Search

Although parent-child conversations about race are recommended to curb White US children’s racial biases, little work has tested their influence. We designed a guided (subtle and blatant) racism discussion task for US White parents and their 8-12-year-old White children. We explored whether children’s and parents’ (1) pro-White implicit biases changed pre-to-post conversation, (2) racial socialization messages (color conscious, external attributions for prejudiced behavior, colorblind racial ideology) predicted changes in their implicit biases, and (3) associations varied by the type of racism discussed. Children’s and parents’ biases significantly declined, pre-to-post discussion. Parents’ color conscious messages predicted greater declines, and messages reflecting colorblind racial ideology and external attributions predicted smaller declines in children’s bias. These patterns were observed during discussions of subtle, but not blatant bias. Effects of children’s messages on parents’ bias were mixed. Our findings suggest that color conscious parent-child discussions may effectively reduce implicit pro-White bias in White children.

Although considerable research has examined how members of advantaged groups think and feelabout disadvantaged groups, fewer studies have examined responses to “intermediate” social groups—groups that are perceived to fall between more commonly acknowledged groups on the same dimension of social identity. We measured judgments of intermediate groups, including novel groups designed to manipulate social group intermediacy (Studies 1-5), Black/White biracial people (Study 6), and bisexual people (Study 7). In each study, participants provided separate evaluations of an intermediate group and two comparison groups (e.g., Black/White biracial people, Black people, White people). Intermediate groups were consistently rated as less conceptually legitimate (e.g., less distinctive, not a “real” group) than other groups. The view that intermediate groups are not “real” groups helped explain negative evaluations of them, and participants who strongly identified with an advantaged ingroup were especially prone to this pattern of judgments. These results are consistent with the idea that an intermediate group can threaten the distinctiveness of a valued ingroup, leading people to dismiss and denigrate the intermediate group. Studying perceptions of intermediate groups facilitates a nuanced account of an increasingly heterogeneous social world.

Racism continues to permeate the United States’ society, today. Though many White parents in the U.S. believe that racism continues to exist, it can be difficult for them to talk about race honestly with their White children. In this review, we identify three myths that egalitarian-minded White American parents use as reasons to avoid honest parent-child discussions of race and racism: 1) talking about race will make their White children racist, 2) White children are too young to talk about racism, and 3) race and racism are irrelevant to White children’s lives. In this review, we discuss why these myths are false and present suggestions for how White parents can honestly discuss race and racism with their children.

In this commentary on Lewis’ (2021) article in Psychological Inquiry, we expand on ways that both systemic and interpersonal contexts contribute to and uphold racial inequalities, with a particular focus on research on child development and socialization. We also discuss the potential roadblocks that may undermine the effectiveness of Lewis’ (2021) recommended strategy of relying on experts as a driving force for change. We conclude by proposing additional strategies for pursuing racial equality that may increase the impact of experts, such as starting anti-racist socialization early in development, family-level interventions, and teaching people about racial injustices and their connections to systemic racism.

Prior work has established that nonverbal signals that capitalize on existing cultural biases can shift attitudes toward members of familiar social groups (e.g., racial minority group members). This research is the first to examine whether nonverbal signals can influence adults’ attitudes toward unfamiliar individuals outside the context of existing cultural biases. In a series of studies, we examined whether seeing one individual receive more cold, unfriendly nonverbal signals than another individual would lead to biases in favor of the target of more positive nonverbal signals. Consistent with our preregistered hypotheses, exposure to nonverbal bias in favor of one individual over another led participants to develop nonverbal signal-consistent explicit biases. Moreover, a combined analysis of the data from all four samples indicated that participants also formed nonverbal signal-consistent implicit biases. Taken together, these findings suggest that nonverbal signals have the potential to create and spread attitudes toward others.

The majority of White parents in the U.S. are uncomfortable discussing race with their children and tend to avoid it. When they do discuss race with their children, they often take a color blind approach—in which they emphasize a belief that race does not matter—instead of a color conscious approach—in which they acknowledge race-related issues. In the current study, we sought to explore the individual difference factors that may be associated with White American parents’ racial socialization practices. Results indicated that parents’ racial bias awareness was associated with greater willingness to discuss race with their children, increased color consciousness, and decreased color blindness; when statistically controlling for their racial attitudes, motivations to respond without prejudice, and interracial contact. The potential impact of bias awareness interventions on White parents’ racial socialization behaviors are discussed.

A study was conducted to compare career experiences of psychology majors with persons majoring in other fields. Questionnaires were mailed to bachelor's degree recipients with majors in psychology, liberal arts, the sciences, and business. Psychology majors were employed in a wide variety of occupations and were generally in jobs that seemed appropriate for college graduates. In terms of salary, relationship between college major and work, and relevance of college major to job experiences, psychology majors were fairly similar to liberal arts majors. However, the work experiences of psychology majors were not as positive as the work experiences of business and science majors. Sex differences were observed in career experiences for all categories of college majors.