Ethnic-Racial Socialization of White Children by White Parents: A Systematic Review

ERS strategies and white parents’ engagement in ERS

Table 1 reports the ERS constructs used in the studies. Thirty-one studies employed quantitative measures of ERS. Of these, 14 studies examined cultural socialization, 15 studies examined preparation for bias, 7 studies examined promotion of mistrust, and 7 studies examined egalitarianism. Eleven studies captured colorblind racial socialization and seven captured color conscious socialization, and these were typically qualitative studies.

Colorblind racial socialization was identified in several ways. It involved encouragement to treat everyone the same (Vittrup, 2018; Parris, 2020) or neutralization of race: when racial events or topics are raised in conversation, parents frame the issue in terms other than race (Pinsoneault, 2015; Underhill, 2016, 2018). It involved value-based socialization messages in which parents teach their children to be good people, fair in interactions with others, and tolerant of differences, and racial differences are cast as equivalent to other forms of difference (Pinsoneault, 2015). It involved presenting an individual rather than structural understanding of race and racial inequality, and it did not typically involve discussion of power (Underhill, 2016, 2018; Vittrup, 2018). Finally, it manifested as silence on race when parents either explicitly tell children that race is an inappropriate topic for discussion or avoid discussing race, even when racial issues arise, implicitly communicating that race should not be given attention (Bartoli et al., 2016; Briscoe, 2003; Pahlke et al., 2020; Underhill, 2016, 2018; Zucker and Patterson, 2018). One exception here is that when silence on race is accompanied by parents’ nonverbal reactions conveying discomfort with ethnicity–race or dislike of specific ethnic-racial groups, children receive color-conscious messages (Parris, 2020).

Color-conscious socialization manifested in several ways. It involved teaching about discrimination and inequity, but mostly in a historical sense, or discussing skin color differences as ok (Vittrup, 2018; Zucker, 2019). It involved teaching egalitarianism (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021) or exposing the child to diversity (Parris, 2020; Underhill, 2016, 2019; Hagerman, 2018; Vittrup, 2018; Zucker, 2019), such as when parents explicitly choose places and activities characterized by ethnic-racial diversity with the goals of teaching their child that diversity is good and encouraging learning about other ethnic-racial groups and the establishment of inter-racial relationships. The choices could involve the neighborhood in which to live, the school their child will attend, extracurricular activities in which to enroll the child, parks to visit/play, etc. Parents typically did not accompany their choices with explicit messages explaining their choices (Vittrup, 2018). Like colorblind racial socialization, color-conscious socialization did not typically involve discussion of power (Vittrup, 2018). Anti-racism socialization, less studied (n = 6), teaches about structural racism and/or white privilege (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Hagerman, 2017, 2018; Thomann and Suyemoto, 2018; Thomas, 2019; Pinsoneault, 2015) and involves discussion of power and actions to address inequities.

White parents’ ERS may include mixed, vague, or inconsistent messaging. Parents may combine colorblind messages with color-conscious messages (Abaied and Perry, 2021) or provide vague descriptions of solutions to racism and actions that children can take to address it (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Pahlke, 2009). Hagerman (2018) found that some parents seeking to teach anti-racism inconsistently challenged hegemonic whiteness, reproducing the racist ideas they sought to challenge. Parents’ unclear messaging relates to their lack of familiarity with (Barner, 2016; Eveland and Nathanson, 2020; Pahlke, 2009; Perry et al., 2019) and uncertainty about discussing ethnic-racial issues (Hagerman, 2014, 2018; Underhill, 2016, 2019), their desire to avoid negative topics and emotions (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Hagerman, 2014, 2018, Underhill, 2016, 2019), and their structural privilege which makes conversations about ethnicity–race seem less urgent (Hagerman, 2018).

The reviewed studies show that white parents generally engage in low levels of ERS, especially when measured in traditional ways. Several studies document that when asked if they discuss ethnicity–race and/or racism with their children, some parents report that, for various reasons, they do not (Briscoe, 2003; Eveland and Nathanson, 2020; Hagerman, 2018; Lesane-Brown et al., 2010; Pahlke et al., 2012; Pahlke et al., 2020; Perry et al., 2019; Underhill, 2016, 2018; Vittrup, 2018). This approach, labeled as silence on race (Briscoe, 2003; Underhill, 2016, 2018) or racemute socialization (Pahlke et al., 2020), nonetheless operates to socialize children about ethnicity–race. For example, it may communicate that talk of race is dangerous (Hagerman, 2018; Underhill, 2018), irrelevant to white people, or unimportant generally (Briscoe, 2003). Conversely, some parents report that they engage in conversations about race with their children but then are unable to provide details about those conversations, suggesting that they may overestimate their engagement in explicit ERS (Vittrup, 2018; Zucker, 2019).

Given the diversity in study designs and samples, we cannot provide definitive rates of ERS. However, we can share some illustrative figures. Perry et al. (2019) found that 36% of the sample indicated that they had discussed race-related current events with their children, an amount that was high relative to those reported in previous studies (Pahlke et al., 2012). Underhill (2016, 2018) found that only 30% of parents were not silent on race-related events. Zucker and Patterson (2018) found that only 32.7% of parents reported actively encouraging discussions of race. Lesane-Brown and colleagues (2010) found that only 40% of white parents reported discussing ethnic/racial heritage with their children.

The relative level of ERS may be low, but, as suggested by other scholars (Eveland and Nathanson, 2020; Hagerman, 2018; Perry et al., 2019), white parents are engaging in ERS more than previously indicated by research using only traditional measures of (explicit) ERS. The reviewed studies document that white parents engage in both explicit and implicit ERS (Bartoli et al., 2016; Hagerman, 2018). Furthermore, both traditional and non-traditional explicit ERS strategies are in use in white families. We note that the review shows that white parents employ some of the same strategies that parents of color employ, even though the strategies have potentially different meanings and effects for white children. For example, the studies show that some white parents engage in preparation for bias, meaning they prepare their children to experience discrimination, despite the broad advantages whites enjoy in society (Bowen Matthew, 2022; Brown, 2021). Furthermore, the studies show that many white parents engage in cultural socialization; however, the quantitative measures of this strategy generally did not capture the very different potential meanings of parents’ messages: one should be proud of one’s ethnic culture versus one should be proud of the white race. The qualitative studies better captured the specific meanings of parents’ socialization, but as we’ll see in the section on the relation of ERS to child outcomes, parents’ socialization efforts did not always achieve their intended outcomes.

Even when parents engage in little ERS, they may nonetheless endorse the importance of ERS (Pahlke, 2009; Vittrup, 2018). Other factors, as we discuss below, are more likely to explain parents’ low level of ERS. Finally, regarding when and how ERS occurs, the review found that some parents initiate ERS while others wait for their children to prompt a discussion (Abaied and Perry, 2021; Underhill, 2016, 2018; Zucker, 2019). Some parents use current events as an avenue for opening dialogue about ethnicity-race (Abaied and Perry, 2021; Hagerman, 2018).

Child Factors Relating to Engagement in ERS

We identified five child factors: gender, age, inquiries about ethnicity–race, school diversity, and discrimination distress. First, according to Brown et al. (2007), parents reported more frequent discussions about race with girls than with boys. Second, consistent with research on parents of color’s ERS (Aguayo et al., 2021), eight studies documented that parents consider the child’s age when deciding whether to engage in explicit ERS (Abaied and Perry, 2021; Aguayo et al., 2021; Barner, 2016; Bartoli, et al., 2016; Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Pinsoneault, 2015; Underhill, 2016, 2018; Vittrup, 2018). Despite evidence that children learn about race and perceive racial differences at a young age (Pahlke et al., 2012), many parents think that young children cannot understand race (Vittrup, 2018), race is not salient to young children (Aguayo et al., 2021; Pinsoneault, 2015), or discussions of race would be harmful to young children (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Underhill, 2016, 2018). They prefer to socialize children when they are older, such as in their teenage years. Teenage children are more likely than younger children to raise explicit questions about ethnicity–race (Bartoli et al., 2016; Aguayo et al., 2021), enabling parents to perceive they are ready for ERS. Third, children’s inquiries about ethnicity–race prompt some parents to engage in ERS (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Vittrup, 2018). Fourth, children who attend more ethnically–racially diverse schools receive more frequent discussions about race (Brown et al., 2007) and preparation for bias (Zucker and Patterson, 2018). Fifth, adolescents who experience greater distress due to perceived educational or institutional racial discrimination receive more preparation for bias (Fisher et al., 2000).

Parent Factors Relating to Engagement in ERS

We identified five areas of parent characteristics that relate to parents’ engagement in ERS: perceptions of the child, racial attitudes and experiences, preparation and readiness for ERS, parenting style and logic, and other parent factors.

Relation of ERS to Child Outcomes

Twenty-six studies examined ERS effects on white children. Huynh and Fuligni (2008) found that cultural socialization, but not preparation for bias or promotion of mistrust, was associated with greater academic motivation, and promotion of mistrust, but not cultural socialization or preparation for bias, was negatively related to grade point average. Hughes et al. (2009) found that cultural socialization was positively related to academic efficacy and engagement. Juang and Syed (2010) found that cultural socialization was associated with greater ethnic identity. Morse (2012) and Else-Quest and Morse (2014) found that cultural socialization predicted ethnic identity exploration and commitment. Wilson (2008) found that cultural socialization, pluralism, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust predicted ethnic identity affirmation/belonging and exploration. Hughes et al. (2009) found that cultural socialization positively related to ethnic affirmation, and preparation for bias negatively related to ethnic affirmation. Hughes et al. (2009) found that cultural socialization was positively related to self-esteem, and preparation for bias was negatively related to self-esteem. Hughes et al. (2009) found that cultural socialization was not related to antisocial behavior, but preparation for bias was positively related to it. Wojda et al. (2021) found that experiencing ERS as a child positively related a desire to engage in ERS as an adult parent.

The remaining studies examined ethnicity–race-related outcomes. Bartoli et al. (2016) and Hagerman (2014, 2018) found that children who received colorblind racial socialization were less likely to believe that race matters. Pahlke (2009) found that none of the socialization measures (preparation for bias, egalitarianism, history of other groups, and discrimination against other groups) predicted children’s trait-based racial bias or social distance rating. Thomann (2012) found that more frequent ERS positively correlated with ethnocultural empathy. Tran et al. (2017) found that more frequent cultural socialization, promotion of mistrust, and preparation for bias related to a greater social dominance orientation. Hazelbaker (2021) found that color-conscious and colorblind socialization positively correlated with children’s favorable attitudes about Muslim people. Briscoe (2003) found that children who received colorblind racial socialization had fewer cross-race peers. Wilson (2008) found that cultural socialization and pluralism were positively associated with the proportion of cross-ethnic friendships and preparation for bias was positively associated with better quality, cross-ethnic romantic relationships. Pahlke et al. (2020) found that racemute socialization encouraged youth to avoid prejudiced behavior to escape negative judgments; they modified their behavior without examining or changing the underlying stereotypes and prejudices that contribute to biased behavior.

Pahlke et al. (2020) found that egalitarianism positively related, and preparation for bias negatively related, to warmth toward racial outgroup members. Racemute socialization was not related to warmth toward racial outgroup members, but it negatively predicted internal motivation to respond without prejudice and a fairness/reciprocity moral orientation which, in turn, predicted outgroup warmth.

Various studies examined effects on children’s understanding of race/racism. Thomas (2019) found that anti-racism socialization was associated with better understanding of race/racism; children were more likely to use race labels to talk about people of color, label white people as white as opposed to race neutral, understand the connection between current events and the U.S.‘s history of chattel slavery, and design and implement political actions to address racism. Thompson (2021) found that progressive family socialization was associated with increased awareness of Blacks’ structural disadvantages. Underhill (2016, 2018) found that silence on race was associated with children’s ignorance of racial current events which, she argued, contributes to intergenerational “collective forgetting.” Hagerman (2014) found that color-conscious socialized children more frequently thought about their own behavior in racialized terms. However, Hagerman (2018) found that color-conscious socialization via exposure to diversity (e.g., interaction with other-race people through extracurricular activities and interracial friendships) did not lead to racial literacy. Because the promotion of diversity was often shallow (e.g., celebrating ethnic food), it did not acknowledge how power and inequality matter. It reified who is ethnic and who is normal, ignored how racial hierarchies and power operate in society, and contributed to the reproduction of racism.

Hagerman (2018) found that implicit colorblind racial socialization was associated with a greater sense of entitlement. Parents’ school and neighborhood choices were based on racial ideas which were then communicated to children. White children attending a predominantly white private school viewed themselves as special and more deserving of resources than other kids. They articulated racialized notions of who cares about school; who is special, important, smart, and sensitive; who needs to be protected and nurtured (versus who behaves violently); who is racist; who knows about the world; and who will become powerful as an adult to solve social problems. Even white children in diverse schools developed a sense of entitlement because their parents used their structural advantages to hoard school resources for their children. Because parents justified their choices in individual rather than racial terms (e.g., my child is special, and I want the best for my child), the children learned how to justify white privilege and developed a vested personal interest in maintaining it. Although children who receive color-conscious socialization were more likely than children who received colorblind racial socialization to recognize that privilege and oppression exist, they had difficulty applying the concept of privilege to their own lives, largely embraced that privilege, and sought to preserve it (Hagerman, 2018). Similarly, Underhill (2016, 2019) found that although parents did not want their children to be racist, their socialization largely reflected a vested interest in maintaining privilege for their children. Hagerman (2018) found that parents’ exposure of children to diversity often led children to believe in inherent racial differences and white saviorism.

Parris (2020) found that some adults who in childhood received little ERS, particularly about racism and discrimination, expressed anger and frustration with their parents, feeling that they would have benefited from greater information and understanding about historical and current ethnic-racial inequities and experiences. These children reported that they felt they had to play catch up in adulthood, such as through coursework in college.

White ERS and Lessons About Whiteness and Equity

White parents’ ERS is typically shallow, focusing on positive messaging about superficial or “feel-good” aspects of ethnicity–race—what Underhill (2016, 2018) calls happy talk—and failing to educate children about racism and ways of dismantling it. While parents may aim to teach their children to value diversity, their words and actions teach more about other groups than about their own group and whiteness (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Underhill, 2018; Vittrup, 2018).

Twelve studies explicitly examined how parents’ ERS strategies conveyed messages about whiteness. Some of these studies documented mostly explicit messages that communicate to children that whiteness involves benefits or privilege which should be recognized—for example, how whites enjoy structural advantages (Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2021; Hagerman, 2014, 2018; Thomann and Suyemoto, 2018; Thompson, 2021). Others documented implicit and explicit messages that communicate to children that either whiteness is not an identity or not an important identity, especially at the individual level—that is, race and racism are relevant only to people who are not white (Bartoli et al., 2016; Underhill, 2019; Zucker, 2019). One study documented messages, conveyed implicitly, about white superiority (Parris, 2020), while another documented messages about whites having the ability, due to their privilege, to save members of other races and risking victimization when they stand up to racism (Hagerman, 2017).

Several studies documented parents’ struggle and efforts to teach a white identity. Underhill (2016) described how some parents sought to teach a new form of whiteness, one that supported ethnic-racial diversity and was distinct from the bigoted whiteness of the parents’ parents. Gillen-O’Neel et al. (2021) detailed how few parents had ethnic and racial identity goals for their children because many struggled to communicate how to feel good about being white while acknowledging whites’ unearned privilege. As a result, in lieu of cultivating an identity (in this case, an explicit white identity), parents sought to cultivate a set of values (e.g., the value of ethnic-racial diversity). Similarly, Underhill (2019) described middle-class, progressive white parents’ efforts to expose their children to diversity as a way of cultivating “a moral whiteness,” one that would distinguish them from other, racist whites. Thomas (2019) documented one family’s effort to counter the white-as-normal racial frame and cultivate an explicit anti-racist and white identity, in part by encouraging children to use explicit race language (i.e., call themselves white) and engage in explicit discussion of race.

With regard to lessons about equity conveyed through parents’ ERS, Gillen-O’Neel et al. (2021) contrasted parents’ shallow ERS goals (e.g., vague awareness of privilege and safety from racial discomfort) with other parents’ deep ERS goals (e.g., children feel a responsibility to do something about white privilege and taking action to confront or dismantle racism and learning racial humility). Pahlke et al. (2020) expressed concern that children learn the shallow lesson that racism is bad and aim not to appear racist rather than learning deeper lessons of how racism affects people of color and might be addressed. Underhill (2016, 2019) highlighted how the middle-class parents in her sample who socialized via exposure to diversity only wanted exposure to class-equal communities of color and disparaged poor whites to distinguish themselves from “white racists.” White parents’ exposure to diversity may operate as a performance of racial progressiveness that distracts from real challenges to the structural inequities (Hagerman, 2018). Pinsoneault (2015) critiqued mothers’ avoidance of explicit discussion of whiteness and their “delicate dance” of anti-racist but colorblind racial socialization, arguing that, “In cloaking messages about whiteness and the racialized other, they provide their children with the necessary tools—goodness, fairness and tolerance—to get in and out of any situation with minimal attention to race” (p.80). Hagerman (2014, 2018) similarly identified a “conundrum of privilege:” parents want their children not to be racist but also want them not to have to personally give up anything.

Evaluation of Design and Methods

These results should be interpreted in light of the studies’ research design and methods (see Table 1). Two quantitative studies were longitudinal; the cross-sectional design of the remaining quantitative studies precludes claims of causality. The samples were diverse in terms of child developmental stage; although, taken together, the studies provide evidence that ERS occurs across children’s developmental stages, the studies’ broad span of ages limits the ability to make definitive statements about similarities and differences in ERS in and between developmental periods. Although this review focused on white parents’ ERS of white children, one parent-only study assumed same-race children but did not gather data on child race (Eveland and Nathanson, 2020). Furthermore, Gillen-O’Neel et al. (2021) focused on ERS of white children but included four families with a sibling of color.

Nine studies reported no conflicts of interest. The remaining studies did not report whether there was a conflict of interest. Thirty-two studies did not report on human subjects or ethics. Eight of them were either dissertations or theses (Barner, 2016; Briscoe, 2003; McNeil, 1999; Morse, 2012; Thomann, 2012; Thomas, 2019; Underhill, 2016; Wilson, 2008), and we presumed that the authors obtained the appropriate approvals.