Do infrahumanization or affective prejudice drive teacher discrimination against Romani students? A conceptual replication of Bruneau et al. (2020) in Germany

Abstract

Bruneau’s work repeatedly focused on the Roma minority, worldwide, one of the most dehumanized ethnic groups. In a preregistered design, we replicated one of his previous studies (Bruneau et al., 2020) in a different national context (i.e., Germany) in testing the hypotheses that pre-service teachers make biased educational-track recommendations discriminating against Romani students and that infrahumanization drives this behaviour. In line with Bruneau et al.’s work, pre-service teachers judged placing self-identified Romani students into lower educational tracks as more appropriate than self-identified Turkish-origin and German students, despite equal academic performance. Although participants infrahumanized Romani students at greater levels compared to non-Romani students, in contrast to the Bruneau et al.’s study, educational-track recommendations were positively associated with affective prejudice but not with infrahumanization. These findings extend Bruneau’s insights on dehumanization, prejudice, and discrimination against people of Romani background, highlighting the role of the social context in which these associations are studied.

Full text

Do Infrahumanization or Affective Prejudice Drive Teacher
Discrimination Against Romani Students? A Conceptual
Replication of Bruneau et al. (2020) in Germany
Sauro Civitillo
1
, Francesca Ialuna
1
, Dwayne Lieck
2
, and Philipp Jugert
1
1
Institute of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen
2
Institute of Psychology, University of Freiburg
Bruneau’s work repeatedly focused on the Roma minority, worldwide, one of the most dehumanized ethnic
groups. In a preregistered design, we replicated one of his previous studies (Bruneau et al., 2020)ina
different national context (i.e., Germany) in testing the hypotheses that preservice teachers make biased
educational-track recommendations discriminating against Romani students and that infrahumanization
drives this behavior. In line with Bruneau et al.’s (2020) work, preservice teachers judged placing self-
identified Romani students into lower educational tracks as more appropriate than self-identified Turkish-
origin and German students, despite equal academic performance. Although participants infrahumanized
Romani students at greater levels compared to non-Romani students, in contrast to the Bruneau et al.’s
(2020) study, educational-track recommendations were positively associated with affective prejudice but
not with infrahumanization. These findings extend Bruneau’s insights on dehumanization, prejudice, and
discrimination against people of Romani background, highlighting the role of the social context in which
these associations are studied.
Public Significance Statement
This study suggests that preservice teachers in Germany are biased against Romani students because
they judged placing self-identified Romani students into lower educational tracks as more appropriate
than non-Romani students despite equal competencies. This bias is more common among those
preservice teachers who harbor colder feelings toward Romani students.
Keywords: infrahumanization, prejudice, educational recommendation, Romani students, teachers
Despite efforts to promote peaceful intergroup relations as an
important educational goal after World War II, the German
educational system is one of the least inclusive for ethnic minority
students in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD; Diehl et al., 2016). Germany’s selective tracked
high school system has been identified as a key structural barrier to
school success, with ethnic minority children overrepresented in
lower track schools (Pietsch & Stubbe, 2007). Teachers’school-
track recommendations at the end of elementary school can greatly
impact educational opportunities and later life outcomes, fore-
grounding group hierarchies. Research shows that teachers are
ethnically biased in that they are more likely to recommend ethnic
minority students to lower track schools despite equal competencies
(Glock et al., 2013,2015).
While there is research on teacher differential treatments based on
ethnicity in Germany, we know little about what drives teacher
discrimination against Romani
1
students specifically, one of the
most stigmatized ethnic groups, who also attain disproportionally
poor educational outcomes across Europe (European Union Agency
for Fundamental Rights, 2019). In Germany, there is evidence that
anti-Roma prejudice is expressed in public discourse and in the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sauro Civitillo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7607-0935
Francesca Ialuna https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2159-7198
Dwayne Lieck https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9814-3488
Philipp Jugert https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4313-0596
SAURO CIVITILLO is Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Duisburg-
Essen and Research Fellow at the College for Interdisciplinary Educational
Research (CIDER), Germany. His research focuses on culturally responsive
teaching, ethnic discrimination and prejudice in the school context.
FRANCESCA IALUNA is Doctoral Student at the University of Duisburg-
Essen. Her main research interests are school adaptation of recently arrived
children and cultural socialization.
DWAYNE LIECK is Master Student at the University of Freiburg. His
research interests are prejudice, discrimination and open science.
PHILIPP JUGERT is Professor of Intercultural Psychology - Migration and
Integration. His research focuses on social-developmental psychology,
intergroup relations, diversity, and education.
This study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior
Citizens, Women and Youth through the National Discrimination and
Racism Monitor (NaDiRa) panel.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to
Sauro Civitillo, Institute of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen,
Universitätsstraße 2, 45141 Essen, Germany. Email: sauro.civitillo@uni-due.de
1
In line with recent European Union policy recommendations (European
Committee, 2020), we used the term “individuals with Romani background.”
This denomination encompasses different ethnic groups (e.g., Roma, Sinti,
Kalè, Manouches, Lovara) who vary in language, religion, and sociocultural
characteristics.
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology
© 2022 American Psychological Association 2022, Vol. 28, No. 3, 340–344
ISSN: 1078-1919 https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000609
340

media. For example, data available from the Center for Research on
Anti-Semitism (2014) reveal negative perceptions about Romani
people in the German population. About one third of the total
respondents (N=14,232) viewed the hypothetical presence of
Roma and Sinti in their neighborhood as unpleasant or very unpleas-
ant; compared to other groups like Muslims or asylum seekers,
Romani people were ranked as the lowest in terms of likability.
Prior research has focused on stereotypical expectations and
prejudice as grounds for recommending ethnic minority students
(e.g., pupils of Turkish descent) to lower track schools (Glock et al.,
2015;Sprietsma, 2013). Yet Bruneau et al. (2020), building on
dehumanization insights (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014), theorized
that students who are perceived as less human may be considered
less skilled and thus not able to perform academically. Accordingly,
they found that blatant dehumanization but not infrahumanization or
affective prejudice predicted discriminatory behaviors (i.e., teacher
educational-track bias) against Romani students in Hungary—a
country where blatant dehumanization of people with Romani
background is commonplace (Kende et al., 2017). In Germany,
however, it is nonnormative to express overt negative attitudes
toward ethnic outgroups (Blinder et al., 2013). This is why we
assumed that infrahumanization, a subtler measure of dehumaniza-
tion, may be associated with teacher differential treatment of
Romani students in Germany.
According to Leyens et al. (2001), infrahumanization describes
the tendency to deny outgroups’s emotions that distinguish humans
from animals (i.e., secondary positive and negative emotions like
hope and regret) but not the emotions shared with animals (i.e.,
primary positive and negative emotions like joy and anger). Hence,
infrahumanization reflects people’s tendency to reserve full human-
ness to describe their own group, attributing less complex secondary
emotions to the outgroup. Because individuals are largely unaware
of the distinction between primary and secondary emotions, infra-
humanization may be considered a subtle and indirect expression of
dehumanization (Kteily et al., 2016), making it particularly useful to
study in cultural contexts where it is nonnormative to express overt
negative attitudes toward ethnic outgroups. In addition, given that
teachers are prone to social desirability distortion, we sought to
replicate Bruneau et al.’s (2020) work by focusing on infrahuma-
nization instead of blatant dehumanization.
2
The Present Study
We investigated the extent to which preservice teachers (i.e.,
students enrolled in a teacher preparation program) discriminate
against Romani students and whether infrahumanization or affective
prejudice drives this behavior using an ecologically valid placement
paradigm in our conceptual replication of Bruneau et al. (2020).We
preregistered our study on aspredicted.org (https://aspredicted.org/
cw5t2.pdf). Research materials (in German and in English) and data
are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF), project page
(https://osf.io/6k9mr/). We tested the following predictions:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Participants recommend self-identified
Romani pupils to lower educational tracks more frequently
than Turkish-origin and German pupils, despite equal academic
performance.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Infrahumanization is positively associated
with recommending self-identified Romani pupils to lower
tracks, beyond affective prejudice.
Method
Participants
Based on statistical power calculations (see preregistration) and
due to limited study resources, a stopping rule of 200 participants
was applied. Our final sample included 206 preservice teachers
(69% females, 11% self-identified with another ethnic group other
than German or mixed identification, e.g., German–Turkish) who
studied in the Ruhr area, Germany. Participants were either enrolled
in a primary or secondary teacher education program, and over 90%
had previous teaching experience as student teachers in the class-
room within the framework of their study program (36% had
between 16 and 30 weeks of school experience). We excluded
two participants because they filled out the scale too slow (±3 times
the median absolute deviation) and two others because they did not
provide consent after completing the study. For the remaining
participants (N=202), missing values on the main variables
were less than 1%.
Measures, Study Design, and Procedure
Infrahumanization was assessed using an emotional attribution
task adapted from Kteily et al. (2016), in which participants rated
how typical six primary (e.g., happiness, pain) and six secondary
emotions (e.g., compassion, optimism) were for the target (i.e.,
Romani, Turks, and Germans) and three distractor groups (i.e.,
Dutch, Italians, and Swedes), using a scale from 1 (not at all typical)
to 10 (very typical) scale. Affective prejudice was assessed using the
feeling thermometers (Haddock et al., 1993), which measure how
cold/warm participants feel toward the target and the distractor
groups, using a 0 (very cold)to10(very warm) scale.
To measure educational-track recommendations, each participant
was presented in a randomized order with 22 male student profiles
(six self-identified as Romani, six as Turkish-origin, and 10 for the
majority group German), with reported grades in six undefined
school subjects and a grand mean of the grades (see Figure 1 for an
example). The only difference between the profiles was the name of
the student (e.g., Milosh, Serkan, or Tobias) and the ethnic self-
identification of the student (as Romani, as Turkish-origin, or as
German). We added the ethnic self-identification because in Ger-
many, it is unlikely to infer a Romani background from the first
names. Using a within-subject design, participants rated on a 0 (not
all appropriate)to10(very appropriate) scale, how appropriate the
three different school tracks (low-, medium-vocational track
schools, both allowing an apprenticeship upon graduation, and
academic track which ends with a qualification for university
entrance) would be for all 22 student profiles.
The experiment was conducted online. Participants were recruited
through the university website and on a Facebook page for preservice
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2
Originally, we also planned to assess blatant dehumanization through the
“Ascent of Man”by Kteily et al. (2016) as in Bruneau et al.’s study.
However, the application for ethic approval was rejected by the ethics
committee at our university because this instrument was found to be ethically
problematic. As a result, we dropped this measure.
DRIVERS OF TEACHER DISCRIMINATION 341

teachers attending teacher training in the Ruhr area. Data were
collected from November 2020 through January 2021. Each partici-
pant consented to the use oftheir anonymized data and received a 10€
voucher. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ethics
committee at the Institute of Psychology (University of Duis-
burg-Essen).
Plan of Data Analysis
Before testing H1 and H2, we excluded four extreme German
student profiles that were used as distractors (two with very high
grades and two with very low grades), leaving six student profiles
for each ethnic group (see research materials on OSF for the profiles
being excluded). To examine H1, we created a composite score by
averaging for each of the three different school tracks (i.e., low-
vocational, medium-vocational, and academic track schools) parti-
cipants’recommendations for the six student profiles within each
ethnic group (Cronbach’sαranged from α=.89 to α=.93 for low-
vocational track; from α=.66 to α=.76 for medium-vocational;
and from α=.73 to α=.79 for academic track). We then used a 3
(student profiles: self-identified as Romani, Turkish, and Germans)
×3 (school-track recommendation: low-, medium-vocational, and
academic track) within-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA)
followed by planned comparisons across school tracks with Bon-
ferroni correction, homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test), p=
.126, to establish whether participants overall reported different
educational recommendations. To test H2, following Bruneau et al.
(2020) study, we calculated a score which reflects the degree of
biased recommendation for each participant, by averaging the
tendency to favor placing Romani students over Germans in the
low educational track with the tendency to favor placing German
over Romani pupils in the high track (r=.18, p<.05). Infra-
humanization was computed as the difference between average
ratings for Germans versus people of Romani background on
secondary emotions. Similarly, affective prejudice was computed
as the difference in warmth felt toward Germans and people of
Romani background. We then regressed the degree of biased
recommendation on infrahumanization and affective prejudice,
controlling for gender and ethnicity.
Results
Table 1 shows descriptives and bivariate correlations for the main
study variables. Of note, there was a positive correlation between
infrahumanization and affective prejudice (r=.23, p<.05) toward
Romani. Infrahumanization toward Romani was strongly positively
correlated to infrahumanization toward Turks (r=.71, p<.01).
Similarly, measures of affective prejudice against Romani and Turks
were strongly positively correlated (r=.68, p<.01). Next,
participants infrahumanized Romani at greater levels compared to
other non-Romani (Romani: M=0.45, SD =1.02; Turks: M=0.18,
SD =1.01) and reported higher level of affective prejudice toward
this group (M=1.31, SD =2.75) in comparison to Turks (M=0.72,
SD =2.82).
Recommendation ratings by school track are presented in
Figure 2. The Student profile ×School track interaction was
statically significant, F(4, 198) =13.53, p<.001, η2
p=.22. This
indicates that participants recommended pupils of different ethnic
groups to different educational tracks, despite having the same grade
point averages. Supporting H1, planned paired samples ttests
indicated that preservice teachers judged placing self-identified
Romani students into the lowest school track (M=3.71, SD =
2.00) more suitable than self-identified Turkish-origin (M=3.51,
SD =2.16), t(201) =3.21, p<.01, d=0.22,
3
and German students
(M=3.35, SD =2.10), t(201) =5.30, p<.001, d=0.37. We ran
additional ttests for the academic school track (i.e., Gymnasium),
showing the same results: Romani pupils recommendation
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 1
Example Profile of a Pupil With Romani Background
Name of the student: Milosh
Report card class 4 (1st half-year)
Subject A Subject D
Subject B Subject E
Subject C 2 Subject F
Further information regarding the student:
Milosh identifies as Roma. He is very committed to his classmates and always works very
well with them.
Grade point average: 1,8
3
2
2
2
1
1
Note. Schools in Germany apply a 1–5 point grading system, varying from 1 (excellent)to5
(insufficient).
3
Cohen’sdfor the paired samples ttests were calculated using the means,
standard deviations, and the correlations between the two variables tested.
342 CIVITILLO, IALUNA, LIECK, AND JUGERT

placement was lower than self-identified Turkish and German
students, p<.01 and p<.001, respectively.
Although participants infrahumanized Romani at greater levels
compared to other non-Romani people, H2 was not supported. After
controlling for gender and ethnicity, multiple regression analysis
showed that preservice teachers’degree of biased recommendation
(R
2
=.13) was significantly predicted by affective prejudice (β=
.35, p<.001), but not by infrahumanization (β=.02, p=.73). We
repeated the regression analysis separately for the tendency to favor
placing Romani students over Germans in the low educational track
and for the tendency to favor placing German over Romani pupils in
the high track, as well as accounting for primary emotion attribution,
and excluding participants that self-identified with another ethnic
group other than German or reported mixed identification (i.e., 8
with Turkish or German–Turkish), but results did not change. In an
exploratory analysis, we ran a moderation analysis with Dehumani-
zation ×Affective prejudice on degree of educational-track biased
recommendation. However, the results showed that there was no
significant interaction effect.
Discussion
In line with Bruneau et al. (2020) study, our data indicate that
preservice teachers judged placing self-identified Romani students
into lower educational tracks as more appropriate than non-Romani
students. These findings are also congruent with other studies
conducted in Germany (Glock et al., 2015;Sprietsma, 2013),
demonstrating that teachers make ethnically biased educational re-
commendations. Moreover, our findings expand these studies, sug-
gesting that the degree of biased tracking recommendation is more
severe for Romani students than for other historically marginalized
ethnic minorities in Germany (e.g., Turkish-origin individuals). Our
study and Bruneau et al.’s(2020)work were both conducted with
preservice teachers, thus, future research should continue assessing
biased tracking recommendation in the natural setting of the school
with teachers who already entered the profession.
Unexpectedly and partially in contrast with Bruneau et al.’s
(2020) work, affective prejudice was found to be related to discrim-
ination such that preservice teachers who had colder feelings toward
Roma were more likely to discriminate against them in educational-
track recommendations. One explanation for this discrepancy con-
cerns the role of the context in which these associations were
studied. Despite negative perceptions toward Romani people are
widespread across Europe, arguably, Germany is a less openly
Romani-hostile context than Hungary and thus dehumanization
insights may be less accurate in describing underlying discrimina-
tory behaviors (Enock et al., 2021). It is important to note that in
Bruneau et al.’s (2020) work, blatant dehumanization (but not
infrahumanization) predicted teacher-biased educational recom-
mendations. In our conceptual replication, we could not directly
test this finding because the measure of blatant dehumanization
raised ethical concerns. Hence, further research is needed to com-
pare whether blatant dehumanization or infrahumanization lead
teachers to perceive Romani students as unable to perform well
academically and better fit for low-educational school tracks. Future
research should also include measures of the acceptability of nega-
tive attitudes toward ethnic outgroups (ideally in cross-cultural
comparison) to verify the claim that it is less normative to express
overtly negative outgroup attitudes in Germany as compared to
Hungary.
At the same time, our findings highlight that, although teachers
may be perceived as holding overtly egalitarian attitudes toward
ethnic minority students, there remains a great deal of variation in
prejudicial evaluations of different social groups. Therefore, mea-
suring affective prejudice can be of value for education research. In
other words, teacher training institutions need to ensure from the
very beginning that teachers acknowledge and reject anti-Roma
prejudice. Furthermore, training curricula should include informa-
tion about the Romani group, their origin, and their persecution in
Nazi Germany. Teacher educators should showcase variability and
heterogeneity of this group (Matache & Mark, 2014) and challenge
common stereotypes about innate deficiencies by presenting
counter-stereotypical successful examples of Romani individuals
in various fields (Johnson et al., 2013). Finally, it needs to be stressed
that strategies for challenging preservice teachers’prejudicial views
are most effective if they are paired with phases of experiential
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 2
Recommendation Ratings by School Track for Self-Identified
Romani, Turkish-Origin, and German Pupils
Note. Vertical bars represent standard errors of the means. Horizontal bars
represent planned paired ttest. See the online article for the color version of
this figure.
** p<.01. *** p<.001.
Table 1
Descriptives and Bivariate Correlations Between Study Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Infrahumanization (Romani) —
2. Affective prejudice
(Romani)
.23*—
3. Infrahumanization (Turks) .71** .14*—
4. Affective prejudice (Turks) .17*.68** .27*—
5. Education-track
recommendation
.11 .36** .05 .26** —
M0.45 1.31 0.18 0.72 0.37
SD 1.02 2.75 1.01 2.82 0.72
Skewness 0.35 0.39 0.22 0.31 0.71
Note. N =202. All measures represent relative values. Educational-track
recommendation refers to Romani students in the low-vocational track.
*p<.05. ** p<.01.
DRIVERS OF TEACHER DISCRIMINATION 343

learning and not just theoretical input (Civitillo et al., 2018). Thus, it
would be most fruitful if teaching internships that are mandatory
during teacher training involve teaching in classes with Romani
pupils while close care needs to be taken in supervising the preservice
teachers before, during, and after their teaching experiences.
References
Blinder, S., Ford, R., & Ivarsflaten, E. (2013). The better angels of our nature:
How the antiprejudice norm affects policy and party preferences in Great
Britain and Germany. American Journal of Political Science,57(4), 841–
857. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12030
Bruneau, E., Szekeres, H., Kteily, N., Tropp, L. R., & Kende, A. (2020).
Beyond dislike: Blatant dehumanization predicts teacher discrimination.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,23(4), 560–577. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1368430219845462
Center for Research on Anti-Semitism. (2014). Between indifference and
rejection. popular attitudes toward Sinti and Roma [Zwischen gleichgül-
tigkeit und ablehnung. bevolkerungseinstellungen gegenüber Sinti und
Roma]. Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes.
Civitillo, S., Juang, L. P., & Schachner, M. K. (2018). Challenging beliefs
about cultural diversity in education: A synthesis and critical review of
trainings with pre-service teachers. Educational Research Review,24,67–
83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.01.003
Diehl, C., Hunkler, C., & Kristen, C. (2016). Ethnische ungleichheiten im
bildungsverlauf. Eine einführung. In C. Diehl, C. Hunkler, & C. Kristen
(Eds.), Ethnische ungleichheiten im bildungsverlauf: Mechanismen, be-
funde, debatten (pp. 3–31). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-658-04322-3_1
Enock, F. E., Flavell, J. C., Tipper, S. P., & Over, H. (2021). No convincing
evidence outgroups are denied uniquely human characteristics:
Distinguishing intergroup preference from trait-based dehumanization.
Cognition,212, Article 104682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021
.104682
European Committee. (2020). Report on the implementation of national
Roma integration strategies: Combating negative attitudes towards peo-
ple with Romani background in Europe. Publications Office of the
European Union.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2019). Fundamental
rights report 2019. Publications Office of the European Union.
Glock, S., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Klapproth, F., & Böhmer, M. (2013).
Beyond judgment bias: How students’ethnicity and academic profile
consistency influence teachers’tracking judgments. Social Psychology of
Education,16(4), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9227-5
Glock, S., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Pit-ten Cate, I. M. (2015). Are school
placement recommendations accurate? The effect of students’ethnicity on
teachers’judgments and recognition memory. European Journal of Psy-
chology of Education,30(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-
0237-2
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of
prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,65(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumaniza-
tion. Annual Review of Psychology,65(1), 399–423. https://doi.org/10
.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
Johnson, D. R., Jasper, D. M., Griffin, S., & Huffman, B. L. (2013). Reading
narrative fiction reduces Arab-Muslim prejudice and offers a safe haven
from intergroup anxiety. Social Cognition,31(5), 578–598. https://
doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.5.578
Kende, A., Hadarics, M., & Lášticová, B. (2017). Anti-Roma attitudes as
expressions of dominant social norms in Eastern Europe. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations,60,12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijintrel.2017.06.002
Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. (2016). They see us as less than
human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal
dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,110(3),
343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044
Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Pala-
dino, M. P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism
and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups
and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology,31(4), 395–411.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.50
Matache, M., & Mark, D. (2014). Confined by narrow choices: The stories of
Roma adolescents. In J. Bhabha (Ed.), Human rights and adolescence (pp.
270–292). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pietsch, M., & Stubbe, T. C. (2007). Inequality in the transition from primary
to secondary school: School choices and educational disparities in Ger-
many. European Educational Research Journal,6(4), 424–445. https://
doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.4.424
Sprietsma, M. (2013). Discrimination in grading: Experimental evidence
from primary school teachers. Empirical Economics,45(1), 523–538.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0609-x
Received September 9, 2021
Revision received January 25, 2022
Accepted February 11, 2022 ▪
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
344 CIVITILLO, IALUNA, LIECK, AND JUGERT