Pluralistic Ignorance in Students’ Perception of Inclusive Classroom Norms: The Role of Gender-Specific Reference Groups

Abstract

Classroom norms are important in shaping individual students’ prosocial behavior. Research documents that students often misperceive classroom norms by underestimating their classmates’ prosocial intentions – a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance. The current study investigated whether 5^th- and 6^th-grade students in Germany (N = 234, 10-13 years, 51% female) expressed varying degrees of pluralistic ignorance regarding same- and opposite-gender classmates. Participants listened to a gender-matched scenario about a classmate with learning difficulties seeking inclusion in a group task. They indicated their own inclusive intentions as well as their perception of same-gender and opposite-gender classroom norms. The results supported the main hypothesis that students perceived lower levels of pluralistic ignorance regarding same-gender than opposite-gender classmates. These findings have implications for interventions aimed at correcting students’ norm misperceptions to promote prosocial behavior in classrooms.

Keywords

classroom norms pluralistic ignorance gender differences inclusion early adolescence learning difficulties

Introduction

Classrooms are important contexts where students adjust and adapt their social behavior through daily interactions with their classmates (Farmer et al., 2019). Through these interactions, students establish norms that provide a reference for what is appropriate and typical within the classroom (Veenstra & Lodder, 2022). Students often infer these norms by observing how frequently certain behaviors occur in their classroom (i.e., descriptive norms; Cialdini et al., 1991). When students align with these classroom norms, they are often rewarded with social status and approval. However, those who deviate from the norm may face negative social consequences, such as exclusion or rejection (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021). Through these mechanisms, norms regulate individual prosocial and antisocial behavior in the classroom (Busching & Krahé, 2020; Dijkstra et al., 2007).

Thus, targeting classroom norms promises fruitful avenues for interventions aimed at promoting prosocial behavior in the classroom (Veenstra & Lodder, 2022). These interventions often focus on early adolescents, since this developmental period is marked by heightened conformity, sensitivity, and susceptibility to peer influence (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021). Moreover, in many contexts, this period coincides with the transition to secondary school, when classrooms are newly formed. Establishing prosocial norms during this period may therefore be particularly effective as group dynamics are still emerging.

Recent interventions in early adolescence have specifically targeted students’ norm perceptions by correcting potential misperceptions (Dillon & Lochman, 2022; Perkins et al., 2011; Tolmatcheff et al., 2022). Such misperceptions can occur as a result of pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance can arise when students mistakenly assume that their classmates’ attitudes differ from their own, while in fact they do not (Sargent & Newman, 2021). For example, students may individually report having prosocial intentions, yet when asked what is considered normative in their class, they systematically perceive that their classmates have fewer prosocial intentions (Sandstrom et al., 2013). This phenomenon has been observed among children and adolescents in relation to their perceptions of prosocial and bullying norms in the classroom (e.g., Barth & Grütter, 2024; Levy-Friedman & Kogut, 2025; Sandstrom et al., 2013).

Such underestimations of the norm may discourage students from engaging in prosocial behaviors (Sandstrom et al., 2013; Shin & Gyeong, 2024); hence, correcting them has become a central aspect of interventions (Dillon & Lochman, 2022; Perkins et al., 2011; Tolmatcheff et al., 2022). However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these norm-correction interventions on individual behavior and attitudes is mixed, with only one study documenting changes in self-reported bullying behavior (Perkins et al., 2011). To better target classroom norm interventions, it may be insightful to take a step back and investigate whether pluralistic ignorance varies within the classroom (Sargent & Newman, 2021). The current study contributes to this by examining, within the context of inclusion, how pluralistic ignorance differs when norms are assessed for gender-specific subgroups rather than for the classroom as a whole.

The Role of Norm Reference Groups in Pluralistic Ignorance Research in the Classroom

When assessing students’ perceptions of norms, it is critical to select an appropriate norm reference group (Marsh et al., 2012). This group should represent a meaningful reference concerning the ultimate behavior of interest (Tankard & Paluck, 2016). Studies identifying pluralistic ignorance in bullying, defending, and inclusion typically select ‘most classmates’ (Gasser et al., 2018; Tolmatcheff et al., 2022), ‘most kids in my grade’ (Dillon & Lochman, 2022), or ‘other students’ (Perkins et al., 2011) as norm reference groups. However, qualitative evidence suggests that these norm reference groups may be too broadly defined to adequately capture prosocial peer dynamics in the classroom. Thus, Barth et al. (2025) showed that third-to sixth-grade students held differentiated expectations about their classmates’ inclusive attitudes. Rather than anticipating uniformity, students often expected that some classmates would be inclusive, while others would not. Thus, students’ norm perceptions might underlie within-classroom variations, which could be masked when norms are assessed only at the classroom level rather than within subgroups.

Gender as a Salient Norm Reference Group in Students’ Classroom Norm Perception

Various lines of research suggest that it is important to assess students’ perceptions of prosocial classroom norms within gender-specific subgroups. Early adolescents are more likely to follow the norms of same-gender peers than those of opposite-gender peers, indicating that gender serves as a salient social norm reference group in the classroom (Busching & Krahé, 2020). Furthermore, during early adolescence, prosocial peer dynamics underlie gender homophily, with students being more likely to help, include, and befriend same-gender rather than opposite-gender peers (Killen & Rutland, 2013; Mehta & Strough, 2009; Weller & Lagattuta, 2014). This gender homophily might also extend to students’ perceptions of prosocial classroom norms. Thus, students might perceive their classmates to be more prosocial towards a same-gender peer than opposite-gender peer. Furthermore, more frequent interactions with same-gender peers may increase familiarity with their prosocial attitudes. Given that pluralistic ignorance tends to emerge when people lack insight into others’ private attitudes (Sargent & Newman, 2021), it is likely that students perceive same-gender peers’ attitudes as more similar to their own than those of opposite-gender peers. This assumption is also supported by research showing that students tend to identify more strongly with same-gender than opposite-gender peers (Bennett & Sani, 2008), and that stronger group identification is associated with greater perceived similarity between one’s own attitudes and those of the group (Thijs & Wiemers, 2023; Van Veelen et al., 2016). In summary, these lines of research indicate that students’ perception of prosocial norms might vary for same-and opposite-gender classmates. Yet, no study has examined how students perceive prosocial norms for gender-specific norm reference groups in the classroom. Addressing this gap, however, can have important implications for research and interventions targeting pluralistic ignorance in prosocial contexts.

The Current Study

The current study investigated whether secondary-school students in Germany (10-13 years) expressed varying degrees of pluralistic ignorance in their perception of gender-specific inclusive classroom norms. To answer this question, participants were presented with a gender-matched scenario about a classmate with learning difficulties who seeks to be included in a group task. Based on that scenario, participants indicated their own inclusive intentions and their perception of same-gender and opposite-gender classmates’ inclusive intentions.

We chose inclusion as the context for our research question because inclusion represents a prosocial behavior that is central to fostering inclusive classroom climates (Gasser et al., 2018). Additionally, research indicates that friendships within inclusive classrooms are often organized along gender lines (Garrote et al., 2023). The study was conducted in inclusive secondary school classrooms in Germany. In this context, recent educational reforms have introduced specific types of schools in which students of all learning abilities are taught together following the transition to secondary school. We chose a peer with learning difficulties as the inclusion target to better reflect real classroom dynamics, where such students are often at higher risk of social exclusion (Schürer et al., 2025).

The hypotheses were preregistered at OSF [https://osf.io/jt72x/?view_only=25a6b83d961b4a479c5b850e71a5c270]. Based on previous research pointing towards pluralistic ignorance in students’ perceptions of inclusive norms (Barth & Grütter, 2024; Gasser et al., 2018), we hypothesized that students would report higher inclusive intentions themselves but perceive lower inclusive norms from same- and opposite-gender classmates (H1). We predicted that this effect would differ for same- and opposite-gender norms (Bennett & Sani, 2008; Busching & Krahé, 2020; Mehta & Strough, 2009; Veenstra & Lodder, 2022). Specifically, we expected students to perceive lower inclusive norms from opposite-gender classmates than from same-gender classmates, resulting in greater pluralistic ignorance towards opposite-gender classmates (H2).

Methods

Sample

The data were collected in spring 2023. The sample included 234 early adolescents (M_age = 11.04 years, SD_age = 0.76, range 10-13) attending eleven inclusive secondary school classes in Germany (Grades 5 and 6). Fifty-one percent were girls, 49% boys, and 0% non-binary. Forty percent of participants reported having a migration background, meaning that they held at least one non-German nationality. Among these adolescents, the most frequently cited nationalities were Turkish (14%) and Italian (13%). The research project was conducted as part of a broader study on classroom dynamics and received ethical approval from the University of Konstanz. The participating classrooms were recruited via a teacher training module. Of the 283 students invited for study participation, 239 (84%) received informed written consent from their parents. Five of these students were sick on the days of data collection and did not participate. Before the study administration, all participants provided verbal assent. Students above the age of 11 additionally provided written assent. In line with the WHO, the APA, and the Helsinki Declaration, they were informed that their participation was completely voluntary, that they could withdraw from the study at any time, and that their data would be treated confidentially.

Procedure and Measures

Participants completed one-on-one interviews with trained research assistants. The interviews lasted for 20-30 minutes and included additional questions that were not analyzed in this study.

Inclusion Scenario

Students were introduced to a scenario about a new classmate with learning difficulties joining their school class (adapted from Gasser et al., 2018). The scenario was accompanied by pictures (illustrated by illumueller.ch, see Figure 1) and was gender-matched, meaning that girls listened to a scenario about a girl (Sarah), and boys listened to a scenario about a boy (Severin). The scenario read as follows:

“Sarah/Severin, a new girl/boy whom you don’t know, joins your class. Your class teacher tells you that Sarah/Severin has great difficulties at school. She/he takes a long time to complete tasks and needs lots of support.”

Figure 1.

Inclusion Scenario (Girl Version), illustrated by illumueller.ch.

Inclusive Intentions: Based on the scenario, students rated two items to indicate their inclusive intentions (“How much would you like to get to know Sarah/Severin better?”, “How much would you like to hang out with Sarah/Severin during the break?”) on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 3 (“very much”). The two items were then aggregated (r = .57), representing students’ inclusive intentions.

Inclusive Classroom Norms: Students rated the same two items, this time referring to their classmates: once for the girls in their class (r = .62) and once for the boys (r = .78), using the same four-point Likert scale (e.g., “How much would the girls in your class get to know Sarah/Severin better?”). Based on this, two norm variables were created: same-gender norm (girls’ perception of girls, boys’ perception of boys) and opposite-gender norm (girls’ perception of boys, boys’ perception of girls).

Data Analytic Plan

We transformed the data into long format, with students’ ratings of inclusiveness on the four-point Likert scale as the dependent variable and perspective (inclusive intentions, same-gender norm, opposite-gender norm) as a within-subjects factor. Because the data were nested within students, we analyzed our hypotheses with multilevel linear regression models including random intercepts at the student level. The predictor perspective was specified at level 1 (within-student measure), while students’ gender (boys, girls) and age (continuous) were included as covariates at level 2 (between-student measures). To assess between-student variance in inclusiveness ratings, we computed conditional ICCs based on models including all fixed effects (Hox et al., 2017). These indicated that 22% of the total variance was accounted for by differences between students. Additionally, likelihood ratio tests indicated that models with random intercepts fitted the data significantly better than models with fixed intercepts, χ² (1) = 27.68, p < .001. Age and gender were included as covariates based on research demonstrating their correlation with students’ ratings of inclusiveness from different perspectives (Gasser et al., 2017, 2018). All analyses were conducted in R version 2.4 (R Core Team, 2022).

Results

First, we analyzed whether students perceived their own intentions as more inclusive than those of same- and opposite-gender classmates (H1). Supporting H1, we found a significant main effect of the perspective on students’ ratings (see Table 1, Step 1). Students reported higher inclusive intentions themselves (M = 2.26, SD = 0.55) but perceived significantly lower inclusive intentions from both, same-gender (M = 2.08, SD = 0.5) and opposite-gender classmates (M = 1.13, SD = 0.57), pointing to pluralistic ignorance in their perception of inclusive classroom norms.

Table 1.

Results of Multilevel Linear Regression Models Predicting Students’ Ratings of Inclusiveness From Three Different Perspectives

	Step 1		Step 2		Step 3
	(Reference: own inclusive intentions)		(Reference: Same-gender norm)		(Reference: own inclusive intentions)
	Estimate	95% CI	Estimate	95% CI	Estimate	95% CI
Intercept	2.05	[1.34, 2.76]^***	1.87	[ 1.16, 2.59]^***	1.97	[ 1.24, 2.68]^***
L1 (repeated measures)
Perspective [own intentions]			0.18	[ 0.09, 0.27]^***
Perspective [same-gender norm]	−0.18	[−0.27, −0.09]^***			−0.13	[−0.25, 0.00]^*
Perspective [opposite−gender norm]	−1.13	[−1.22, −1.04]^***	−0.95	[−1.04, −0.86]^***	−0.92	[−1.04, −0.80]^***
L2 (between−student measures)
Gender [girls]	−0.03	[−0.13, 0.06]	−0.03	[−0.13, 0.06]	0.14	[ 0.00, 0.28]
Age	0.02	[−0.04, 0.08]	0.02	[−0.04, 0.08]	0.02	[−0.04, 0.08]
Cross−level interactions
Perspective [same-gender norm] * gender					−0.10	[−0.28, 0.07]
Perspective [opposite-gender norm] * gender					−0.41	[−0.58, −0.24]^***
Marginal R²/Conditional R²	0.45/0.57		0.45/0.57		0.47/0.59
AIC	1123.12		1123.12		1110.65
BIC	1154.90		1154.90		1151.50

Note. n = 228 students in 11 classrooms. We report β with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for effect sizes. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. As estimators for explained variance we report marginal R² (variance accounted for by fixed factors) and conditional R² (variance accounted for by fixed and random factors).

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Two−tailed.

In a second step, we examined whether the degree of pluralistic ignorance varied depending on the norm reference group. Specifically, we tested whether students perceived lower inclusive norms from opposite-gender compared to same-gender peers (H2). To assess this difference, we re-specified the reference category for the perspective variable to ‘same-gender norm’ (see Table 1, Step 2). The model revealed a significant main effect of perspective: students perceived significantly lower inclusive intentions from opposite-gender than from same-gender classmates. This supports H2, that students perceived greater pluralistic ignorance towards opposite-gender classmates.

To further examine the discrepancy between students’ own inclusive intentions and their perception of the norm, we descriptively created difference scores by subtracting their norm perception from their own intentions. Table 2 displays the number of students who perceived a positive, negative, or no discrepancy. Notably, 89% (n = 201) perceived a positive discrepancy (inclusive intentions > inclusive norm) for opposite-gender norms, compared to only 43% (n = 98) for same-gender norms.

Table 2.

Number of Students who Perceived a Discrepancy Between Their Own Inclusive Intentions and Same- and Opposite-Gender Norms

	Positive discrepancy	Positive discrepancy	No discrepancy	Negative discrepancy
	(Discrepancy >1)	(Discrepancy >0 and ≤1)	(Discrepancy = 0)	(Discrepancy <0)
Own intentions – Same-gender norm	5	93	45	85
Own intentions – Opposite-gender norm	89	112	21	5

Finally, we conducted exploratory analyses to examine the role of students’ gender by adding an interaction between gender and the reference perspective to the model (see Table 1, Step 3). As displayed in Figure 2, there was no significant main effect of gender, indicating that boys and girls reported equally high inclusive intentions. Similarly, there was no significant interaction for same-gender norm perception, indicating that boys and girls perceived a similar discrepancy between their own and same-gender classmates’ inclusive intentions. However, there was a significant interaction for opposite-gender norm perception, showing that girls perceived a larger difference between their own intentions and those of boys, than boys perceived between themselves and girls.

Figure 2.

Students’ Ratings of Inclusiveness by Perspective and Students’ Gender

Discussion

The current study examined whether early adolescents expressed varying degrees of pluralistic ignorance in their perception of gender-specific inclusive classroom norms. Consistent with pluralistic ignorance theory (Sandstrom et al., 2013; Sargent & Newman, 2021), students reported higher inclusive intentions themselves but perceived lower inclusiveness from both, same- and opposite-gender classmates. Extending prior research in this field, our findings demonstrate that this self-other discrepancy was smaller for same-gender than for opposite-gender classmates. While the mean difference between students’ own inclusive intentions and their perception of same-gender norms was statistically significant, it was very small. Descriptively, fewer than half of the students perceived themselves as more inclusive than their same-gender peers. By contrast, 89% of students perceived that they would be more inclusive than their opposite-gender classmates. This finding contributes novel evidence for research on inclusive norms by showing that the choice of the norm reference group can moderate the extent of the discrepancy students perceive between themselves and their classmates. When students’ norm perceptions are assessed only at the level of the entire classroom, important subgroup differences may remain hidden or be averaged out.

By showing that the norm reference group matters, our study lays the groundwork for future research to better understand why students perceived a greater discrepancy regarding opposite-gender than same-gender classmates. One potential explanation involves gendered interaction preferences (Mehta & Strough, 2009). Because the inclusion target was gender-matched, adolescents may have perceived inclusion as more likely when initiated by same-gender rather than opposite-gender classmates. This could have led to higher perceived inclusive norms among same-gender peers and, consequently, to a smaller perceived self-other discrepancy. Future research could employ vignettes featuring both same- and opposite-gender inclusion targets to disentangle the role of gendered interaction preferences in shaping children’s self-other perceptions in inclusive contexts (Weller & Lagattuta, 2014). If such interaction preferences were the primary mechanism, students’ inclusion predictions for themselves, same-gender, and opposite-gender classmates should vary systematically depending on the gender congruence with the inclusion target in the vignette. If interaction preferences were not the primary mechanisms, students’ inclusion predictions should remain stable, independent of the gender of the inclusion target.

Another possible explanation involves the role of social identification, which may have contributed to the smaller discrepancy towards same-gender compared to opposite-gender peers. In our study, students reported uniformly high inclusive intentions for themselves. This finding aligns with prior research showing that early adolescents often report high inclusive intentions towards peers with learning difficulties in interview settings (e.g., Barth et al., 2025; Gasser et al., 2017). However, it contrasts with social network studies indicating that students with learning difficulties are frequently excluded in secondary school classrooms (Schürer et al., 2025). One explanation for this discrepancy is that students’ responses in these vignettes may reflect their desire to be (and appear) fair and inclusive, rather than representing their actual inclusive behavior (Palmer et al., 2023). This desire might be strongly embedded in their self-identity (Verkuyten, 2021). Moreover, as students’ self-identity is closely tied to their social group identity, they might not have been willing to say that same-gender classmates (i.e., a social group with which early adolescents strongly identify, Bennett & Sani, 2008) were less inclusive than themselves. Future research could assess whether students who strongly identify with opposite-gender classmates might also perceive a smaller discrepancy between their own and opposite-gender peers’ inclusiveness.

Taking a closer look at students’ perceptions of opposite-gender norms could be especially valuable in light of our exploratory findings. While both boys and girls expected relatively low inclusive intentions from opposite-gender classmates, girls held an even more pessimistic view of boys’ inclusive intentions than boys did of girls’. Future research is needed to clarify the role of gendered-interaction preferences, gender identification, but also gender-stereotypes that may have contributed to this finding (Weller & Lagattuta, 2014).

In summary, our study provides implications for interventions that aim to heighten students’ perceptions of prosocial classroom norms (e.g., Dillon & Lochman, 2022; Tolmatcheff et al., 2022). Students in our study perceived only a small discrepancy between their own and their same-gender classmates’ inclusive intentions. Previous research suggests that early adolescents’ prosocial behavior is primarily guided by same-gender norms (Busching & Krahé, 2020). Thus, it may be possible that correcting perceptions of same- and opposite-gender norms might have only limited impact on fostering inclusive behavior in the classroom. Future research could connect students’ perception of same-gender norms to their actual inclusive behavior and determine whether even small degrees of pluralistic ignorance prevent students to follow their own inclusive intentions.

Conclusion

The present findings show that the choice of the normative reference group matters when investigating early adolescents’ perceptions of inclusive classroom norms. Whereas most existing studies on pluralistic ignorance focus on the entire classroom or peers in general as the reference group, our results highlight the importance of examining how adolescents perceive the norms of specific subgroups within the classroom.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the research assistants who assisted in the data collection (Leon Beil, Sophie Bernlochner, Hannah Brunner, Sarah Bunz, Jana Carstensen, Franziska Greiner, Anne-Madeleine Kamm, Esther Krukowski, Ramona Mutschler, and Patrizia Rombach). We also would like to express our gratitude to the teachers and students who supported and participated in the study.

ORCID iD

Carmen Barth

Ethical Consideration

The study procedure was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Konstanz [number: 15/2022]. The study is in line with the ethical recommendations of the Helsinki Declaration, the American Psychology Association (APA), and recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO). For the students, parents or primary caregivers provided informed written consent for their study participation.

Consent to Participate

Additionally, all participants provided verbal assent, and participants above 11 additionally provided written assent, to participate in the study.

Author contributions

Carmen Barth: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Visualization, Formal analysis, Project administration, Data curation. Jeanine Grütter: Conceptualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Supervision.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The second author was funded by the Swiss Federal Office for the Equality of Persons with Disabilities, (18.l.059), and received additional funding from The University of Konstanz and The Paul Scherrer Foundation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Preregistration

The hypotheses and planned analyses of this study were preregistered at the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be found at

Author Biographies

Carmen Barth is a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of Konstanz. She is involved in several international research collaborations, focusing on children’s moral and social reasoning, inclusive behavior, and their developmental trajectories. Carmen Barth has co-authored articles on the role of social contexts and norms in shaping children’s reasoning and the impact of age-related changes on their moral decision-making. She is actively involved in the design of educational interventions to enhance inclusive peer behavior in schools.

Jeanine Grütter, PhD, is Professor of Learning Sciences and Human Development at the University of Teacher Education Zug and a Professor of Developmental Psychology at LMU Munich. She is the principal investigator of various interdisciplinary research projects in different cultural contexts. Her research interests focus on the development of social and moral competencies from early childhood to young adulthood and the role of these competencies in addressing societal challenges. In addition, Dr. Grütter is involved in the design and evaluation of interventions to enhance inclusive peer attitudes and positive peer relations in schools.

References

Barth

Grütter

(2024). Inclusive classroom norms and children’s expectations of inclusion of peers with learning difficulties in their social world. Journal of School Psychology, 104, 101312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101312

Barth

Killen

Grütter

(2025). Children’s reasoning about challenging social exclusion of peers with learning difficulties. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254251348216

Bennett

Sani

(2008). Children’s subjective identification with social groups: A self‐stereotyping approach. Developmental Science, 11(1), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00642.x

Busching

Krahé

(2020). With a little help from their peers: The impact of classmates on adolescents’ development of prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(9), 1849–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01260-8

Cialdini

R. B.

Kallgren

C. A.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (24, pp. 201–234). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5

Dijkstra

J. K.

Lindenberg

Veenstra

(2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictors from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1377–1389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1377

Dillon

C. E.

Lochman

J. E.

(2022). Correcting for norm misperception of anti-bullying attitudes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419860598

Farmer

T. W.

Hamm

J. V.

Dawes

Barko-Alva

Cross

J. R.

(2019). Promoting inclusive communities in diverse classrooms: Teacher attunement and social dynamics management. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1635020

Garrote

Zurbriggen

C. L.

Schwab

(2023). Friendship networks in inclusive elementary classrooms: Changes and stability related to students’ gender and self-perceived social inclusion. Social Psychology of Education, 26(6), 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09804-z

10.

Gasser

Grütter

Torchetti

(2018). Inclusive classroom norms, children’s sympathy, and intended inclusion toward students with hyperactive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.005

11.

Gasser

Grütter

Torchetti

Buholzer

(2017). Competitive classroom norms and exclusion of children with academic and behavior difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 49, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.12.002

12.

Hox

Moerbeek

Van de Schoot

(2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650982

13.

Killen

Rutland

(2013). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice, and group identity. John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Laursen

Veenstra

(2021). Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. Journal of Research on Adolescence: The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606

15.

Levy-Friedman

Kogut

(2025). Doing more than expected: The role of the recipient’s neediness in children’s perception of their relative prosociality. Child Development, 96(1), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14171

16.

Marsh

H. W.

Lüdtke

Nagengast

Trautwein

Morin

A. J.

Abduljabbar

A. S.

Köller

(2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.670488

17.

Mehta

C. M.

Strough

(2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001

18.

Palmer

S. B.

Hitti

Abrams

Cameron

Sims

R. N.

Woodward

Killen

(2023). When to intervene and take a stand: Evaluating bystander roles in intergroup name‐calling contexts. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2675

19.

Perkins

H. W.

Craig

D. W.

Perkins

J. M.

(2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210398004

20.

R Core Team . (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

21.

Sandstrom

Makover

Bartini

(2013). Social context of bullying: Do misperceptions of group norms influence children’s responses to witnessed episodes? Social Influence, 8(2-3), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2011.651302

22.

Sargent

R. H.

Newman

L. S.

(2021). Pluralistic ignorance research in psychology: A scoping review of topic and method variation and directions for future research. Review of General Psychology, 25(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021995168

23.

Schürer

van Ophuysen

Marticke

(2025). Social participation in secondary school: The relation to teacher-student interaction, student characteristics and class-related variables. Social Psychology of Education, 28, 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09992-2

24.

Shin

Gyeong

(2024). Perceived and actual norms, and norm misperceptions in explaining participant roles in bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(11), 2683–2693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02042-2

25.

Tankard

M. E.

Paluck

E. L.

(2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social issues and policy review, 10(1), 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022

26.

Thijs

Wiemers

(2023). Disentangling unique and consensual group norm perceptions: A study with ethnic majority students. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 58(4), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12914

27.

Tolmatcheff

Galand

Roskam

Veenstra

(2022). The effectiveness of moral disengagement and social norms as anti-bullying components: A randomized controlled trial. Child Development, 93(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13828

28.

Van Veelen

Otten

Cadinu

Hansen

(2016). An integrative model of social identification: Self-stereotyping and self-anchoring as two cognitive pathways. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 20(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315576642

29.

Veenstra

Lodder

G. M. A.

(2022). On the microfoundations of the link between classroom social norms and behavioral development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(5), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221100228

30.

Verkuyten

(2021). Group identity and ingroup bias: The social identity approach. Human Development, 65(5-6), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519089

31.

Weller

Lagattuta

K. H.

(2014). Children's judgments about prosocial decisions and emotions: Gender of the helper and recipient matters. Child Development, 85(5), 2011–2028. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12238