Search

Popular press articles have advocated for parent–child conversations about race and racism to prevent children from developing racial biases, yet empirical investigations of the impact of racial socialization in White U.S. families are scarce. In an article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science in 2020, Scott et al. warned that, given the lack of empirical evidence, parents might actually do more harm than good by talking to their children about race. In this comment, we draw upon the literature on (a) racial socialization, (b) parenting and parent–child discourse, and (c) the role of nonverbal communication in parental socialization to inform our understanding of parents’ ability to engage in race-related conversations in the absence of empirical guidance. We also highlight emerging evidence of the potential benefits of these conversations (even if parents are uncomfortable). In sum, the wealth of existing literature suggests that parents can successfully navigate challenging conversations with their children—which tends to result in better outcomes for children than avoiding those conversations. Thus, although we support Scott et al.’s call for researchers to develop more empirical research, we part with the authors’ assertion that researchers need to wait for more sufficient evidence before providing recommendations to White parents—we believe that the time for White families to begin talking about race and racism is now.

The consequences of racial microaggressions are most often discussed at an interpersonal level. In this article, we contend that microaggressions play an important role in maintaining systems of racial oppression beyond the interpersonal context. Specifically, we illustrate how microaggressions establish White superiority in the United States by othering people of color (e.g., treating people of color as if they are not true citizens) and communicating that they are inferior (e.g., environmental exclusions and attacks, treating people of color as second-class citizens). We also present evidence that microaggressions play a role in protecting and reinforcing systemic racism. By obscuring systemic racism (e.g., false color blindness, denial of individual racism) and promoting ideas that maintain existing systemic inequalities (e.g., the myth of meritocracy, reverse-racism hostility), microaggressions provide cover and support for established systems of oppression. Overall, we find considerable evidence—from both empirical studies and real-world examples—that microaggressions contribute to the maintenance of systems of racial oppression in the United States. We conclude with a discussion of how we might begin to challenge this cycle by increasing awareness of systemic racism and the microaggressions that aid in its perpetuation.

Risk-taking is sometimes admired and sometimes disparaged. In this research, we examine previously unexplored questions concerning how membership in social groups is related to expectations and perceptions of risk-taking. We propose that prototypes of risk-takers incorporate racial associations. We conducted five studies (NTotal = 1,603, predominantly White residents of the United States) examining whether prototypes of risk-takers-primarily reckless and responsible ones-activate racial stereotypes and discrimination. We first focused on whether participants perceive Black (vs. White) men as more likely to engage in risk-taking, broadly construed (Study 1). Next, we tested whether the trait attributions (Studies 2 and 3) and mental images constructed with the reverse correlation task (Study 3) of reckless risk-takers are more stereotypically Black (and less White) than responsible risk-takers. In Study 4, we employed an investment game to investigate participants' willingness to trust targets we depicted using the racialized mental images of reckless and responsible risk-takers derived from Study 3. A final study examined whether thinking about reckless risk-takers evokes Black stereotypes broadly, including even positive stereotype content. Findings confirmed that reckless risk-takers were imagined as more phenotypically Black and as having more stereotypically Black traits (both positive and negative), compared with responsible risk-takers. Theoretical and practical implications for this novel stereotype content in the domain of risk are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

In the face of evidence that someone is socially biased or prejudiced, we examined how people react to those who deny or admit having such flaws. We proposed the novel hypothesis that people’s perceptions and evaluations of individuals who deny or admit their social biases may be ambivalent. As such, we hypothesized that when a denier and an admitter of social bias would be considered together, people would react to the denier more negatively than to the admitter. However, when a denier and an admitter would be considered independently, we predicted the individual’s self-report about whether or not they were biased would be accommodated, such that the denier would be perceived as less prejudiced than the admitter. In eight studies (N= 3,933), we tested this hypothesis for both gender and racial biases, across participant gender and race, and with multiple indicators of bias (i.e., an implicit bias test; subtle and blatant hiring discrimination). Findings across studies provided robust support for our hypothesis, suggesting that people have mixed reactions to individuals who deny or admit their social biases.

Previous research shows that White individuals who are more aware of their propensity to express subtle racial bias experience heightened interracial anxiety. We propose that this anxiety may be a result of a moral deficit, resulting from bias awareness. In the present research, we examined whether framing bias awareness as reflecting moral versus personal insight, would moderate the relation between bias awareness and the tendency to feel anxious and avoidant of interracial interactions. Specifically, we investigated whether the framing of bias awareness would influence highly bias-aware White individuals’ (a) learning and performance orientations toward an ostensible online interaction with a Black person, (b) anticipated anxiety about interracial interactions, and (c) desire for interracial contact with outgroup members. Findings suggest that by framing bias awareness as a moral asset, we can increase people’s desire to learn about interracial interaction partners, alleviate their anxiety, and increase their desire for interracial contact.