Racial Socialization Experiences Among 1.5 and 2nd Generation Indian Americans

Ethnic-Racial Socialization and Conceptualizations of Race and Racism

Research on ethnic socialization among South Asian immigrants has mainly focused on parental communication concerning cultural heritage (Chakawa & Hoglund, 2016). Researchers indicated that 1st generation Indian American parents tend to emphasize close family ties and engagement with Indian cultural values as a way to maintain a sense of cultural continuity across generations. Moreover, studies with South Asian American parents and adolescents underscored acculturation gaps and parent-child cultural value discrepancies concerning activities such as friendships and dating (Inman, 2006; Tummala-Narra et al., 2016; Tummala-Narra & Sathasivam-Rueckert, 2016). South Asian American adolescents have reported challenges in navigating different cultural values at home and school and in communicating their concerns to their parents, whom they experience as overly strict, traditional, and demanding with regard to academic expectations. Despite family cultural conflicts, a sense of connection to the family has been found to be an important source of support for South Asian American adolescents (Tummala-Narra et al., 2016).

Notably, the few studies (Daga & Raval, 2018; Iqbal, 2014; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011) that have explored racial socialization among Indian American families found that 2nd generation Indian Americans received less preparation for racial, ethnic, and religious bias and discrimination. Specifically, Daga and Raval (2018) found that 2nd generation participants experienced anxiety in interracial interactions due to parental messages about not trusting people of other racial backgrounds. Participants also reported pressure and a sense of pride in the model minority stereotype, as they internalized parental messages about the importance of academic and occupational success. Although participants reported considerable parental communication regarding racism, there was less communication about how to cope with racism (Daga & Raval, 2018).

These findings are concerning as children and adolescents are exposed to racialized messages across contexts, such as ethnic and religious communities, schools, and peer groups. Research indicates that engaging in one’s ethnic community can both foster a sense of pride in one’s heritage culture (e.g., ethnic identity) and contribute to racial identity development, in which attitudes toward ingroup and outgroup members are internalized (Byrd & Legette, 2022). Both 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans learn about race and racism in mainstream contexts, such as schools and workplaces, which involve indirect and direct experiences of racism (e.g., media, word of mouth). Limited research has revealed that messages about race in these contexts often include stereotypes that perpetuate perceptions of Indian Americans as model minorities, exotic people, or terrorists (Inman & Tummala-Narra, 2014; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011). Additionally, schools have been identified as core sites of racialization, where students learn about racial positioning through policies and everyday interactions with educators and peers, in which Eurocentric norms are valued (Byrd & Legette, 2022). Dismissal or minimization of the negative impacts of racism and stereotyping on Indian American children and adolescents have also been noted in schools (Tummala-Narra et al., 2016). Such messaging influences how individuals develop ethnic and racial identity as well as experience and respond to racism (Atkin et al., 2019; Iqbal, 2014).

Interestingly, despite the prevalence of racism across all generational groups, engagement with racism is varied among Indian American communities. The reluctance to directly confront racism among many 1st generation Indian Americans can be understood in part through pre-migration and post-migration conceptualizations of race and racism. Specifically, the caste system and history of British colonization in India have been found to be significant factors in shaping how race and racism are conceptualized among 1st generation Indian Americans (Inman et al., 2015; Nikalje & Çiftçi, 2023). Although the caste system originated in Hinduism, Indians affiliated with other faith traditions such as Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism are also affected by the pervasiveness of caste and social class demarcations, along with British colonization in India (Vallabhaneni, 2015).

In Inman et al.’s (2015) study with 1st generation Indian Americans, preimmigration messages were reminiscent of British colonial rule in India, including not questioning or talking about the caste system or discrimination inside or outside of the home, valuing light skin color, and mistrusting foreigners. These messages reflect a colonial mentality that encompasses feelings of inferiority, an embarrassment of one’s ethnicity or culture, and views of one’s physical traits as less attractive than White, European traits. This mentality further perpetuates within-group discrimination, as well as tolerance and acceptance of oppression (David & Nadal, 2013). Notably, among both 1st and 2nd generation Indian Americans, colonial mentality appears to be passed on intergenerationally without direct experience of being colonized (Daga & Raval, 2018; Nikalje & Çiftçi, 2023). As such, premigration experiences of caste distinctions and history of colonization influence how race and racism are conceptualized across generations.

It is worth noting that conceptualizations of race among Indian Americans have shifted over the course of Indian immigration to the United States. Bhatia (2007) noted that many Indian Americans did not consider themselves as people of Color or fully American before 9/11, despite facing racism and other forms of discrimination. Rather, many internalized the model minority stereotype, the notion that Asians are innately intelligent, academically and professionally successful, and compliant (Daga & Raval, 2018). They espoused a belief in meritocracy, that achieving educational and financial success and having a strong work ethic could protect them against discrimination and secure belonging in White mainstream society. These beliefs have not only contributed to the minimization and avoidance of the impact of racism, but have also been used as coping strategies by many 1st generation Indian Americans as they adapted to and forged toward thriving in the United States (Inman et al., 2015).

Post 9/11, conceptualizations of race and racism started to shift with the dramatic increase in explicit xenophobia and racism towards Indian Americans, which led to additional research in this area. Specifically, in the post-9/11 context, Tummala-Narra et al. (2011) found that 1st generation participants reported that race became prominent in the context of discrimination experiences. In contrast, for 2nd generation participants, race was salient in their identification as racial minorities in school and work contexts, reflecting an internalized minority identity. These generational differences may reflect the unique racial socialization experienced by each immigrant generation and their respective pre and postmigration contexts.

Racial and ethnic socialization for 1.5 and 2nd generation individuals are distinct from the 1st generation in that the former are raised in a bicultural context where they are exposed to messages both within their homes and the broader United States, along with greater exposure to racism earlier in their lives. The 1.5 and 2nd generations may also carry socialization experiences concerning race and ethnicity that are distinct from each other, as the 1.5 generation has greater early life exposure to the Indian context and the 2nd generation has greater early life exposure to U.S. mainstream context. These generational differences underscore the importance of examining racial socialization within each generational group to develop a more complete understanding of racial identity development among Indian Americans (Daga & Raval, 2018; Inman et al., 2015). In our study, we examined the racial socialization of 1.5 and 2nd generations independently and collectively, recognizing both the distinctions in time spent in the United States and their shared experience of being raised in the United States during adolescence, a critical period of racial identity development (Tummala-Narra & Sathasivam-Rueckert, 2016).

Present Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans’ racial socialization experiences in multiple contexts. We were interested in the following research questions: (a) How do 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans learn about race and racism in different contexts, including from family, friends, community, and school? (b) What stereotypes are 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans exposed to while growing up? and (c) How were race and racism discussed while growing up? We explored these questions using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to gain an in-depth description of racial socialization experiences. Grounded theory was well-suited for the study as there is little existing information about the racial socialization of 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans and potential similarities and differences in how messages are internalized by these two groups.

Participants

The study included 44 participants (nine men and 35 women) between the ages of 19 to 54 years (M = 31.91; SD = 10.30). Sixteen participants were 1.5 generation and 28 were 2nd generation. Twelve of the 1.5 generation participants arrived in the United States between the ages of 6 weeks and 6 years, and four arrived between the ages of 8 and 10 years. Participants’ and their parents’ Indian regions of origin included northern, southern, eastern, and western parts of India (e.g., Rajasthan, Kerala, Gujarat, Bengal). Participants’ past or current residences in the United States were also diverse (i.e., East Coast, West Coast, South, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic). Twenty-four participants grew up in predominantly White neighborhoods and 20 participants grew up in racially diverse towns or cities. At the time of the interviews, 21 participants lived in predominantly White regions and 23 lived in racially diverse regions.

In terms of first language, 21 participants reported English, 19 reported an Indian language (Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Konkani, Malayalam, Punjabi, Tamil, and Telegu), and four reported both English and an Indian language. Regarding language preference, 40 participants indicated English and four participants stated both English and their first language (Indian). With respect to religion, 29 participants identified as Hindu, three as Christian or Catholic, two as Sikh, three as growing up Hindu and currently agnostic/not religious, two as agnostic, and one as Hindu and Zoroastrian. Four participants responded “none” or “N/A” regarding their religious background. Six participants were college students, 16 had completed their undergraduate education, 16 had completed a master’s degree, and six has completed a doctoral-level degree. Their occupations spanned different sectors such as engineering, health care, education, business, law, arts, and the humanities. Eighteen participants identified as middle-class, 24 as upper-middle class, and two as upper-class.

Participant Recruitment

Participants were recruited through snowball sampling using the research team’s personal and professional contacts in Indian American cultural, student, and professional organizations. Participants who were at least 18 years old and born in the United States (2nd generation) or immigrated to the United States by age 12 (1.5 generation) were invited to participate in the study. Pursuant to informed consent, focus groups were scheduled based on participants’ scheduling availability and generational status (1.5 or 2nd). A $25 gift card was provided for participation. The study was approved by the authors’ institutional review boards.

Focus Groups

Twenty virtual focus groups, ranging from 1.5 to 2 hours, were conducted in English over the Zoom video-conferencing platform. There were seven 1.5 generation focus groups and thirteen 2nd generation focus groups, with two to three participants in each group. The focus group format has been used for data collection in prior research on race and racism with 1st generation Indian Americans (Inman et al., 2015) and is helpful in conjunction with an inductive research approach such as grounded theory (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012). In particular, focus group interviews were used in past studies utilizing grounded theory methodology to facilitate in-depth discussions of racism among Indian Americans (Inman et al., 2015; Tummala-Narra et al., 2016). Discussions in focus groups allow participants to hear about each other’s experiences of racism, which can facilitate their consciousness-raising and access to experiences that may not be readily recalled outside of a group discussion. As such, focus groups, by fostering dialogue, can provide opportunities to engage with challenging topics in ways that may not be possible in individual interviews (Inman et al., 2015).

Measures

Research Team

The research team included three psychologists, a 1.5-generation Indian American woman who immigrated to the United States at the age of 7, a 1st generation Indian American woman who immigrated to the United States at the age of 22, and a 2nd generation Indian American woman who was born in the United States. These three researchers led the focus groups and conducted data analysis. Additionally, a fourth researcher, a 2nd generation Taiwanese American female psychologist, served as the auditor who conducted validity checks throughout the data analytic process. All members of the research team reflected on and discussed their own experiences of race, racial and cultural identities, and socialization throughout the project. For example, prior to and during data analysis, the research team shared their own experiences of living in the United States, including stereotypes and racism that they had faced and their concerns about the rise in explicit forms of racism in the United States, and then reflected on how these experiences were similar to and different from the participants’ narratives. We also noted the differences within our research team with regard to our cultural, linguistic, and regional backgrounds. The similarities and differences in experiences of race and ethnicity within the team offered an opportunity to examine participant experiences through multiple lenses.

Data Analytic Approach

Grounded theory analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was utilized as there is a lack of theory explaining racial socialization experiences among 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans (Inman et al., 2015). We aimed to identify processes related to racial socialization using a constant comparison analysis (Creswell, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We began with open coding, followed by axial coding, and finally, selective coding for responses of participants within each generational group (1.5 and 2nd). Core themes were examined across focus group interviews (i.e., constant comparison) to assess similarities and differences within and between all 1.5 generation focus groups and 2nd generation focus groups. With open coding, words, sentences, and short paragraphs were examined to develop potential themes while staying close to participants’ words. For example, participants experienced a sense of otherness through their “different skin tones.” A 1.5 generation participant stated, “I knew… the color of my skin made us different… brown skin was very uncommon.” Our 2nd generation participants also discussed being aware of otherness due to skin tone differences. These responses were conceptualized within a theme focused on experiencing otherness through standing out or being on the outside of mainstream society. In identifying core themes, coding was continually expanded and differentiated as we analyzed racial socialization experiences (Inman et al., 2015).

In axial coding, themes were conceptualized as part of a broader category or domain. For example, the themes of experiencing otherness, implicit and explicit Asian Indian values, socialization, and navigating identities across different contexts were brought together to define a broader domain, which we termed, “awareness of self in the context of racial and cultural differences.” Dissent on themes and domains was discussed until we reached a consensus.

Using constant comparison, we noted that the data reached a point of saturation, in which new focus group interviews did not provide any additional information (Inman et al., 2015). Saturation was reached by focus group six for the 1.5 generation and by focus group 10 for the 2nd generation. This constant comparison method allowed us to examine diverse perspectives in the data and to assess any discrepancies within and across the two generational focus groups.

Data Trustworthiness

Data trustworthiness was established along three criteria: researchers’ self-reflexivity, the credibility and adequacy of data, and the interpretation of data (Inman et al., 2015; Yeh & Inman, 2007). As data analysis may be influenced by the researchers’ cultural backgrounds, worldviews, and assumptions, it is important to attend to self-reflexivity. Three of the researchers were Indian American and had the experience of being insiders within Indian American communities. While all four members of the research team were involved in analyzing the data, the three Indian American researchers completed the initial analysis. In an effort to ensure data trustworthiness and address potential researcher bias, we used investigator triangulation (Inman et al., 2015). We included an auditor who is Taiwanese American and experienced in racial socialization research, yet unaffiliated with the Indian American community, to examine the validity of data collection and analysis. The auditor provided her perspective on participants’ responses and the coding during multiple points, ensuring that the analysis and findings accurately reflected participants’ words. Her feedback was discussed and integrated throughout the data analysis process. Finally, the interpretation of data has to be carefully examined, as a lack of awareness of one’s bias or a lack of careful attention to the participant’s words can pose threats to trustworthiness (Inman et al., 2015). Therefore, throughout the study, we discussed our personal reactions, biases, and assumptions, and kept detailed notes of these discussions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We centered participants’ responses by reporting direct quotes from the interviews in the results.

Discussion of Race and Racism

Both generational groups noted silence or avoidance on the topic of race and a minimization of racial experiences. The immigrant experience and being a model minority seemed to play heavily into this minimization. Unfortunately, this resulted in a lack of preparation or socialization for dealing with racism for our participants.

Both 1.5 and 2nd generation participants spoke to a lack of conversation about racism. For example, they indicated: “Growing up, we never really had those conversations in the community,” “My parents didn’t really socialize me in terms of racism,” and “I didn’t really have the language to talk about it.” Second generation participants experienced a “lot of repression… if bad things happen… this also includes racism… you don’t talk about it,” and stated, “in stories of immigration and hard times, they never named racism in our house.” Thus, if participants talked about racism, it was with “Friends… not even with my sister”; “I think I talked about discrimination to one Asian friend in high school.” As one participant noted,

I grew up in a White-washed sort of a community, so, and I think a lot of my friends were color blind in the sense. This [focus group interview] is probably one of the first times I’m ever discussing it like this openly.

Both sets of participants felt like they grew up in a bubble, “no one wanted to talk about serious stuff. It was in the back of your mind… we’re all outsiders in this world and we realize that everyone has it tough one way or another somewhere.”

Interestingly, our 2nd generation participants highlighted the reasoning behind the minimization of racism. Participants believed that their parents did not see racism as an issue for their children and that the notion of being an immigrant played heavily into their parent’s resignation of racism, “because they were immigrants themselves, they don’t expect to be accepted in the same way.”

I was told by people it’s just the price you pay for getting to be here versus in India. You should just be grateful that you’re here and if you have to work a little bit harder, put your head down for a little bit just for the opportunity to be here and get the chance to win and that’s something you should deal with.

As immigrants, “… it has to do with the mentality of providing a better future for their children,” with “the main discussion [being] college.” When participants expressed anger towards White people, they were often redirected “to be grateful for how much things have changed from when they had first entered the United States.”

In this context, 2nd generation participants observed their parents adopting a defensive stance with regard to experiences of racism. “‘I want to protect my child against this racial crap that actually does exist so by not talking about it, I protect them.’ Growing up, I would never have known that they had gone through those racial stereotypes.”

Both groups of participants noted that bringing up race “was kind of just cautionary.” “The only time these discussions would really happen was when it was a very serious incident.”

Our 2nd generation participants further articulated the potential differences in conversations about racism between Indian American communities and other racial minority communities: “I think sometimes the Brown community, it seems like we’re escaping it because it’s like, ‘Oh, we’re the model minority.’” Another participant elaborated:

the way race was talked about in my family is probably really different from the way it’s probably discussed in an African American family or a Hispanic family. One of my mentors, she told her son… how he needed to be more careful when he walked out on the streets at night. For me, it was more of… have to do your best and show people that you’re capable of doing things instead of figuring out how to protect yourself out in the community.

Awareness of Self in the Context of Racial and Cultural Differences

Despite the silence around race and racism in families, participants learned about their racial and cultural differences at a young age. They noted that the differences were “instilled in us very early on” and highlighted three interconnected subthemes that influenced their awareness of self in the context of racial differences: (a) Experiencing Otherness Through Standing Out or Being on the Outside of Mainstream Society, (b) Implicit and Explicit Asian Indian Value Socialization, and (c) Navigating Identities Across Different Contexts.

Our participants’ sense of racial and cultural difference came from Experiencing Otherness Through Standing Out or Being on the Outside of Mainstream Society. Physical appearance composed one area in which both groups of participants spoke to visible differences. For instance, participants noted: “I became aware that I looked different, that my parents were different.”; “I didn’t look like other kids.”; being mistaken as “Mexican,” being “set apart” because of “being Indian” or being the only Indian in school. Relatedly, our 2nd generation participants highlighted racial awareness being “regional” or “geographical.” For example, they stated: “I think in the [South] I feel a bit more aware of my race; in [the North] I feel a bit more freedom.”; “On the East Coast, people talk about this but when I go back to the Midwest it feels very different… I don’t think there’s the safety to talk about it.”; “I briefly lived in a small town for a bit so you stick out like a sore thumb.” Another participant noted not realizing until “I was part of a large Indian community, how different it was to be around people who have the same culture as you,” and “how natural everything felt.”

Another aspect of physical differences came through in their skin color. Participants experienced a sense of otherness through their “different skin tones.” For example, a 1.5 generation participant stated, “the color of my skin made us different… brown skin was very uncommon.” Conversely, our 2nd generation participants noted the experience of feeling different in the context of learning about slavery in the United States:

It was the first moment that I can recall where I was kind of surprised that people were judged based on color of the skin or ethnicity. It was awful. That was one of the first times I looked down at my hand and realized I was brown, I’m different.

Food was another major area of difference. Both sets of participants spoke to eating “very different food,” and “being vegetarian.” Our 2nd generation participants expanded on the issue of different foods, highlighting a sense of otherness: “I remember sitting in the lunch room and everybody else had their Lunchables, and I had my idlis… so that’s when I started to really wonder well, what do other people eat at home.”

This group also discussed the othering process in relation to cultural holidays and celebrations: “A lot of holidays that we didn’t celebrate that other people would and most people would never have heard of…” Here, they spoke of Indian celebrations like Diwali and being questioned about it: “My mom actually [got] a notice from the association because we had lights up.” The 2nd generation participants were acutely aware that “things we did at home weren’t things everybody else grew up with.”

Relatedly, participants spoke to the use of Indian and non-Indian names. One participant stated, “my sister is younger than me and has an Indian name and I’m older and I don’t even have an Indian name.”

Beyond standing out or feeling as though they were on the outside of mainstream U.S. society, much of participants’ awareness of self in the context of racial differences came from Implicit or Explicit Socialization or Messaging from parents, peers, and others in the Indian community about “what it meant to be Asian Indian.” One participant shared, “I remember hearing my parents talk a lot about castes or speaking in casteist terms growing up. So, I remember a lot of times feeling like that attitude translated into their understanding of race as well.” Participants also discussed conversations with their parents about racial differences:

My mum and dad really emphasized a lot that we are different, telling me we don’t want to be like [other people], you are Indian, you have to be different… I think that notion that we are different was very much sharp in my mind.

Participants highlighted the importance of adhering to Indian values and identifying with the Indian community, particularly for Indian girls and women. For instance, “We had to dress and act a certain way,… otherwise, what will all the other Indians think…” “We don’t drink, we don’t go out, you know we just study and be with our family and help out.”

Relatedly, parents of both groups of participants underscored the importance of education as another important way to fit in and thrive in U.S. society: “You need to study hard… that’s how we are gonna get ahead… if you work really hard it doesn’t matter, you will get ahead.” Participants noted that “parents encouraged friendships with kids whose parents were academic or maybe professionals.” There was also a focus on assimilation: “It was more about how we could fit in rather than how we can be set apart… it wasn’t necessarily you’re Indian and you’re different and you may encounter certain obstacles, it was you need to fit in.”

Relatedly, both sets of participants also heard mixed messages about White people in relation to being Asian Indian: “White people… they don’t [work] as hard but they get more advantages.”; “My parents didn’t want me to be raised as, what they considered traits consistent with being White, which was lazy and not studying.”; “Indian people saying they could never date a White guy, that ‘they have no culture.’” Participants also spoke to “being gay or transgendered” as being “a White thing.” As such, they developed their Indian American identities in part through messages contrasting Asian Indians with White Americans.

Through each of these different experiences, participants spoke of Navigating Identity Across Different Contexts. They shared having a “dual life,” “always used to kind of straddle both sides… having my Indian friends and my American friends.” Another participant noted, “[Indians] came to this country at such different times, grew up in different communities, different parts of the country [that] it’s shaped much of your identity and culture.” Although some participants noted that they could “pick and choose parts of what I like and embrace those parts,” the duality seemed to impact participants’ sense of self as Indian and/or American. One participant indicated, “I decided in kindergarten… I am going to make (myself) even more American because I wanted to fit in… I decided I was going to go by Susan [pseudonym]… I made my parents call me that.” The following responses further reflect this sense of duality: “I feel like I don’t fit in in either community… there’s just like this sense of loss.”; When I was younger, I was wanting to fit in and be American, now I’m kind of like on the other end and I feel like “I’m struggling with this, ‘Oh, I don’t feel Indian enough.’”

For some participants, being seen as Indian or identifying with Indian behaviors or values seemed to come at a cost. For example, participants who don’t eat meat recalled being asked if they could “just take out the pepperoni” from the pizza. They learned not to make a “fuss about it.” Additionally, some participants noted that they don’t identify with most Indians: “I really consider myself American first. I don’t identify with all the cultural values and so forth that are Indian. I don’t consider myself part of the community, I really don’t interact with them.”

Through this duality, 2nd generation participants, in particular, experienced a sense of responsibility: “I felt a responsib[ility] for all Indians everywhere. I had to model for them. I couldn’t do anything that was stereotypical.”; “I don’t speak a lot of the language almost like I’m letting down my parents, or the culture, or the Indian society in terms of that.” One participant elaborated on the complexity of navigating divergent cultural expectations across their homes and broader U.S. context, contributing to a sense of duality:

This was imposed on us by our parents and then secondarily, our White, or predominantly Caucasian community. That was the expectation and if you didn’t live up to it, you were kind of screwed because, what else do you have to fall back on? There was no middle in that Venn diagram—it was either-or.

Another area implicated in this duality concerned romantic relationships across racial and ethnic lines. For instance, participants stated: “Race certainly had an impact on my relationships… I’d say just more confusion and lack of understanding of what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, what’s the right thing to do.” Participants heard that “Whites are better,” and “All of the images of what’s beautiful is White.” With regard to dating, “White[ness]” was seen as a “status symbol… Indian guy dating a White girl… was a big deal.” A participant explained the advantages to dating someone White: “White privilege, that’s who had the power, so it would kind of be a step up if you dated a White person because they were cuter… had more clout.”

Dating and marriage across racial lines proved even more difficult. Participants noted feeling “confused at having to explain the level of strictness and how I couldn’t really tell my parents if I was dating someone in high school.” Whereas one participant noted, “To be secretive and also maintain a relationship and not have my parents find out was very difficult. I knew that whenever I broke the news to my parents, there was going to be a sense of disappointment.”

Another participant shared:

It took many years for my parents to warm up to my husband… like 5 to 10 years. They definitely were very opposed to dating and interacting with people who weren’t Indian… For years and years, my parents discouraged me from associating with White people or Black people because I think there was this fear of if you hang out with them, you’ll marry someone of that race.

Each of these illustrations underscore the challenges participants faced and their frustration of having to compartmentalize and express different parts of themselves depending on the context (Indian American, mainstream society).

Role of Intra- and Inter-Group Biases

Participants learned about race and racism through Intra- and Inter-Group Biases. Specifically, participants’ experiences were reflected in the following subthemes: (a) Prejudicial Messaging (Implicit Bias) From Within Their Asian Indian Community, and (b) Stereotyping (Cognitive Bias/Assumptions) and Discrimination (Behavioral Bias) From the Dominant Community.

Participants shared Prejudicial Messaging (Implicit Bias) From Within Their Asian Indian Community that informed their understanding of racial difference. Although our 1.5 generation participants spoke about “North Indian versus South Indian tensions,” 2nd generation participants provided specific examples. The latter group spoke to “being told that North Indian people are more beautiful than South Indians.” Others spoke to “religion-based discrimination within the South Asian community,” and “gendered expectations” of being a doctor and being married by a certain age.

Both groups reported being called “White-washed” within their own communities. One 2nd generation participant stated, “White on the inside, Brown on the outside,” the intra-group prejudice of “not being Indian enough.” For example, this group indicated: “I felt like there was a lot of aggression from Indian people toward other Indians, based on how Indian they were.” Other labels included: “coconut” or “ABCD [American Born Confused Desi]… because you do not know your language,” and “fresh off the boat [FOB] for new immigrants coming across.” Participants further heard comments about new Indian immigrants: “Oh, this person just moved from India, they smell ‘really bad like India.’”; “They can’t express themselves.”; “We’re just going to assume English isn’t your first language and you can’t speak English.”

Several spoke to a “kind of minority hierarchy” and how racism against Black and Latinx people was common. Participants received messages that were “anti-Black” with “African Americans being referred to as ‘Blackies.’” Others noted stereotypes such as “Chinese, Korean, Japanese… being clannish and not mixing with everybody else,” and “Chinese as cheap.”

Skin color was another area where prejudice played a key role. For instance, “fair skin” was seen as being “more attractive,” and had a significant influence on one’s sense of confidence and desirability in romantic relationships. One participant shared,

I have darker skin… I’d get messages from things that [my parents would] say about other people… definitely hurt my confidence… when I go to high school. I [was not] going to try to go to prom because none of the boys are going to be interested in me.

Another participant stated:

I could be the greatest guy on earth but if my skin color isn’t light enough, having lightening creams and staying out of the sun, you know all the negative stuff about being dark is being put on me as well.

Participants also spoke about Stereotyping (Cognitive Bias/Assumptions) and Discrimination (Behavioral Bias) From the Dominant Community, which included several positive and negative stereotypes. These included being perceived as (a) The Model Minority, (b) Exoticized or Objectified, (c) Cultural Devaluation, (d) A Perpetual Foreigner, and (e) Being Dangerous. These stereotypes seemed to be interconnected to participants’ experiences of microaggressions and other discriminatory acts.

Both generational groups discussed being perceived as the model minority. In this regard, they spoke about expectations of being “smart, hard-working, overachiever, successful, good in math and science and being a doctor, lawyer, nurse.” Participants were exposed to stereotypes such as “going into the health care or medical field.” Although both sets of participants highlighted these assumptions, 2nd generation participants seemed to emphasize the negative impact of such stereotypes. They spoke to the realization of “the actual defining of self and what racism was,” through this model minority lens. Participants spoke to the pressure of having to “live up to that part of the identity,” the internalization of which resulted in the “expectation that I don’t need help or services or extra attention in school,” or “feeling incompetent like I was not living up to a racial stereotype.” Others highlighted how “White folks harbored resentment” towards “Brown people” who were seen as “naturally intelligent” and “stealing jobs from White people.” For one participant, if they did not pursue a stereotypical profession (e.g., medicine, engineering), friends would say, “what a waste of a brain. I’ve had family friends tell me that my children have no one to look up to.”

Both sets of participants reported Feeling Exoticized or Objectified. Participants noted feeling like an “exotic animal that just appeared in front of me and I’ve gotta like pet you and figure out what you eat and things of that nature and being a vegetarian you know is different.” One participant stated, “Guys who want to date Indian girls because it’s so interesting and exotic and I am like, ‘I’m not a cuisine. I’m a person.’”

Participants also experienced a Devaluation of Their Indian Culture. Cultural devaluation concerned “stereotyping around perceptions of Indian identity by American kids.” Participants spoke to others’ ignorance about Indian religions, what Indian meant or what and where India is, and what Indian culture and identity are. They often heard stereotypes about Indians as “snake charming,” “eating monkey-brain and Temple of Doom,” “7/11 owners, Dunkin Donut owners,” having “Patel” as the last name, being “taxi-drivers,” “Simpsons,” “being a cow-worshiper,” “eating curry every day,” and “owning or riding an elephant at weddings.” They were asked: “Oh, are you going to get an arranged marriage?” or “What does the red dot mean?”

Another aspect of devaluation came from Indians being seen as dirty. One participant noted,

One of my really good friends in high school when she was over at my house with all of our friends said, “Oh why do Indians always smell like Doritos?” At the time, I was like that’s funny but it always stuck with me.

Another noted the desire for [Indians] “to put deodorizers in the building.” The participant stated, “It was hard because their parents went through similar things.” Participants also heard, “Oh my gosh, I hate Indian people,” and “I hate when I have to hang out with them,” because of the stereotype that Indians are dirty or smell differently.

Our 2nd generation participants, in particular, expressed their anger about cultural appropriation in the dominant community, noted in responses such as, “Gwen Stefani wearing a bindi.” As one participant shared, “Back in the day, I’d get teased for the mehndi and the bindis and now it’s sort of like, you see it appropriated and it’s like, you guys were the ones who used to tease me about it.” Another participant noted, “It’s a really weird shift from thinking that people don’t know anything about Indians to people doing yoga and chanting Hindu mantras with terrible pronunciation and you’re like, this is just bizarre. I don’t like this.”

The sense of being a Perpetual Foreigner was very salient for both generations. For example, one participant stated, “I think there’s still the idea that American is White and we’re still seen as foreigners.” As another participant quoted, “Even now for me, being married to a White man, in terms of his family, I’ve been called a foreigner.” Participants often spoke to experiencing microaggressions such as, “Where are you from?” and “Do your parents speak English?” Our 2nd generation participants often received comments from others about speaking English:

The question I got universally, whether from students or teachers was, “Wow, you speak English really well.” They were surprised that I spoke English and I had to say, “Actually, English is one of our national languages” and they were surprised by that.

They also heard comments about not having an accent: “I was in fifth grade, he said, ‘the other Indians have an accent when they speak and you don’t, why is that?’”

The Perception of Being Seen as Dangerous was heightened after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Participants spoke about specific acts of discrimination including “mistaken identities with Sikhs,” “turbans equal terrorists,” “getting pulled over at the airport a gazillion times,” or being asked if “your uncle is going to bomb us.” One participant went on to say:

After 9/11 there was almost a [need to] compensate… when I was walking down the street the average person could look at me and think that I was Muslim, and of course, at that time it was very hard to be of that faith and it still is.

Building on these experiences of being stereotyped, participants spoke to blatant acts of discrimination that highlighted racial differences. One participant spoke about a family member: “Dad got mugged… as an adult you can understand the fear that my sister and I had because we would walk out the street and [think] everyone is against us.” Other participants reported being called “a Paki and I didn’t even know what that meant at that time,” and “poo-poo on the playground, as one of the only brown kids.” In a different example, a 2nd generation participant noted the impact of skin color discrimination on their sense of self and belonging: “I wish I had light skin… you never see dark-skinned girls in the movies.” Each of these experiences shaped how participants developed their sense of race within broader U.S. society.

Navigating Racial and Cultural Differences Across Contexts

Our study details how racial awareness is intertwined with the cultural differences that Indian Americans experience outside of their homes, particularly at school. Specifically, participants’ first awareness of race came from early memories of interactions in school when they were ridiculed for eating different foods, mistaken for other ethnicities, or they noticed a difference in their skin tones from their peers. Notably, 2nd generation participants made efforts to minimize feelings of difference and otherness by using an Anglo name or by preempting a teacher mispronouncing their name. These actions represented their desire to fit in and belong in the mainstream U.S. context. Although both generational groups discussed racial awareness through observing different skin tones, some 2nd generation participants expressed a wish for lighter skin. It is possible that the experience of othering, reflected in early memories, was more pronounced for this group. Having spent more time in U.S. schools, 2nd generation participants may have managed a sense of otherness by attempting to be less visibly different. Yet, for both generations, experiences of othering contributed to a sense of being a racial minority, which was felt to be a potential liability (Poolokasingham et al., 2014; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011).

For both 1.5 and 2nd generation groups, the growing awareness of race and minority status was interconnected with the awareness of their heritage, culture, and religion. Their parents’ efforts to retain Indian values and traditions fostered both a sense of connection and ambivalence toward their heritage culture and community. Our participants also had to contend with different contexts, each of which presented unique challenges. This was evident in the disparity between school and peer spaces, where they were expected to be “American,” and at home, in the Indian community, and in places of worship, where they were expected to be Indian. Additionally, similar to findings in prior research (Mukkamala & Syemoto, 2018; Tummala-Narra et al., 2016), women in our study were expected to adhere to stricter cultural expectations than men (e.g., not stating one’s opinions too forcefully, not dating, dressing modestly).

Participants’ struggles with a “dual life” reflect cultural value conflicts (Inman, 2006), culminating in a lack of belonging in any single racial or cultural context. There were considerable differences among participants regarding the extent to which they identified with Indian culture, values, traditions, and people. Although some participants in both generations sought out other Indian Americans due to shared racial and cultural experiences, others avoided these interactions to minimize feelings of otherness and avoid racism. Still, other participants developed a sense of racial and ethnic pride in adulthood, something that felt inaccessible to them earlier. The dual sense of self contributed to complications with dating and marriage, as participants in both generations felt they had to keep their romantic relationships, especially with non-Indian partners, a secret from their parents due to the fear of disappointing them. They also faced the challenge of telling their partners (of different racial backgrounds) about their parents’ expectations about dating. Participants reported feeling confused and stressed by cultural value differences and the continuous shifting across different racial and cultural contexts, which impeded a sense of belonging (Inman, 2006; Tummala-Narra & Sathasivam-Rueckert, 2016). As such, our participants’ racial identity seems to have formed through interactions in multiple conflicted developmental spaces, reflecting a sense of “double consciousness,” which Du Bois (1903) described as an experience of “two-ness” with conflicting thoughts and feelings and a sense of self that is shaped through the eyes of others who carry hostility and contempt.

Racialized Messages and Colonial Mentality

In a prior focus group study concerning racism faced by 1st generation Indian Americans (Inman et al., 2015), participants indicated that they expected their children to fare better in terms of fitting into and being accepted within U.S. society. In contrast, in the present study, both 1.5 and 2nd generation participants reported challenges in growing up with stereotypes of Indians, including the notion of being a model minority and being perceived as a perpetual foreigner, exotic, and dangerous. The latter stereotype was amplified after 9/11, as noted in prior research (Inman et al., 2015; Mukkamala & Suyemoto, 2018; Tummala-Narra et al., 2016). Our study also revealed how participants across both generations experienced cultural devaluation since childhood. Stereotypes such as knowing “snake charming,” being a “cow-worshiper,” or smelling dirty were harmful to developing a sense of belonging in the United States. In many cases, these stereotypes were experienced in the form of bullying in school, a problem faced by Indian American children and adolescents that remains highly invisible in the psychological literature (Poolokasingham et al., 2014; Tummala-Narra et al., 2016).

Our 2nd generation participants detailed the negative impact of these stereotypes on their identities. Specifically, the internalization of the model minority stereotype contributed to feelings of incompetence and the reluctance to seek help from others. They observed others’ resentment toward Indians who had academic or professional success, and at the same time, felt the demand to meet family expectations of success. These participants experienced considerable distress in managing the demands inherent to being targeted with stereotypes outside their homes and the pressure to meet the expectation of the model minority stereotype within their homes and Indian communities, both compromising a sense of belonging and acceptance in American society.

The 2nd generation participants’ anger and frustration regarding cultural appropriation in mainstream U.S. culture contrasted with their 1st generation parents, as illustrated in the difference between a participant’s and their parent’s interpretation of Gwen Stefani wearing a bindi. The experience of cultural appropriation along with being stereotyped are lingering forms of colonization and racism faced by Indians across generations, and shape family socialization experiences related to race (David & Nadal, 2013; Inman et al., 2015). For instance, participants were aware of their parents’ experiences of racism and the implicit and explicit messages passed on to minimize the impact of racism on their children (Daga & Raval, 2018; Inman et al., 2015; Woo et al., 2020). Within their families, many participants heard discriminatory messages against other racial and ethnic minority groups. They also heard mixed messages about White people—idealizing them but also mistrusting them. Our findings suggest that 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans are socialized to believe that fitting into and thriving in American society are possible through associating with White privilege and maintaining one’s Indian heritage, and distancing from those who are perceived to have less social and economic power.

Additionally, participants in both generations reported hearing negative messages about other Indians from different regions of India, religions, and castes, and devaluing messages about dark skin color. They were labeled by other Indian Americans as “White-washed” or “ABCD” (American Born Confused Desi) if they were perceived as too American or not Indian enough. Conversely, they were called “FOB” (Fresh Off the Boat) if they were perceived to be too identified as Indian. The lack of acceptance and prejudice they experienced among Indian Americans compounded the stress of stereotyping and discrimination they experienced outside of their families and communities. This was evident in friendships, romantic relationships, and marriages. For example, some participants shared how the devaluation of darker skin tones within their families and Indian communities affected their self-esteem, as they were seen as less desirable as romantic or marital partners.

Consistent with recent research (Daga & Raval, 2018; Woo et al., 2020), it is possible that the mixed messages that our participants received in Indian American and mainstream U.S. contexts contributed to a sense of caution or mistrust in their interactions with others and a sense of confusion concerning racial identity. In fact, some participants indicated that the sense of not belonging and related losses were difficult to articulate. Our findings underscore the participants’ and their families’ experiences of postcolonization stress disorder (Comas-Díaz, 2016) and internalized colonial mentality messaging, in which colonized people and their descendants develop identities reflecting a devaluation of oneself and one’s heritage culture and discriminatory attitudes (David & Nadal, 2013; Inman et al., 2015; Nikalje & Çiftçi, 2023). Notably, mistrust of foreigners or outsiders is an adaptive response in a colonized context that at the same time carries the potential for racial bias (Daga & Raval, 2018). Bhatia (2007) noted the nonlinear experiences of acculturation among immigrants (and their children) from previously colonized societies (e.g., Asian Indians) to First World countries (e.g., the United States). Relatedly, we observed a parallel process regarding racial identity development among our participants, where there is a continual negotiation of identity in relation to race and power.

However, it is important to distinguish between the colonial mentality experienced by 1st generation Indian Americans and by the 1.5 and 2nd generations. Specifically, the 1st generation transported oppressive messages about caste, skin color, and race from the premigration context (e.g., India) to their understandings of race in the United States, reflecting a colonial mentality in which they minimize or dismiss racism, embrace the model minority notion, and prioritize achieving the American dream (Inman et al., 2015). Conversely, our 1.5 and 2nd generation participants, although socialized with oppressive messages concerning caste, skin color, and race, seemed to both accept and question these messages. Although they expressed anger, sadness, and frustration with the stereotyping, racism, casteism, and colorism, the internalization of oppressive messages guided their navigation of identities across different racial and cultural contexts. As such, the impact of colonization and racism on the 1.5 and 2nd generations reflect both the internalization of and resistance to oppressive racialized messages.

The Problem of Silence on Racism

Consistent with prior studies (Daga & Raval, 2018; Iqbal, 2014), both our 1.5 and 2nd generation participants indicated that their parents neither provided them with language to articulate their experiences of racism nor prepared them for coping with racism. Second generation participants reported that racism was discussed only when “serious” incidents of racism occurred and for some participants, the current study was the first context in which they engaged in an in-depth discussion about their experiences of race and racism. Our 2nd generation participants shared that their parents minimized their experiences of racism, seemed resigned to racism, and encouraged them to work hard and focus on their academic goals. These participants situated their parents’ attitudes toward racism within their immigration context, reflecting a desire for children to secure a better future and a sense of gratitude for better opportunities in the United States. These findings support prior research (Inman et al., 2015), in which 1st generation parents viewed academic and professional success as a major protective factor that would help their children fit into American society and thwart racism. These beliefs reflect an internalization of the model minority stereotype within Indian American families. Interestingly, our participants experienced a distinction between how Indian American families focus on achievement and cultural identity as a means to protect against racism and how African American and Latinx American families focus on securing safety in the face of racism. This distinction may be especially important to consider in reenvisioning conceptualizations of racial identity among Indian Americans.

The lack of explicit discussions about, and preparation for, racism in various contexts (e.g., schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, online) is especially concerning given the rise in racial harassment and violence against South Asian Americans since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and more recently, during Donald Trump’s presidential term. This lack of discussion seems to be rooted in a belief in American meritocracy, internalization of the model minority stereotype, and intergenerational transmission of colonial mentality where denial of the impact of racism is critical to surviving in a new cultural context (David & Nadal, 2013; Inman et al., 2015; Nikalje & Çiftçi, 2023). Both 1.5 and 2nd generation participants in the present study seemed to internalize the use of silence in the face of racism, even when they were aware of the potential harm in not discussing or confronting racism. This intergenerational transmission of silence concerning racism may contribute to the invisibility of racialized experiences and racism in mainstream U.S. society, a lasting impact of colonization.

Prior studies have underscored the importance of family support in coping with racism among Indian Americans (Tummala-Narra et al., 2016). Yet, our findings suggest that many navigate racism and racial identity in isolation, which may have implications for emotional stress and mental health concerns (Kaduvettoor-Davidson & Inman, 2013; Nadimpalli et al., 2016). As previously found (Daga & Raval, 2018), our results suggest that the socialization of silence about racism co-exists with the socialization that fosters identification with Indian culture and religious traditions. Therefore, it is possible that 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans, depending on the nature of their socialization within the family and community, may be better prepared to engage with and express aspects of cultural and religious identity than their racial identity.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the present study. The sample consisted primarily of female, Hindu, highly educated, and middle-class and upper-middle-class Indian Americans. As such, the findings may not reflect the racial socialization experiences of Indian Americans from diverse gender, religious, educational, and social class backgrounds. Participants were either born in the United States or arrived during various waves of immigration (e.g., the 1980s vs. 2000s), which may have contributed to differences in racial socialization across immigrant waves that we were unable to assess. We also did not include questions about caste background and therefore were unable to explore how caste and race may have been connected in participants’ socialization experiences. Furthermore, the present study did not closely examine acculturation and its relationship with racial socialization and racial identity. Although we carefully reviewed the accuracy of the interview transcriptions, we did not utilize member checking by sending transcripts to participants for review. Additionally, the focus groups met via video teleconference, which may have influenced how participants responded to the interview questions and interacted with each other.

There were challenges in recruiting participants for the study, despite multiple waves of recruitment efforts nationally; we speculate that there may be a general reluctance to discuss race and racism among Indian Americans, as noted by our participants. In the future, it would be important for researchers to develop connections with leaders of cultural and religious groups, organizations, and centers to improve recruitment, particularly that of Indian Americans whose gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability status, social class, and educational backgrounds were not reflected in the present study. It would also be helpful to disseminate research findings concerning racial socialization and racism to diverse Indian American cultural and religious groups to communicate the relevance and importance of participating in studies concerning race.

Implications for Practice, Advocacy, Education and Training, and Research

Despite the limitations, there are several social justice implications of our findings for counseling psychology research, practice, advocacy, and education and training. As our participants indicated a high prevalence of race-based teasing and bullying in schools, it is important for future studies to examine this occurrence among Indian American children and adolescents, as this is a neglected area of inquiry. Although our findings identify key processes regarding racial socialization that can inform a racial identity framework among Indian Americans, further information is needed. Specifically, we need to examine 1.5 and 2nd generations’ specific experiences of racism, the impact of racism on mental health and coping, and whether their approach to racism contrasts with that of the 1st generation. Our data was collected during the Trump presidential administration and therefore reflects experiences in a certain historical period when there has been heightened explicit racism against racial minorities. It would be helpful to examine how Indian Americans experience racial socialization and racism during different historical periods in the United States. Additionally, future research can explore the impact of multiple forms of discrimination within and outside of Indian American communities (e.g., colorism, casteism, racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism) on mental health. Researchers may examine the intersections of race and other aspects of identity and social location to better understand how racial socialization (and related interactions) shape racial identity. For instance, a closer study of gendered racism can provide valuable information about the specific types of racism faced by subgroups of Indian Americans (Mukkamala & Suyemoto, 2018).

We recognize that we cannot make direct connections between the data and recommendations for clinical practice, as we did not ask specific questions regarding the utility of psychotherapy or counseling in the study. However, as our participants described memories of stereotyping and racism beginning in childhood, we speculate that it would be important for clinicians to inquire about clients’ experiences with racism and racial socialization in multiple contexts, such as school, neighborhood, home, online, and social media, and how these experiences may shape a sense of dual life (Inman, 2006) or “double consciousness” (Du Bois, 1903). Psychotherapy and counseling offer opportunities for clients to explore the complexity of navigating multiple cultural contexts and conflicts within and across these contexts. Specifically, clinicians can validate the stress associated with experiencing a dual life (e.g., family and mainstream United States) and the potential ambivalence that a client may feel about various racial and cultural interactions. Clinicians may also consider the nuanced experiences of 1.5 and 2nd generation Indian Americans, as there may be differences in racial socialization due to time spent in the United States and/or India. As racial, cultural, and religious socialization were often intertwined for both 1.5 and 2nd generation participants, it may be helpful if clinicians explored the intersection of race, culture, religion, and caste with clients.

Further, we underscore the importance of avoiding the pathologization of Indian American families and communities and reductionistic notions of Indians as racists. Rather, in keeping with counseling psychology values, we support strength-based clinical formulations of how individuals navigate race and racism with an understanding of the impact of British colonization and casteism in India as well as racism in the United States. From a strength-based approach, clinicians can note that maintaining cultural identity and desire for success in the new country may be acts of resistance to racism. Further, it can be important for clinicians to ask clients about their experiences of racism while being mindful of the possible silence concerning racism within their families or communities. Psychotherapy and counseling can be effective spaces in which clients can reflect on prejudicial messages they received in various contexts, a process that is critical for negotiating racial and cultural identities.

Many of our participants indicated that the focus group format allowed for an open discussion about racism that was typically inaccessible to them. This feedback underscores the need for community dialogues on race and racism. Outreach programs in cultural and religious spaces (e.g., Indian American social and cultural clubs, places of worship) that facilitate conversations on race and racism among different generations of Indian Americans can help raise awareness and better prepare families to address racism (Iqbal, 2014). Specifically, psychologists can collaborate with religious leaders to facilitate discussions on racism within places of worship. Given that schools play a pivotal role in racial socialization, school-based interventions can be useful in raising awareness of racism, race-based bullying, and stereotyping faced by Indian Americans (Bajaj et al., 2016; Byrd & Legette, 2022; Tummala-Narra et al., 2016). For example, teachers, school counselors, and administrators can engage in ongoing training regarding the racial and cultural experiences of Indian American youth, helping to address harmful behavior such as bullying, devaluing religious and cultural traditions, and mispronouncing names. Further, online and social media outreach can encourage dialogue to help reduce isolation in coping with stereotyping and racism.

With regard to advocacy, counseling psychologists can help break the silence and invisibility of Indian Americans’ racialized experiences by disseminating relevant research findings to Indian American communities, collaborating with educational institutions (K–12 and higher education) to develop more inclusive dialogue and curricula on race, and engaging with mainstream media and social media outlets to inform the public. It is essential that psychologists from all racial backgrounds become involved in these efforts, in order for Indian American experiences to be understood and valued within broader United States racial dialogues.

Finally, counseling psychologists can integrate Indian Americans’ experiences of race into psychology training curricula. It is often the case that issues of culture rather than race are emphasized in training concerning immigrant communities, rendering race and racial socialization among these populations invisible in psychology training. We believe that researchers and practitioners would benefit from training that includes a closer look at the historical and contemporary racism against Indian Americans, and the heterogeneity of Indian Americans’ experiences of racial socialization and racial identity based on immigrant generation. These recommendations underscore the importance of expanding social justice initiatives and inclusivity in counseling psychology training, which is critical for culturally informed research, advocacy, and interventions with Indian Americans.