the achievement
development of higher levels of intergroup sympathy and of youth from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, the
inclusive intentions (e.g., Gr€utter, Gasser, Zuffiano, & effects are particularly robust for lower-SES students
Meyer, 2018). Given that children in the same classrooms (Lessard & Juvonen, 2019b), who frequently lack access
are more likely to become friends (George & Hartmann, to school-related resources (Coleman, 1988). There are
1996), it is critical that each class has as diverse a student similarly asymmetrical effects for cross-ethnic friendships,
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 261

which function more effectively for members of dominant teachers and administrators. Moreover, to adopt a curricu-
groups than for members of societally marginalized lum typically requires time in the school schedule. Here
groups (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). That is, White youth we present some examples of relevant intervention
who report friendships with ethnic minority peers experi- approaches, review their “key ingredients,” and discuss
ence a greater reduction in prejudice toward ethnic out- the relevance of such programs for promoting inclusive
groups than do ethnic minority youth. One factor that may school environments with some caveats.
contribute to such an asymmetry is that the optimal condi-
tions for contact are easier to meet from the perspective Antibias, Intergroup Contact, and Social Norm
of a higher status group individual (Binder et al., 2009). Interventions
For example, when considering equal status, White youth
may more readily perceive themselves and their ethnic Most antibias programs explicitly educate youth about
minority peers to be of equal status or may not attend to intergroup bias (Aboud & Levy, 2000), insofar as mere
status at all in intergroup interactions. The United States’ awareness of intergroup bias can promote students’ will-
long history of racial inequality may be more salient to ingness to challenge inequities or the social mistreatment
youth from groups that are more marginalized. of “different” youth (Losinski et al., 2019). Antibias inter-
Although societal-level challenges are difficult for any ventions can also capitalize on the principles of contact
one school to change, one way to prevent social segrega- theory to foster interactions among students across group
tion is to encourage friendships that persist over multiple lines to improve intergroup attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp,
school years with (ethnic) outgroup peers. Stable friend- 2006). Ideally, such interventions involve a face-to-face
ships are generally more influential upon youths’ conduct approach to facilitate cross-group friendships (e.g., cross-
than unstable ones (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999), and gender “buddy up” sessions; Fabes, Martin, & Hanish,
there is evidence that stable cross-ethnic friendships are 2019/this issue; Martin et al., 2017).
especially effective at reducing prejudice as well (Rastogi However, some schools have a restricted range of a
& Juvonen, 2019). Creating a climate where stable cross- particular types of diversity available. In such cases, more
group friendships are encouraged may be especially indirect approaches where course materials are modified
critical in schools with little demographic diversity. If stu- to reflect cross-group relationships (e.g., books featuring
dents can build and maintain friendships across group friendships between disabled and nondisabled youth;
lines, despite having few peers available to befriend from Cameron & Rutland, 2006) may be used. Recent meta-
a particular group, it is possible that such relationships are analytic evidence suggests that such indirect approaches
as effective as multiple unstable ones at improving stu- function as an effective prejudice reduction strategy
dents’ sense of connectedness and belonging with their (Lemmer & Wagner, 2015). In general, antibias program-
peers. However, maintenance of cross-group friendships ing can be effective when programs are designed under a
across time also requires contact outside of school (cf. dual identity model (Gonzalez & Brown, 2003), whereby
Lessard, Kogachi, & Juvonen, 2019). youth are encouraged to maintain a strong ingroup iden-
tity while increasing the salience of a broader, superordin-
ate identity (e.g., the school community). Such indirect
INTERVENTION APPROACHES approaches may be used to increase exposure to diverse
attributes as well as identities. For example, among elem-
In an ideal world, all schools would include a diverse stu- entary school children, a puppet program teaching about
dent body; incorporate cooperative, group-based learning; acceptance of various body shapes has been shown effect-
and create opportunities for students with different back- ive in reducing negative attitudes and stereotypes about
grounds and attributes to have positive interactions, thus larger body shapes (Irving, 2000).
fostering social inclusion. However, embedding such
structural and instructional practices within schools is Multicultural Education
challenging, particularly in settings where there is already
deep social segregation of students along group lines or To reduce prejudice toward ethnic groups, schools may
when there are state or school district mandates restricting also consider adopting multicultural curricula.
the flexibility of school organizational and instructional Multicultural education focuses on increasing the repre-
practices. In such cases, it may be necessary for schools sentation of diverse narratives within the classroom,
to adopt intervention programs that directly target the through the incorporation of the stories, music, holidays,
school culture to promote a more inclusive environment and values of various social groups (Bigler, 1999). The
for all students. This likely requires a comprehensive mul- purpose of multicultural education is twofold; first it seeks
titiered approach that targets not only the attitudes and to facilitate the integration of diverse youth into the
behaviors of students themselves but also the practices of school community by giving equitable space to the
262 JUVONEN ET AL.

experiences and histories of their unique social groups solutions. Lessons on social awareness, in turn, can teach
(Banks, 1995; Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Second, multicul- students about the ways that social and cultural norms
tural education seeks to reduce prejudice by reducing affect the feelings and behaviors of those who do not “fit
ignorance. In other words, educating children and adoles- in.” Insofar as teachers play a critical role in facilitating
cents about the traditions, values, and contributions of student cooperation and inclusion, recommendations have
various outgroups ought to increase positive attitudes been made to incorporate new teacher training tools into
toward those groups. However, such efforts can also back- social-emotional learning programs (Trach, Lee, &
fire by promoting stereotypes and prejudice (Bigler, Hymel, 2018), such as “scouting reports,” from which
1999). As a result, multicultural programs are not as teachers learn about the social dynamics of their class-
effective as other prejudice reduction approaches (Pfeifer, rooms (see Farmer et al., 2019/this issue). Teachers can
Brown, & Juvonen, 2007). To increase their effectiveness, then use such information to make structural modifica-
Aboud and Levy (2000) suggested pairing such curricula tions through seating arrangements and integrating iso-
with an explicit endorsement of norms like tolerance and lated students into group activities (Farmer et al., 2016).
respect for diversity.
Social Norm Approaches to Modify Peer Culture
Social-Emotional Learning
Some interventions designed to promote more positive
Another example of a promising intervention approach social dynamics in schools focus centrally on the role of
comes from the social-emotional learning domain. collective social norms and capitalizing on influential stu-
Programs teaching social-emotional learning take a dents to initiate positive change (Paluck & Shepherd, 2012;
strengths-based approach to cultivating students’ capacity Paluck, Shepherd, & Aronow, 2016). These interventions
for empathy, social connection, and self-expression, with are guided by the premise that many negative social behav-
the ultimate goal of promoting students’ ability to manage iors in schools (e.g., bullying, harassment) stem from mis-
their emotions and work well with others (Jones, Kahn, & perceptions of such behaviors being common or accepted.
McGarrah, 2019; Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & The goal of these interventions, in turn, is to encourage
Gullotta, 2015). For example, by equipping students anticonflict norms among students so that students come to
with prosocial problem-solving skills and concrete see aggression and harassment as deviant rather than desir-
conflict resolution strategies, teacher-administered social- able. The programs operate bottom-up (as opposed to top-
emotional learning programs have achieved reductions in down), relying on students (not teachers) as agents of
students’ emotional distress and increases in their positive change (i.e., social referents). Small groups of students are
social behaviors (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & assigned to an intervention where they are encouraged to
Schellinger, 2011). Such interventions rely heavily on publicly communicate their disapproval of conflict at
teachers to implement and monitor classroom activities. school. In a recent evaluation (Paluck et al., 2016), inter-
Thus, teacher training is a critical element of social-emo- vention schools showed a 30% drop in disciplinary reports
tional programing. Ideally, such training would be pro- of student conflict across a 1-year period, compared with
vided during preservice education even before teachers control schools (i.e., where no students received such inter-
enter the classroom (Schonert-Reichl, Kitil, & Hanson- vention). Important to note, the intervention was most suc-
Peterson, 2017). Developing teachers’ own social-emo- cessful when the social referents—students who were
tional skills and understanding is critical because teachers randomly selected for the evaluation—were more centrally
who feel high levels of efficacy in delivering the interven- positioned in the peer group. Thus, by capitalizing on
tion, compared to those who feel burned out, are more socially prominent students to publicly convey their stance
likely to administer exercises with fidelity and in a high- against aggression and harassment, schools may be able to
quality manner (Ransford, Greenberg, Domitrovich, Small, disrupt and transform problematic social norms.
& Jacobson, 2009). Converging evidence also suggests that school-wide
More recent social-emotional learning efforts have also approaches to modify the peer culture are a critical element
focused specifically on promoting positive group dynam- of school-wide antibullying programs. One program using
ics among students. Such equity-focused iterations (see such an approach is KiVa, a national antibullying program
Jones et al., 2019) of the program explicitly introduce developed in Finland and funded through the Finnish
issues of power, prejudice, and discrimination (Jagers, Ministry of Education (K€arn€a et al., 2011). The program
Rivas-Drake, & Borowski, 2018; Jagers, Rivas-Drake, & involves both preventative actions (i.e., to reduce bullying
Williams, 2019). For example, lessons on relationship and improve school climate) and responsive actions (i.e., to
skills may incorporate collaborative problem-solving exer- promote the well-being of those who are bullied). Across
cises where students witness firsthand the value of incor- these actions, a key focus of the program is on mobilizing
porating diverse perspectives to develop creative bystanders to intervene when bullying occurs. For example,
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 263

preventative actions include an antibullying computer game and promoting inclusion in all schools. Even in racially or
in which students learn appropriate ways to respond to and socioeconomically segregated neighborhoods, each school
intervene with bullying situations, whereas responsive has some variability in the student body. However, based
actions include establishing teacher teams and peer mentors on this review, it is also clear that diversity does not auto-
to support victims when bullying occurs at school. By matically promote social inclusion (cf. Brown & Juvonen,
involving both students and teachers in all elements of edu- 2018). Rather, school administrators and educators need
cation and training, the program promotes a collective to create conditions that are safe and accepting for all stu-
responsibility for treating others with respect and acceptance. dents. As suggested in our proactive inclusion model
Indeed, evidence from evaluations of KiVa in Finland sug- (Figure 1), school personnel must strategically monitor
gest that the program not only effectively reduces rates of the “who” (i.e., the student body) as well as the “how”
bullying but also increases students’ mental health and posi- (i.e., school organizational and instructional practices) to
tive feelings about school (K€arn€a et al., 2011). The positive achieve inclusion. Teachers need to be educated about
effects suggest that increasing youth’s sense of accountabil- social processes and group dynamics so they can rely on
ity to help one another may be one pathway toward reinforc- proactive strategies to unite students of various back-
ing norms of inclusiveness and social acceptance. Schools grounds and attributes. They also need ongoing support to
characterized by more prosocial behavioral norms are likely prevent and handle situations involving peer victimization,
to not only promote the collective well-being of all youth rejection, and isolation.
but also serve a protective function among students experi- Too frequently school administrators and instructors
encing high levels of social vulnerability, such as those who consider social acceptance by peers as a bonus, not as a
are bullied and friendless (Schacter & Juvonen, 2018). necessity. That is, many educators see schools’ primary
It is also critical that antibullying and antidiscrimina- responsibility to teach students the three Rs (Reading,
tion programs continue to develop with an eye toward wRiting, and aRithmetic). Yet students’ social experiences
issues of inclusion, equity, and bias. Recent calls for a with their peers can either promote or deter them from
developmental intergroup approach to bullying and dis- learning the three Rs. When students do not feel safe or
crimination provide a helpful theoretical framework for that they fit in, they are not ready to engage and ready to
moving forward in this domain (Palmer & Abbott, 2018). learn. Their ability to focus on academic tasks is easily
This particular perspective emphasizes that the way chil- compromised when they are concerned about, or dis-
dren and adolescents respond to bullying, for example, is tressed because of, the ways they are treated by their
shaped not only by their general empathy and ability to peers. In contrast, when students have good friends in
perspective-take but also by their perceived similarity to school, when they get to work together on joint projects
the victim (or bully) and the broader social norms in their or shared activities, they are highly engaged and like
school. Thus, programs that were initially designed to school (Wentzel et al., 2018). We propose that with the
address explicit forms of exclusion (i.e., bullying in gen- empirical evidence, a fourth R is needed: learning how to
eral vs. identity-based discrimination or harassment) may relate to others in accepting ways (see also Jones et al.,
need to more substantially overlap to address the range of 2019). The ability to relate to and get along with different
motivations underlying all forms of exclusion in schools. individuals are skills that cannot be easily taught like the
other Rs, yet they are critical in preparation for life after
Summary school (Nishina et al., 2019/this issue).
If schools are truly committed to diversity and inclu-
Taken together, there are ways for schools to address sion, teachers’ roles and responsibilities need to be rede-
negative bias and social exclusion explicitly—regardless fined in light of the fourth R. We made a case that
of the student composition—by relying on antibias and instructors need to proactively model socially inclusive
intergroup contact, and social norm interventions. We behaviors, rely on practices that unite students with shared
reviewed some evidence-based approaches. All of these goals and activities, and manage situations when students
require commitment and buy-in from educators, training are victimized, rejected, or lack friends. For example, it is
of teachers, fidelity of implementation, and time in the important that teachers use gender inclusive language as
school schedule. As such, these programs by no means well as know how to intervene in ways that do not further
provide easy solutions to reduce exclusion. stigmatize a transgender or sexual minority student. It is
clear that explicit professional development is needed, as
most teachers report lacking the knowledge, training, and
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS skills to support sexual and gender minority students, and
more than half say that they do not know how or when to
In the current review, we contend that school administra- intervene in harassment situations (Swanson & Gettinger,
tors and teachers play critical roles in reducing exclusion 2016). It is unreasonable to presume that such situations
264 JUVONEN ET AL.

are handled well proactively or reactively without training collaborate with one another. Although theories and con-
and support. As teachers are on the front line, schools and ceptual analyses help us think about the bigger picture of
districts must provide professional training for them to be general challenges and opportunities for social inclusion,
able to meet goals for social inclusion. To expect that school administrators and instructors have important
inclusion happens organically is simply unrealistic and insights and questions that can lead to important research
therefore explicit teacher education is needed both at pre- (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006). Participatory action
and in-service phases. research would be a particularly suitable way to build the
There is a relatively new body of research on teacher scientific knowledge from hereon. Approaching adminis-
attunement highlighting the need for instructors to be sen- trators, teachers, and students and asking them to define
sitive to peer relationships and group dynamics within the problems in their communities allows researchers to
their classrooms (e.g., Farmer et al., 2019/this issue; gain familiarity with the particular histories and dynamics
Farmer, Lines, & Hamm, 2011; Gest et al., 2014; Hamm, of that community (Macaulay et al., 1999). Such an
Farmer, Dadisman, Gravelle, & Murray, 2011). Such approach is particularly critical, as shared insights are
social attunement is probably the most overlooked aspect likely to lead to a better understanding of how to most
of teacher education programs. Although teacher educa- effectively intervene. Moreover, through collaborations
tion covers “classroom management,” this rubric includes with researchers, school personnel may also learn a var-
mainly discipline issues and methods. Similarly, many of iety of practical and transferable skills that can be applied
the school-based interventions are reactive rather the pro- to problem-solve and evaluate school- or district-level pol-
active—that is, addressing a problem (e.g., bullying, dis- icies and programs in the future. In short, participatory
crimination) once it has become an issue (Cornell & action research is a framework that can be used to tailor
Limber, 2015). Proactive curricula (e.g., social-emotional research to the needs of a given school or district, whereas
learning) in turn are hard to fit in among learning objec- the insights from the front lines, in turn, inform the further
tives that are formally evaluated to assess both student development of strategies that promote social inclusion.
and teacher competencies. To offer a solution, we propose In addition, basic research needs to be conducted to bet-
that many inclusive educational practices can function as ter understand the underlying processes that help account
“built-in” preventions. By fostering conditions for optimal for the academic difficulties of marginalized groups. For
contact (e.g., through peer collaboration), teachers can example, studies that examine the effects of social exclu-
help unite students across race, class, and gender, as well sion on attention seem promising. Experimentally induced
as sexual orientation, disability status, and other types of social exclusion has been found to lead to deficits in work-
stigmatizing attributes. ing memory (Hawes et al., 2012). Given that executive
For the current review we purposefully approached functioning predicts academic achievement (e.g., Best,
diversity broadly to be able to identify general conceptual Miller, & Naglieri, 2011), it stands to reason that exclusion
issues pertaining to social inclusion across a range of stu- and related attentional problems may exacerbate achieve-
dent social identities and attributes. This means that we ment disparities caused by inequitable school practices.
have not done justice to differences between ethnicity and For example, Gibbons, O’Hara, Stock, Gerrard, Weng, &
social class or sexual orientation and disabilities. Neither Wills (2012) showed that discriminatory experiences of
have we dealt with important questions regarding intersec- African American adolescents increased anger and impul-
tionality. For example, undoubtedly the exclusion experi- sivity. Another study shows how girls’ experience of gen-
ences of a low-income immigrant gay Latino student are der discrimination by middle school staff predicts
different from those of a White gay boy from a wealthy increased depression and decreased sleep (Bell & Juvonen,
home. There are important differences across various 2019). Sleep deprivation and poor quality sleep, in turn,
social identities and attributes and the intersections of are related to increased threat and anxiety (Talbot,
each that deserve much more nuanced analysis. Although McGlinchey, Kaplan, Dahl, & Harvey, 2010) and lower
practices that facilitate social inclusion of a specific group academic performance (Dewald, Meijer, Oort, Kerkhof,
might not generalize to other types of differences, cooper- and B€ogels (2010). Thus, experiences of biased treatment
ation and shared goals might work equally well to facili- can affect achievement through various cognitive, affect-
tate all sorts of cross-group interactions and relationships. ive, and physiological (see Schonert-Reichl, 2019) path-
It is not a coincidence that the next three articles (i.e., ways that warrant further study.
Fabes et al., 2019/this issue; Farmer et al., 2019/this issue; It is also important to consider whether any one type of
Nishina et al., 2019/this issue) discuss cooperative learn- diversity or strategy to promote greater inclusion of one
ing methods as a way to promote inclusion. particular marginalized group may improve inclusion of
To gain insights into which practices work with which other marginalized groups. For example, can GSAs foster
types of diverse students, it is imperative that researchers an inclusive school climate where students with over-
and schools (e.g., educators, school administrators) weight or who have disabilities are more accepted?
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 265

Although studies indicate that students, on average, are bet- Bear, G. G., & Proctor, W. A. (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated
ter off in schools with GSAs than in schools without GSAs program on the achievement of nonhandicapped and mildly handi-
capped children. Exceptionality, 1(4), 227–238. doi:10.1080/
(Poteat et al., 2013; Toomey & Russell, 2013), it remains
09362839009524759
unknown whether the effects are stronger for students with Bell, A. N., & Juvonen, J. (2019). Gender discrimination, perceived
other marginalized identities and attributes (e.g., racial school unfairness, depressive symptoms and sleep duration among
minorities, students with disabilities). At least one study middle school girls. Paper submitted for publication.
suggests that one type of school-based diversity can protect Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends
youth with other stigmatizing attributes: Lanza, Echols, and friendships on adjustment to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 45, 13–41.
and Graham (2018) showed that greater ethnic diversity Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between
lowered the risk of peer victimization of middle school stu- executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a
dents with high body weight. It is possible that in ethnic- large, representative national sample. Learning and Individual
ally diverse schools, appearance norms are more variable Differences, 21(4), 327–336. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007
or less rigid, thereby resulting in lower weight “policing” Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating envir-
onmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the
by peers. To be able to examine the effects of the general-
functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66(4),
izability of any one way to foster inclusion across multiple 1072–1087. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00923.x
marginalized groups, it is vital that researchers who study Bigler, R. S. (1999). The use of multicultural curricula and materials to
gender segregation, social exclusion of students with spe- counter racism in children. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 687–705.
cial needs, ethnic minority or immigrant youth, sexual and doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00142
gender minority adolescents, children with overweight, and Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory:
Explaining and reducing children's social stereotyping and prejudice.
so on, learn about one another’s insights and find common Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 162–166. doi:10.
ground. The collective insight and the conceptually con- 1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x
sistent findings offer a strong scientific rationale to reform Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey,
educational practices. A., … Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does
prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis
among majority and minority groups in three European countries.
REFERENCES
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. doi:
10.1037/a0013470
Aboud, F. E., & Levy, S. R. (2000). Interventions to reduce prejudice
Bopp, T., Turick, R., Vadeboncoeur, J., & Aicher, T. (2017). Are you
and discrimination in children and adolescents. In The Claremont
welcomed? A racial and ethnic comparison of perceived welcomeness
Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. Reducing prejudice and
in sport participation. International Journal of Exercise Science, 10(6),
discrimination (pp. 269–293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
833–844.
Associates Publishers.
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K.
Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of
(1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and
subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and
peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal
deviant ingroup and out-group individuals. Child Development, 74(6),
of Adolescence, 22(4), 461–466. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0240
1840–1856. doi:10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00641.x
Brandt, M. J., & Crawford, J. T. (2019). Studying a heterogeneous array
Agran, M., Wojcik, A., Cain, I., Thoma, C., Achola, E., Austin, K. M.,
of target groups can help us understand prejudice. Current Directions
… Tamura, R. B. (2017). Participation of students with intellectual
and developmental disabilities in extracurricular activities: Does in Psychological Science, 28(3), 292–298. doi:10.1177/
inclusion end at 3:00? Education and Training in Autism and 0963721419830382
Developmental Disabilities, 52(1), 3–12. Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A dec-
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison ade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of
Wesley. Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.
Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & 2010.00721.x
Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and
in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–510. doi:10. outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. doi:10.1111/
1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x 0022-4537.00126
Aragon, S. R., Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2014). Brown, K. T., Brown, T. N., Jackson, J. S., Sellers, R. M., & Manuel,
The influence of peer victimization on educational outcomes for W. J. (2003). Teammates on and off the field? Contact with Black
LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high school students. Journal of LGBT teammates and the racial attitudes of White student athletes. Journal
Youth, 11(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/19361653.2014.840761 of Applied Social Psychology, 33(7), 1379–1403. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New 1816.2003.tb01954.x
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Brown, C. S., & Juvonen, J. (2018). Insights about the effects of diver-
Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transform- sity: When does diversity promote inclusion and for whom? Journal
ation. The Journal of Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400. doi:10.2307/ of Applied Developmental Psychology, 59, 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.app-
2967262 dev.2018.10.006
Bauer, N. J. (1994). The politics of inclusion: A dissenting perspective. Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED378718 victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement?
research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(10), Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1–13. doi:10.1037/0022-
854–857. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662 0663.98.1.1
266 JUVONEN ET AL.

Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and
reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change.
Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 469–488. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3–20. doi:10.1177/
2006.00469.x 1088868308326751
Cervantes-Soon, C. G., Dorner, L., Palmer, D., Heiman, D., DuPont-Reyes, M. J., & Villatoro, A. P. (2019). The role of school race/
Schwerdtfeger, R., & Choi, J. (2017). Combating inequalities in two- ethnic composition in mental health outcomes: A systematic literature
way language immersion programs: Toward critical consciousness in review. Journal of Adolescence, 74, 71–82. doi:10.1016/j.adoles-
bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), cence.2019.05.006
403–427. doi:10.3102/0091732X17690120 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., &
Chavous, T. M., Rivas-Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social
(2008). Gender matters, too: The influences of school racial discrim- and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal
ination and racial identity on academic engagement outcomes among interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.
African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 1467-8624.2010.01564.x
637–654. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.637 Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Crowther, A., Akos, P., &
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W.-Y., & Joh, S. W. (2017). Streaming, tracking Boudah, D. J. (2009). Students with exceptionalities and the peer
and reading achievement: A multilevel analysis of students in 40 group context of bullying and victimization in late elementary school.
countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 915–934. doi: Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2), 136–150. doi:10.1007/
10.1037/edu0000188 s10826-008-9214-1
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2018). Children and youth
American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. doi:10.1086/228943 in a diverse world: Applied developmental perspectives on diversity
Cooper, C. R., Chavira, G., & Mena, D. D. (2005). From pipelines to and inclusion. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 59,
partnerships: A synthesis of research on how diverse families, 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2018.11.003
schools, and communities support children’s pathways through Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2019/this issue). Gender
school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (Jespar), integration and the promotion of inclusive classroom climates.
10(4), 407–430. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1004_4 Educational Psychologist, 54, 271–285. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.
Cordova, D., & Cervantes, R. C. (2010). Intergroup and within-group 1631826
perceived discrimination among U.S.-born and foreign-born Latino Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and
youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(2), 259–274. doi: gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American
10.1177/0739986310362371 Sociological Review, 76(1), 48–73. doi:10.1177/0003122410396196
Cornell, D., & Limber, S. P. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of Farmer, T. W., Chen, C.-C., Hamm, J. V., Moates, M. M., Mehtaji, M.,
bullying at school. American Psychologist, 70(4), 333–343. doi:10. Lee, D., & Huneke, M. R. (2016). Supporting teachers’ management
1037/a0038558 of middle school social dynamics: The scouting report process.
Cramer, P., & Steinwert, T. (1998). Thin is good, fat is bad: How early Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(2), 67–76. doi:10.1177/
does it begin? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 1053451216636073
429–451. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80049-5 Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Dawes, M., Barko-Alva, K., & Cross, J. R.
Crosnoe, R. (2007). Gender, obesity, and education. Sociology of (2019/this issue). Promoting inclusive communities in diverse classrooms:
Education, 80(3), 241–260. doi:10.1177/003804070708000303 Teacher attunement and social dynamics management. Educational
Crosnoe, R., & Muller, C. (2004). Body mass index, academic achieve- Psychologist, 54, 286–305. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1635020
ment, and school context: Examining the educational experiences of Farmer, T. W., Lines, M. M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the
adolescents at risk of obesity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, invisible hand: The role of teachers in childrens’ peer experiences.
45(4), 393–407. doi:10.1177/002214650404500403 Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 247–256. doi:
Dawes, M., Chen, C.-C., Zumbrunn, S. K., Mehtaji, M., Farmer, T. W., 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
& Hamm, J. V. (2017). Teacher attunement to peer-nominated Fredricks, J. A., & Simpkins, S. D. (2013). Organized out-of-school
aggressors. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 263–272. doi:10.1002/ab. activities and peer relationships: Theoretical perspectives and previ-
21686 ous research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
DeRosier, M. E., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. 140, 1–17. doi:10.1002/cad.20034
(1994). Group social context and children’s aggressive behavior. Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality matters:
Child Development, 65(4), 1068–1079. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624. Classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of
1994.tb00803.x Youth and Adolescence, 43(7), 1123–1133. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-
Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. (1965). Theories of social psychology. New 0040-4
York, NY: Basic Books. George, T. P., & Hartmann, D. P. (1996). Friendship networks of
Dewald, J. F., Meijer, A. M., Oort, F. J., Kerkhof, G. A., & B€ ogels, unpopular, average, and popular children. Child Development, 67(5),
S. M. (2010). The influence of sleep quality, sleep duration and 2301–2316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01858.x
sleepiness on school performance in children and adolescents: A Gest, S. D., Madill, R. A., Zadzora, K. M., Miller, A. M., & Rodkin,
meta-analytic review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 14(3), 179–189. doi: P. C. (2014). Teacher management of elementary classroom social
10.1016/j.smrv.2009.10.004 dynamics: Associations with changes in student adjustment. Journal
Dijkstra, J. K., & Gest, S. D. (2015). Peer norm salience for academic of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 107–118. doi:10.1177/
achievement, prosocial behavior, and bullying: Implications for ado- 1063426613512677
lescent school experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(1), Gibbons, F. X., O’Hara, R. E., Stock, M. L., Gerrard, M., Weng, C. Y.,
79–96. doi:10.1177/0272431614524303 & Wills, T. A. (2012). The erosive effects of racism: Reduced self-
Donelan, R. W., Neal, G. A., & Jones, D. L. (1994). The promise of control mediates the relation between perceived racial discrimination
Brown and the reality of academic grouping: The tracks of my tears. and substance use in African American adolescents. Journal of
The Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 376–387. doi:10.2307/ Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1089–1104. doi:10.1037/
2967188 a0027404
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 267

Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic prob- Iyer, R. V., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Eisenberg, N., & Thompson, M.
lems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 720–729. doi:10.1542/peds. (2010). Peer victimization and effortful control. Merrill-Palmer
2013-0614 Quarterly (Wayne State University. Press), 56(3), 361–387. doi:10.
Goldfield, A., & Chrisler, J. C. (1995). Body stereotyping and stigma- 1353/mpq.0.0058
tization of obese persons by first graders. Perceptual and Motor Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018). Equity and social
Skills, 81(3), 909–910. doi:10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.909 and emotional learning: A cultural analysis. Chicago, IL:
Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as Assessments Work Group. Retrieved from https://measuringsel.casel.
a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifications in org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Frameworks-Equity.pdf.
intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative
195–214. doi:10.1002/ejsp.140 social and emotional learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of edu-
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in cational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3),
middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 162–184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
34(3), 587–599. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587 Jennings, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in US teacher preparation pro-
Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging grams: A survey of elementary and secondary programs’ priorities
at school: A case for interpersonal, instructional, and institutional and challenges from across the United States of America. Teaching
opportunity structures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 97–113. doi: and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1258–1271. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.
10.1080/00461520.2017.1421466 05.004
Gregory, A., Hafen, C. A., Ruzek, E., Mikami, A. Y., Allen, J. P., & Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2013). Cooperation
Pianta, R. C. (2016). Closing the racial discipline gap in classrooms in the classroom (9th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
by changing teacher practice. School Psychology Review, 45(2), Jones, S. M., Kahn, J., & McGarrah, M. W. (2019). Social and emo-
171–191. doi:10.17105/SPR45-2.171-191 tional learning: A principled science of human development in con-
Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (2004). Describing roles that text. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 129–143. doi:10.1080/
gay-straight alliances play in schools. Journal of Gay & Lesbian 00461520.2019.1625776
Issues in Education, 1, 7–22. doi:10.1300/J367v01n03_03 Juvonen, J. (2006). Sense of belonging, social bonds, and school func-
Gr€utter, J., Gasser, L., Zuffiano, A., & Meyer, B. (2018). Promoting tioning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of edu-
inclusion via cross-group friendship: The mediating role of change in cational psychology (pp. 655–674). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
trust and sympathy. Child Development, 89(4), e414–e430. doi:10. Associates Publishers.
1111/cdev.12883 Juvonen, J., & Bear, G. (1992). Social adjustment of children with and
Hailey, S. E., & Olson, K. R. (2013). A social psychologist’s guide to without learning disabilities in integrated classrooms. Journal of
the development of racial attitudes: The development of racial atti- Educational Psychology, 84(3), 322–330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.
tudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(7), 457–469. 3.322
doi:10.1111/spc3.12038 Juvonen, J., & Galvan, A. (2009). Bullying as a means to foster compli-
Hamm, J. V., & Faircloth, B. S. (2005). The role of friendship in adoles- ance. In M. J. Harris (Ed.), Bullying, rejection, and peer victimiza-
cents’ sense of school belonging. New Directions for Child and tion: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 299–318). New
Adolescent Development, 107, 61–78. doi:10.1002/cd.121 York, NY: Springer.
Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Dadisman, K., Gravelle, M., & Murray, Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of
A. R. (2011). Teachers’ attunement to students’ peer group affilia- bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of Psychology,
tions as a source of improved student experiences of the school 65(1), 159–185. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115030
social–affective context following the middle school transition. Juvonen, J., Kogachi, K., & Graham, S. (2018). When and how do stu-
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 267–277. doi: dents benefit from ethnic diversity in middle school? Child
10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.003 Development, 89(4), 1268–1282. doi:10.1111/cdev.12834
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Xuan, Z. (2012). Social Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Schacter, H. L., & Enders, C. (2018). The
networks and risk for depressive symptoms in a national sample of effects of middle school weight climate on youth with higher body
sexual minority youth. Social Science & Medicine, 75(7), 1184–1191. weight. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(2), 466–479. doi:10.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.030 1111/jora.12386
Hawes, D. J., Zadro, L., Fink, E., Richardson, R., O’Moore, K., Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psycho-
Griffiths, B., … Williams, K. D. (2012). The effects of peer ostra- logical adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence.
cism on children’s cognitive processes. European Journal of Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 349–359. doi:10.1037/
Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 599–613. doi:10.1080/17405629. 0022-0663.92.2.349
2011.638815 Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2006). Ethnic diversity and per-
Heinze, J. E., & Horn, S. S. (2014). Do adolescents’ evaluations of ceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science,
exclusion differ based on gender expression and sexual orientation? 17(5), 393–400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01718.x
Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 63–80. doi:10.1111/josi.12047 Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social motivation: Understanding
Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience children’s school adjustment. New York, NY: Cambridge University
in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and Press.
intergroup bias. Child Development, 81(6), 1787–1798. doi:10.1111/j. K€arn€a, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., &
1467-8624.2010.01510.x Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibully-
Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Discrimination hurts: The aca- ing program: Grades 4–6. Child Development, 82(1), 311–330. doi:
demic, psychological, and physical well-being of adolescents. Journal 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x
of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 916–941. doi:10.1111/j.1532- Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their
7795.2010.00670.x teachers, and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record,
Irving, L. M. (2000). Promoting size acceptance in elementary school 100(4), 809–840. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00017
children: The EDAP puppet program. Eating Disorders, 8(3), Killen, M., Clark Kelly, M., Richardson, C., Crystal, D., & Ruck, M.
221–232. doi:10.1080/10640260008251229 (2010). European American children’s and adolescents’ evaluations
268 JUVONEN ET AL.

of interracial exclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, behavioral, and academic adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of
13(3), 283–300. doi:10.1177/1368430209346700 Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 25–36. doi:10.1207/
Knifsend, C. A., & Juvonen, J. (2017). Extracurricular activities in multi- s15374424jccp3401_3
ethnic middle schools: Ideal context for positive intergroup attitudes? Losinski, M., Ennis, R., Katsiyannis, A., & Rapa, L. J. (2019). Schools
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(2), 407–422. doi:10.1111/ as change agents in reducing bias and discrimination: Shaping behav-
jora.12278 iors and attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Advance
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or online publication. doi:10.1007/s10826-019-01452-2
consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67(4), Macaulay, A. C., Commanda, L. E., Freeman, W. L., Gibson, N.,
1305–1317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01797.x McCabe, M. L., Robbins, C. M., & Twohig, P. L. (1999).
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement.
N. L. (2018). The 2017 National School Climate Survey: The experi- BMJ, 319(7212), 774–778. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7212.774
ences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). Afterschool program par-
nation’s schools. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED590243 ticipation and the development of child obesity and peer acceptance.
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 202–215. doi:10.1207/
and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children’s s1532480xads0904_3
early school adjustment? Child Development, 61(4), 1081–1100. doi: Malacarne, T. (2017). Rich friends, poor friends: Inter–socioeconomic
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02843.x status friendships in secondary school. Socius: Sociological Research
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and for a Dynamic World, 3, 1–13. doi:10.1177/2378023117736994
scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Gaertner, B., Miller, C. F.,
Development, 70(6), 1373–1400. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00101 Foster, S., & Updegraff, K. A. (2017). Using an intergroup contact
Ladd, G. W., Ettekal, I., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2017). Peer victim- approach to improve gender relationships: A case study of a class-
ization trajectories from kindergarten through high school: room-based intervention. In A. Rutland, D. Nesdale, & C. Brown
Differential pathways for children’s school engagement and achieve- (Eds.), Handbook of group processes in children and adolescents
ment? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 826–841. doi:10. (pp. 435–454). New York, NY: Wiley.
1037/edu0000177 McGlothlin, H., & Killen, M. (2005). Children’s perceptions of inter-
Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Reiser, M. (2008). Does chronic group and intragroup similarity and the role of social experience.
classroom peer rejection predict the development of children’s class- Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 680–698. doi:
room participation during the grade school years? Child 10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.008
Development, 79(4), 1001–1015. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a fea-
01172.x ther: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology,
Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer dif- 27(1), 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
ficulties in the development of children’s psychological adjustment Mittleman, J. (2018). Sexual orientation and school discipline: New evi-
problems. Child Development, 74(5), 1344–1367. doi:10.1111/1467- dence from a population-based sample. Educational Researcher,
8624.00611 47(3), 181–190. doi:10.3102/0013189X17753123
Lanza, H. I., Echols, L., & Graham, S. (2018). A silver lining: The role Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in
of ethnic diversity on co-occurring trajectories of weight status and America. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716. doi:10.
peer victimization across early adolescence. Journal of Adolescent 1086/338954
Health, 63(5), 554–560. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.05.026 Moore, G. W., & Slate, J. R. (2008). Who’s taking the advanced place-
Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the model minority stereotype: Listening to ment courses and how are they doing: A statewide two-year study.
Asian American youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. The High School Journal, 92(1), 56–67.
Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic preju- Mulvey, K. L., Hoffman, A. J., G€ on€ultaş, S., Hope, E. C., Cooper,
dice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact S. M., & Cooper, S. M. (2018). Understanding experiences with bul-
interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), lying and bias-based bullying: What matters and for whom?
152–168. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2079 Psychology of Violence, 8(6), 702–711. doi:10.1037/vio0000206
Lessard, L. M., & Juvonen, J. (2018). Friendless Adolescents: Do per- Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated
ceptions of social threat account for their internalizing difficulties and with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social
continued friendlessness? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(2), Development, 19(2), 221–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x
277–283. doi:10.1111/jora.12388 Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones
Lessard, L. M., & Juvonen, J. (2019a). Body weight and academic may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The psycho-
achievement: The role of weight diversity in urban middle schools. social, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment.
School Psychology, 34(3), 253–260. doi:10.1037/spq0000317 Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37–48. doi:
Lessard, L. M., & Juvonen, J. (2019b). Cross-class friendship and aca- 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_4
demic achievement in middle school. Developmental Psychology, 55, Nishina, A., Lewis, J. A., Bellmore, A., & Witkow, M. R. (2019/this
1666–1679. doi:10.1037/dev0000755 issue). Ethnic diversity and inclusive school environments. Educational
Lessard, L. M., Kogachi, K., & Juvonen, J. (2019). Quality and stability Psychologist, 54, 306–321. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1633923
of cross-ethnic friendships: Effects of classroom diversity and out-of- Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
school contact. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 554–566. Okonofua, J. A., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Two strikes: Race and the
doi:10.1007/s10964-018-0964-9 disciplining of young students. Psychological Science, 26(5),
Lewis, J. A., Nishina, A., Ramirez Hall, A., Cain, S., Bellmore, A., & 617–624. doi:10.1177/0956797615570365
Witkow, M. R. (2018). Early adolescents’ peer experiences with eth- Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Does multicultural education improve stu-
nic diversity in middle school: Implications for academic outcomes. dents’ racial attitudes? Implications for closing the achievement gap.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(1), 194–206. doi:10.1007/ Journal of Black Studies, 42(8), 1252–1274. doi:10.1177/
s10964-017-0697-1 0021934711408901
Lopez, C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Peer victimization and rejection: Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992).
Investigation of an integrative model of effects on emotional, Sociometric status and academic, behavioral, and psychological
 PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS 269

adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Ransford, C. R., Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Small, M., &
Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 80–87. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.1.80 Jacobson, L. (2009). The role of teachers’ psychological experiences
Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elem- and perceptions of curriculum supports on the implementation of a
entary school with a dual-language “strand” program. Anthropology social and emotional learning curriculum. School Psychology Review,
& Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–114. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492. 38(3), 510–532.
2010.01069.x Rastogi, R., & Juvonen, J. (2019). Interminority friendships and inter-
Palmer, S. B., & Abbott, N. (2018). Bystander responses to bias-based group attitudes across middle school: Quantity and stability of Black-
bullying in schools: A developmental intergroup approach. Child Latino ties. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(8), 1619–1630.
Development Perspectives, 12(1), 39–44. doi:10.1111/cdep.12253 doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01044-9
Paluck, E. L., & Shepherd, H. (2012). The salience of social referents: A Risner, D. (2014). Bullying victimisation and social support of adoles-
field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a cent male dance students: An analysis of findings. Research in Dance
school social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Education, 15(2), 179–201. doi:10.1080/14647893.2014.891847
103(6), 899–915. doi:10.1037/a0030015 Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship groups, personal motiv-
Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P. M. (2016). Changing cli- ation, and gender in relation to high school students’ STEM career
mates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 652–664. doi:10.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 566–571. 1111/jora.12013
doi:10.1073/pnas.1514483113 Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of
adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures.
Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357 Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.
Pedersen, S., & Seidman, E. (2005). Contexts and correlates of out-of-
2.223
school activity participation among low-income urban adolescents. In Russell, S. T., Pollitt, A. M., Li, G., & Grossman, A. H. (2018). Chosen
J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activ- name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation,
ities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after
and suicidal behavior among transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent
school and community programs (pp. 85–109). London, UK:
Health, 63(4), 503–505. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003
Psychology Press.
Rutland, A., Nesdale, D., & Brown, C. (2017). Handbook of group proc-
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of
esses in children and adolescents. New York, NY: Wiley.
Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Schacter, H. L., & Juvonen, J. (2018). You’ve got a friend(ly school):
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of inter-
Can school prosocial norms and friends similarly protect victims
group contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
from distress? Social Development, 27(3), 636–651. doi:10.1111/
90(5), 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
sode.12281
Pfeifer, J. H., Brown, C. S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). Teaching tolerance in
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2019). Commentary: Advancements in the land-
schools: Lessons learned since Brown v. Board of Education about
scape of social and emotional learning and emerging topics on the
the development and reduction of children’s prejudice (2nd ed., Vol.
horizon. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 222. doi:10.1080/
21). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521699
00461520.2019.1633925
Plenty, S., & Jonsson, J. O. (2017). Social exclusion among peers: The
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson-Peterson, J. (2017). To
role of immigrant status and classroom immigrant density. Journal of
reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher
Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1275–1288. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-
preparation and social and emotional learning. A report prepared for
0564-5
Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
Koenig, B. W. (2011). The effects of general and homophobic victim- (CASEL). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582029
ization on adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & McKay, T. (2006).
importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of Popularity, social acceptance, and aggression in adolescent peer
Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 597–609. doi:10.1037/a0025095 groups: Links with academic performance and school attendance.
Poteat, V. P., Scheer, J. R., & Mereish, E. H. (2014). Factors affecting Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1116–1127. doi:10.1037/0012-
academic achievement among sexual minority and gender-variant 1649.42.6.1116
youth. In L. S. Liben & R. S. Bigler (Eds.), Advances in child devel- Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005).
opment and behavior (pp. 261–300). San Diego, CA: Academic Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning.
Press. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 425–435. doi:10.1037/
Poteat, V. P., Sinclair, K. O., DiGiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & 0022-0663.97.3.425
Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay–straight alliances are associated with stu- Scott, R. (1993). Untracking advocates make incredible claims.
dent health: A multischool comparison of LGBTQ and heterosexual Educational Leadership, 51, 79–81.
youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 319–330. doi:10. Sette, S., Gasser, L., & Gr€utter, J. (2019). Links between teachers’ liking
1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x of students, peer inclusion, and students’ academic achievement: A
Puhl, R. M., & Latner, J. D. (2007). Stigma, obesity, and the health of two-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
the nation’s children. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 557–580. doi: Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01048-5
10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.557 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Enhancing intergroup relations in schools:
Puhl, R. M., Luedicke, J., & Heuer, C. (2011). Weight-based victimiza- Cooperative learning and other strategies (J. D. Hawley & A. W.
tion toward overweight adolescents: Observations and reactions of Jackson, Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
peers. Journal of School Health, 81(11), 696–703. doi:10.1111/j. Smith, D. S., Schacter, H. L., Enders, C., & Juvonen, J. (2018). Gender
1746-1561.2011.00646.x norm salience across middle schools: Contextual variations in associ-
Quillian, L., & Campbell, M. E. (2003). Beyond black and white: The ations between gender typicality and socioemotional distress. Journal
present and future of multiracial friendship segregation. American of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 947–960. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-
Sociological Review, 68, 540–566. doi:10.2307/1519738 0732-2
270 JUVONEN ET AL.

Stark, T. H., & Flache, A. (2012). The double edge of common interest: Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., & Duku, E. (2013).
Ethnic segregation as an unintended byproduct of opinion homophily. Longitudinal links between childhood peer victimization, internalizing
Sociology of Education, 85(2), 179–199. doi:10.1177/0038040711427314 and externalizing problems, and academic functioning:
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, Developmental cascades. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
J. D. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer prefer- 41(8), 1203–1215. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9781-5
ence in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70(1), van Lier, P. A. C., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., Brendgen, M., Tremblay,
169–182. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00013 R. E., & Boivin, M. (2012). Peer victimization, poor academic
Strand, J., & Kreiner, J. (2005). Recreation and leisure in the commu- achievement, and the link between childhood externalizing and inter-
nity. In R. Flexer, T. Simmons, P. Luft, & R. Baer (Eds.), Transition nalizing problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1775–1788. doi:10.
planning for secondary students with disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01802.x
460–482). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. van Ryzin, M. J., & Roseth, C. J. (2018). Enlisting peer cooperation in
Strauss, R. S., & Pollack, H. A. (2003). Social marginalization of over- the service of alcohol use prevention in middle school. Child
weight children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Development, 89(6), e459–e467. doi:10.1111/cdev.12981
157(8), 746–752. doi:10.1001/archpedi.157.8.746 Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P.
Sullivan, A. L., Van Norman, E. R., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2014). (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In
Exclusionary discipline of students with disabilities: Student and J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta
school characteristics predicting suspension. Remedial and Special (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and
Education, 35(4), 199–210. doi:10.1177/0741932513519825 practice (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Swanson, K., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected,
and supportive behaviors toward LGBT students: Relationship to
rejected, popular, and controversial children. Child Development,
Gay-Straight Alliances, antibullying policy, and teacher training.
66(3), 754–763. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00903.x
Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(4), 326–351. doi:10.1080/19361653.2016.
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in
1185765
middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment.
Talbot, L. S., McGlinchey, E. L., Kaplan, K. A., Dahl, R. E., & Harvey,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 195–203. doi:10.1037/
A. G. (2010). Sleep deprivation in adolescents and adults: Changes in
0022-0663.96.2.195
affect. Emotion, 10(6), 831–841. doi:10.1037/a0020138
Wentzel, K. R., Jablansky, S., & Scalise, N. R. (2018). Do friendships
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations
afford academic benefits? A meta-analytic study. Educational
different for racial minority than for European American students? A
Psychology Review, 30(4), 1241–1267. doi:10.1007/s10648-018-9447-5
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253–273.
Witkow, M. R., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). In-school versus out-of-school
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253
friendships and academic achievement among an ethnically diverse
Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay-straight alliances, social
justice involvement, and school victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, sample of adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(3),
and queer youth: Implications for school well-being and plans to vote. 631–650. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00653.x
Youth & Society, 45(4), 500–522. doi:10.1177/0044118X11422546 Witvliet, M., Brendgen, M., van Lier, P. A. C., Koot, H. M., & Vitaro,
Trach, J., Lee, M., & Hymel, S. (2018). A social-ecological approach to F. (2010). Early adolescent depressive symptoms: Prediction from cli-
addressing emotional and behavioral problems in schools: Focusing que isolation, loneliness, and perceived social acceptance. Journal of
on group processes and social dynamics. Journal of Emotional and Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(8), 1045–1056. doi:10.1007/s10802-
Behavioral Disorders, 26(1), 11–20. doi:10.1177/1063426617742346 010-9426-x
Tropp, L. R., O’Brien, T. C., & Migacheva, K. (2014). How peer norms Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in
of inclusion and exclusion predict children’s interest in cross-ethnic small groups: Individual–group similarity and the social “misfit”.
friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 151–166. doi:10.1111/ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 523–536. doi:
josi.12052 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.523
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between inter- Zander, L., Chen, I.-C., & Hannover, B. (2019). Who asks whom for
group contact and prejudice among minority and majority status help in mathematics? A sociometric analysis of adolescents’ help-
groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467- seeking within and beyond clique boundaries. Learning and
9280.2005.01643.x Individual Differences, 72, 49–58. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.002
Uma~na-Taylor, A. J. (2016). A post-racial society in which ethnic-racial Ziegler, S. (1981). The effectiveness of cooperative learning teams
discrimination still exists and has significant consequences for for increasing cross-ethnic friendship: Additional evidence. Human
youths’ adjustment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Organization, 40(3), 264–268. doi:10.17730/humo.40.3.0m0q11
25(2), 111–118. doi:10.1177/0963721415627858 43l43r4x44