Keywords

Parental racial socialization of children arises, in part, out of personal experiences with one’s own parents. Bay’s feelings of powerlessness that she and her mother felt have shaped how Bay parents her own children. She is determined to raise her children to resist and challenge racist behaviors by providing them with the support and skills to do so. As a parent, she has moved from feeling powerless to feeling empowered. In a demographically diverse country such as the United States where racial minorities will become the majority in 2044 (Colby & Ortman, 2014) and with Asian Americans as the fastest growing population (E. Lee, 2015), it is important to understand how Asian-heritage parents socialize their children to navigate and deal with issues related to race and racism (Chang, 2016; Coll et al., 1996).

Notably, Asian American adolescents report the highest level of racial discrimination by peers compared to other racial groups (Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2008; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). Asian American adolescents who experience discrimination report greater anxiety, somatization, depressive symptoms, and lower self-esteem, school engagement, school belonging, and academic performance (Benner & Graham, 2013; Benner & Kim, 2009; Juang & Alvarez, 2010; Juang & Cookston, 2009; Sangalang & Gee, 2015; Seol, Yoo, Lee, Park, & Kyeong, 2016). These studies, along with several reviews of discrimination literature that include diverse samples and methodologies, show strong evidence that greater experiences of racial discrimination are detrimental to physical, psychological, and social adjustment (Lee & Ahn, 2011; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Umaña-Taylor, 2016).

Given the challenges of growing up as a racial minority , it is vital to understand how Asian American parents contribute to how their children learn about, make meaning of, and actively cope with discrimination. In today’s political and social climate where some of the major issues affecting the health and survival of communities (e.g., Standing Rock, Black Lives Matter, Flint) are tightly linked to race and where bias-based hate crimes are primarily motivated by race (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016), teaching children to be aware of and deal with these realities necessitates a clearer understanding of what parents are already doing or could do. Research on how and what Asian-heritage parents do regarding racial socialization and what that means for youth development , however, is still quite limited.

The purpose of our chapter is to clarify what we currently know about Asian American parental racial socialization and provide historical context as well as an outlook for future directions. We define racial socialization from a Critical Race perspective and briefly review the relevant historical context of immigration and racialized experiences of Asians in America, present a thorough review of empirical literature on Asian American parental socialization with attention to measurement, and highlight key limitations of this literature. Finally, we conclude by offering directions for future research to advance scholarship on Asian American parental racial socialization that is based on a Critical Race perspective.

Definitions of Racial and Ethnic Socialization

Critical Race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012) maintains that race is a socio-political construct based on perceived physical differences (e.g., skin color, facial features, and hair type), rather than inherent biological differences. It differs from ethnicity, which emphasizes traditions, values, language, and history attached to a particular social group (Cokley, 2007). From a Critical Race perspective, race and racial differences were created and maintained to promote power and privilege attached to “whiteness” even though science has long debunked any notion of meaningful and distinct racial group differences, finding more within-group than between-group variations in phenotypic and biological characteristics (Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Nevertheless, individuals are racialized as race shapes group membership, meaning, experiences, and treatment of others (Helms, 1990; Omi & Winant, 1994). Therefore, race and racism—a system of privilege and oppression based on racial hierarchy—are inextricably linked today and throughout history. Importantly, racialized experiences also intersect with other forms of oppression including, but not limited to, sexism, classism, and heterosexism (Crenshaw, 1991).

It is critical to understand how Asian American families navigate this complex, fluid, multilevel, and intersectional system of race and racism, as it will have consequences for their children’s development (Chang, 2016; Coll et al., 1996). In developmental science, parental racial-ethnic socialization generally refers to the transmission of information from adults to children regarding race and ethnicity (Hughes et al., 2006). While the two aspects of “racial” and “ethnic” parental socialization have been well-studied for African American families, scholars have only more recently begun to differentiate between racial and ethnic socialization processes for Asian Americans (Juang, Shen, Kim, & Wang, 2016; Seol et al., 2016).

Racial socialization refers to the ways in which parents teach their children about the meaning that is associated with being of a certain race, such as the fact that one’s racial group may be devalued in society, and preparing children for challenges due to stereotyping and racism. For instance, Asian American parents may talk to their children about how to effectively deal with stereotypes of being treated as a foreigner or too smart, explain why Asian faces are not seen (or voices heard) in mainstream media, or teach active coping strategies when faced with discrimination. Ethnic socialization , in contrast, refers to the preservation and transmission of cultural values, practices, traditions, language, and history. For instance, Korean American parents may teach their children about the history of Korea, Korean traditions and culture, and how to speak Korean. While these two aspects of socialization can be distinguished, they also overlap. A parent could encourage ethnic pride, for instance, as a way for their children to cope with being the target of racism.

We argue that understanding Asian American parental racial-ethnic socialization has been largely constrained in the literature by its over-reliance on primarily framing Asian American parenting through the lens of the acculturation process (i.e., the process of living and negotiating between at least two cultures—one’s heritage culture and the majority culture), often only emphasizing the extent of ethnic (heritage culture) socialization. Furthermore, studies of Asian American racial-ethnic socialization (and youth development in general, see Kiang, Tseng, & Yip, 2016; Lee, Kim, & Zhou, 2016) rarely consider the relevance and long history of Asians being racialized in the United States. Asian Americans have long lived within a system that disadvantages racial and ethnic minorities, and yet, they have consistently challenged and resisted this system. This history has implications for the content and focus of parental racial socialization that has not yet been systematically studied.

Brief Review of Relevant Asian American History and Identity

In the history of Asian America, the diverse ethnic groups across Asia did not originally arrive in the US thinking of themselves as “Asian” or “Asian American.” They came instead with identities tied to their nationality, ethnicity, and tribes from back home (E. Lee, 2015). Indeed, Asian Americans are extremely diverse. The top ten countries of origin/ethnicities are from China (24.5%), India (20%), the Philippines (17.1%), Vietnam (10.3%), Korea (9.3%), Japan (5.2%), Pakistan (2.5%), Cambodia (1.6%), Hmong (1.4%), Laos (1.3%), and Other (1.7%) (Pew Research Center, 2016). Each of these groups has distinct histories, patterns of migration, and relations to the US, resulting in variations in how racism and discrimination is experienced. For instance, Cambodian American adolescents may be targeted because of language issues and stereotypes regarding refugees (Sangalang, Chen, Kulis, & Yabiku, 2015), while for Filipino Americans, language is less likely to be an issue but colonial mentality might (David & Nadal, 2013).

Regardless of their background, however, all Asian immigrants became racialized within a white racial framework to initially meet the need for inexpensive and exploitable labor in the developing U.S. capitalist economy (Chan, 1991). Asians in the US became racialized in three ways: (1) Asian ethnic groups across nationalities, ethnicity, and socioeconomic statuses were impelled to cross the Pacific to arrive in the US as subjects of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism, (2) Asian ethnic groups were repeatedly denied naturalized citizenship by court rulings and legislations, leaving all Asians in America “aliens ineligible for citizenship,” and (3) Asian ethnic groups similarly experienced systemic racism in the US based on shared phenotypic characteristics (Maeda, 2009). Thus, Asian Americans found themselves in a repeated loop in U.S. history between migration, exploitation, and exclusion.

This cycle of oppression has been fueled and maintained by racializing all Asians in America as “oriental”—an “alien body and a threat to the American national family” (R. G. Lee, 1999, p. 8). The construction of the oriental is a complex racial representation of ever-changing, contradictory popular images, including perpetual foreigner, model minority, and sexual deviant stereotypes (R. G. Lee, 1999; Wu, 2002). The perpetual foreigner stereotype is the racial representation of Asians in America as foreign, regardless of their citizenship, generational status, or length of residency in the US (Wu, 2002). The model minority stereotype is the racial representation of Asians in America as the more academically, economically, and socially successful group in comparison to other racial minority groups, because of their hard work and belief in the “American dream” (Yoo, Burrola, & Steger, 2010). The sexual deviant stereotype is the racial representation of Asian American men as hyposexualized and less “manly” and Asian American women as hypersexualized and exotic, setting up contrasting forms of gender and sexuality that diverge from the “normal” white male heteronormativity (R. G. Lee, 1999; Park, 2013).

These stereotypes of Asian Americans are neither new nor simple overgeneralizations. Rather, they are the racialized construction of the oriental to maintain and rationalize power and privilege attached to “whiteness,” which dates back well before the U.S. Constitution was ratified (see R. G. Lee, 1999, for details). For instance, Asian Americans have always been the perpetual foreigner in the US, stereotyped as the Yellow Peril that threatened white power and privilege. This image normalized the wide range of exclusionary and naturalization laws that limited Asian Americans from fully and equally participating in U.S. society and culture (Takaki, 1989; Wu, 2002). The Asian American model minority stereotype, contrary to its complimentary connotations, has always been used to maintain the racial status quo by pitting minority groups against one another, dating back to the end of the American Civil War and renewed during the 1960s Civil Rights movement (Wu, 2002). Each time, Asian Americans were pitted against African Americans as an exemplar case of hard work, “ethnic assimilation,” and a model for non-political upward mobility (R. G. Lee, 1999). Using sexual deviant stereotypes, gendered and racist U.S. exclusionary laws were also passed in efforts to control the family formation and settlement of Asians in America (Park, 2013).

It is important to remember that Asians in America have always resisted and fought against these stereotypes and white supremacy, often in collaboration across ethnic, racial, gender, and class lines (Takaki, 1989). In contrast to the perpetual foreigner stereotype, Asians have been in America well before the United States became a republic, have fought in every American war since the War of 1812, and have significantly contributed to and shaped the development of the U.S. economy (E. Lee, 2015). Asian Americans also routinely protested in the courts to achieve full citizenship, setting enduring, legal U.S. precedence on the right of entry and naturalization (e.g., Fong Yue-Ting on immigration, Wong Ark Kim on citizenship through birth), equal protection and economic rights (e.g., Yick Wo on equal protection, Toyota on land ownership), and the right to fully participate in the U.S. society (e.g., Fred Korematsu on internment) (Chan, 1991). Dispelling the model minority myth of Asian Americans simply being docile and hard workers who do not complain, history is filled with illustrations of almost every Asian ethnic group fighting back against individual, institutional, and cultural forms of racism (E. Lee, 2015; Takaki, 1989). Asian Americans have also historically challenged, resisted, and creatively navigated the sexual deviant stereotypes that limited normative family formations, including developing transnational families and thriving in industries that were non-threatening labor for White men such as laundry service and restaurants (E. Lee, 2015).

From the 1960s onward, then, a new intentional “Asian American” racial identity was born. It grew out of political participation and activism focusing on the need for self-determination and social justice. The Asian American racial identity was and is defined by: (1) multiethnic unity across Asian ethnic groups because of their shared racialization and oppression, (2) interracial solidarity and collaboration with other racial minorities and “Third World people” (reclaiming the term as people with alternative values, rather than less industrialized and civilized as the term originally intended), and (3) anti-U.S. imperialism and systemic racism that have hurt people of color all over the world (Maeda, 2009). Illustrations of these tenants practiced are visible across the Asian American movement in the late 1960s and 1970s. As activist and musician Chris Iijima reflected, “Asian American identity was only constructed as a means to organize other Asians for political purposes, to highlight aspects of racism, to escape the hegemony of Whites in progressive movements, to support other progressive racial formations, to establish alternative forms of looking at society/history…I’m hoping that someday racial identity becomes a political identity again—not an ethnic marker” (Maeda, 2009, p. 141).

Consequently, from a Critical Race perspective , racial socialization for Asian American families must include learning about and teaching the origin and history of race and racism in the US, racial formation of stereotypes and history of Asians in America, and radical, political resistance in creation of the Asian American racial identity. It is through these many lessons of confronting and combating systems of oppression across and intersecting race, gender, class, and sexuality, where children may develop critical consciousness, stronger racial identity development, and adaptive frameworks and coping strategies to deal with racism (Rollins & Hunter, 2013). Unfortunately, there are limited empirical studies investigating how Asian American parents are racially socializing their children, whether they include narratives of oppression and resistance of Asians in America, and if sharing these narratives relate to improved well-being, critical consciousness, and racial identity of Asian American youth. Still, a thorough review and critique of the empirical studies on racial socialization for Asian American families is necessary.

Empirical Review of Racial Socialization for Asian Americans

There has been a rapid growth of research on race and racism in the past 50 years, with greater emphasis on the experiences of both risks and resiliencies of people of color (Winston, 2004). However, there is still little empirical work focused on the racialized experiences of Asian Americans, including racial socialization processes and outcomes. Our empirical review includes 22 peer-reviewed journal articles on racial and ethnic socialization among Asian American families (see Table 2.1 for a list of studies reviewed). First, we examine terminology and measures used in the literature by scholars studying racial and ethnic socialization. Second, we report study findings describing the prevalence of racial and ethnic socialization in Asian American families. Third, we summarize how racial and ethnic socialization is directly and indirectly related to adjustment outcomes. Finally, we discuss limitations of the reviewed literature and highlight implications for future research and directions.

Table 2.1 Summary of racial and ethnic socialization studies with Asian Americans
Full size table

Operationalization and Measurement

The terms racial, ethnic, and cultural socialization are often used interchangeably or in combination across studies. Indeed, operationalization and measurement of racial and ethnic socialization concepts often overlap such that they can be difficult to distinguish, similar to the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms race and ethnicity in the literature (Cokley, 2007). Thus, using the term “ethnic-racial socialization”Footnote 1 to capture this broad construct or, preferably, using terms for specific aspects of each, has been advocated (Hughes et al., 2006). Historically, the type of socialization emphasized has depended on the racial group being studied. In particular, the term “racial socialization” is used almost exclusively with African Americans, while “ethnic and cultural socialization” are used more often with Latinx and Asian Americans (Hughes et al., 2006). The inconsistent use of different terms and definitions make it challenging for researchers to tease apart specific psychological effects and integrate findings from past research. Consequently, our review will organize findings by each specific racial and ethnic socialization measure as measures and definitions slightly differ across studies.

A recent review of racial and ethnic socialization measures found that at least 41 scales exist (Yasui, 2015). However, few of these have been used with Asian Americans. The measures most commonly used in studying the racial and ethnic socialization of Asian Americans include several variations of the Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Hughes & Johnson, 2001; Tran & Lee, 2010), and the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2001). However, none of these measures were originally developed with Asian American populations. Thus, we present a new measure, the Asian American Parental Racial-Ethnic Socialization Scale (Juang et al., 2016) at the end of this section, and discuss other types of measurement that quantitative studies have utilized.

The most commonly used measure for studying the racial and ethnic socialization of Asian Americans is the Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Hughes & Johnson, 2001; Tran & Lee, 2010), which has three versions all based on the ethnic-racial socialization model by Hughes and Chen (1997). Eleven of the 19 quantitative studies included in our review used a version of this measure. The ethnic-racial socialization model consists of four dimensions: (1) cultural socialization , which involves messages about the history and traditions of one’s own ethnic and racial groups and emphasizing pride; (2) pluralism-egalitarianism , which includes awareness of other ethnic and racial groups and viewing them as equal to one’s own; (3) preparation for bias, which includes discussions about ethnic and racial prejudice and discrimination; and (4) promotion of mistrust, which emphasizes warnings about interactions with other ethnic and racial groups.

Hughes and Chen (1997) first developed a 12-item measure derived from this model that assessed how often parents engage in three of these dimensions—cultural socialization (3 items), preparation for bias (7 items), and promotion of mistrust (2 items)—across their child’s lifetime and over the past year. The measure was later modified by Hughes and Johnson (2001), incorporating the pluralism-egalitarianism dimension into the cultural socialization factor. This modified measure consists of ten items and three subscales—cultural socialization/pluralism (4 items), preparation for bias (4 items), and promotion of mistrust (2 items). Tran and Lee (2010) adapted the Hughes and Johnson (2001) measure, adding new items and testing the factor structure with Asian Americans. This resulted in a 16-item measure with subscales along the same dimensions—cultural socialization/pluralism (5 items), preparation for bias (8 items), and promotion of mistrust (3 items). In summary, there are three published measures derived from the ethnic-racial socialization model with similarly named subscales, but different items associated with each.

Another measure used with Asian Americans is the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2001), which was originally developed with Latinx. This measure uses adolescent report to assess overt/intentional ethnic socialization by parents (e.g., “My family teaches me about our family’s ethnic/cultural background”) and covert ethnic socialization (e.g., “Our home is decorated with things that reflect my ethnic/cultural background”). The Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure was used in five of the studies in our review (Brittian et al., 2013; Juang & Syed, 2010; Liu & Lau, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2006). The study by Liu and Lau (2013) used subscales from both the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure and the Ethnic Racial Socialization Scale.

The first scale developed for Asian Americans, the Asian American Parental Racial-Ethnic Socialization Scale, measures seven aspects of racial-ethnic socialization, including maintenance of heritage culture, becoming American, awareness of discrimination, avoidance of outgroups, minimization of race, promotion of equality, and cultural pluralism (Juang et al., 2016). These subscales measure aspects of both racial and ethnic socialization. For instance, the maintenance of heritage culture subscale focuses on ethnic socialization (e.g., “Encouraged you to be proud of your culture”), while the minimization of race subscale has items assessing racial socialization (e.g., Told you racism doesn’t exist). Other subscales, such as promotion of equality and cultural pluralism, allow respondents to answer with either their racial or ethnic group in mind (e.g., “Told you that race or ethnicity is not important in choosing friends”). Overall, this scale is the first to cover a broad range of racial and ethnic socialization dimensions and take into account experiences specific to Asian American families.

The final three quantitative studies in our review measured socialization in other ways. One study utilized the socialization subscale from Harrell’s (1997) Racial and Life Experiences Scale (Alvarez et al., 2006), another used a 1-item measure of familial ethnic/race socialization (e.g., “How often does someone in your family talk with {CHILD} about (his/her) ethnic/racial heritage?”; Brown et al., 2007), and the last employed a new measure of family ethnic socialization for Korean immigrants (Choi et al., 2013).

In summary, our review shows an inconsistency in how racial and ethnic socialization are defined and measured across studies. Further, there is limited empirical research with valid and reliable measures of racial and ethnic socialization that are unique to the history and racialized experiences of Asian American families. Therefore, it is important to carefully examine how each study defines and measures the constructs under investigation and to recognize differences across studies that must be taken into account when integrating findings.

Frequency of Racial-Ethnic Socialization

Measures of racial and ethnic socialization attempt to capture how often children receive socialization messages. Recall that the original Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale (Hughes & Chen, 1997) asks for parent report. However, of the 11 studies in our review using this scale, only two used parent report (Benner & Kim, 2009; Else-Quest & Morse, 2015). The other nine studies adapted the scale for use with adolescents and emerging adults to assess the frequency of received racial and ethnic socialization messages from parents. One of the nine included both parent and adolescent report (Hughes et al., 2009). Children’s perceptions of parental socialization practices are important to consider as they reveal how parenting is directly experienced by the child (Blyth, 1982). Furthermore, capturing both parent and child perspectives is important because they potentially diverge. What some parents may see as explicit efforts to teach their children about the importance of being aware of discrimination and being proud of their own heritage culture and history, may not be perceived and interpreted in the same way by their children (Stevenson & Arrington, 2009).

Studies may also utilize different reference time points and response options for measurement, adding another challenge to comparing results across studies. Some studies in our review asked participants to report the frequency with which their parents engaged in socialization messages over the past year (e.g., Gartner et al., 2014), while growing up (e.g., Tran & Lee, 2011), and across their lifetime (e.g., Hughes & Johnson, 2001). In addition, item response options ranged from 3- to 5-point scales, with anchors varying widely across studies.

With these variations in mind, we now turn to factors related to the frequency of racial and ethnic socialization messages passed from parents to children and the types of messages children are more likely to receive. A study of Asian American college students (predominantly Hmong American) using the Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale found that being foreign born, Hmong American (versus other Asian-heritage), and having a more educated mother was associated with higher reports of youths’ racial and ethnic socialization experiences (Tran & Lee, 2010). Another study with Chinese American adolescents found that females were likely to report receiving more cultural socialization than males, but that parental education did not affect racial and ethnic socialization frequencies (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008). In contrast, a study with Chinese American, Black, and Latinx adolescents found that college-educated mothers aged 35–44 engaged in more cultural socialization than less educated mothers over age 55, while boys and girls both reported receiving cultural socialization “sometimes” (Hughes et al., 2009). This study also found that mothers reported giving preparation for bias messages “never” to “rarely” and that boys reported receiving more preparation for bias messages than girls (Hughes et al., 2009). In a longitudinal study, Benner and Kim (2009) found that Chinese-heritage parents who experienced more discrimination reported engaging in more preparation for bias with their adolescents 4 years later. In addition, every study that used all three subscales of the Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale found that Asian American adolescents were more likely to report receiving cultural socialization/pluralism messages from their parents than preparation for bias or promotion of mistrust messages (Gartner et al., 2014; Huynh & Fuligni, 2008; Tran & Lee, 2010, 2011).

Using the Asian American Parental Racial-Ethnic Socialization Scale, Juang et al. (2016) found that parents were most likely to teach their children about their heritage culture, and also “somewhat likely” to emphasize becoming American, teach appreciation for other cultures, and promote equal treatment of all races and ethnicities. In contrast, parents rarely engaged in minimizing race and teaching children to avoid outgroups. Consistent with studies using the Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale, Asian American parents seem to engage in higher levels of ethnic socialization than racial socialization.

Among five studies using the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2001), the three that reported overall mean scores showed that ethnic minority college students typically received “some” to “much” ethnic socialization (Brittian et al., 2013; Juang & Syed, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2015). In the study with Korean immigrant families , parents believed “much” to “very much” that good parents endorse traditional Korean parent virtues, and teach their children enculturation of familial and cultural values and traditional Korean etiquettes (Choi et al., 2013). Overall, Asian-heritage parents seem more likely to share socialization messages passing along heritage culture and emphasizing diversity and equality rather than more “negative” messages regarding discrimination, promoting mistrust and avoiding outgroups, or minimizing race.

Racial-Ethnic Socialization and Adjustment

Different aspects of racial-ethnic socialization are linked to a wide range of youth adjustment outcomes . Cultural socialization/pluralism is generally associated with positive adjustment for Asian Americans. More frequent messages regarding this dimension are positively linked to higher levels of ethnic identity (Brown & Ling, 2012; Else-Quest & Morse, 2015; Gartner et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2009; Rivas-Drake et al., 2009; Tran & Lee, 2010), more academic motivation (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008), higher self-esteem (Gartner et al., 2014), more school engagement (Seol et al., 2016), stronger family cohesion (Liu & Lau, 2013), and having more same-race friends (Tran & Lee, 2011).

Other studies investigating indirect relations test how racial-ethnic socialization may act as a moderator or precursor to other variables to indirectly affect adjustment. Importantly, cultural socialization/pluralism was a protective factor against the negative effects of discrimination for non-adopted Korean American adolescents, but a vulnerability factor for adopted Korean American adolescents (Seol et al., 2016). Liu and Lau (2013) found that among young adult racial minorities (African American, Latinx, and Asian American), more frequent cultural socialization/pluralism related to higher levels of optimism and subsequently, to lower levels of depression. Several studies also show that cultural socialization is linked to higher levels of ethnic identity, which then links to better adjustment including self-esteem (Brown & Ling, 2012; Gartner et al., 2014) and social competence (Tran & Lee, 2010). Another study found a stronger relation between cultural socialization and ethnic exploration for girls than for boys (Hughes et al., 2009). These findings suggest the need to move beyond testing direct effects of racial and ethnic socialization and adjustment to show how parental socialization simultaneously influences and is influenced by other aspects of development and for whom.

In contrast to the generally consistent positive relation between ethnic socialization and well-being, preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust have been associated with both positive and negative adjustment for Asian Americans. Among Chinese American families, the more parents engaged in preparation for bias with their adolescents, the more adolescents felt like they did not fit in with American culture (Benner & Kim, 2009). Greater preparation for bias was also related to perceiving that others have negative perceptions of one’s ethnic group, greater perceptions of discrimination by peers and adults (Rivas-Drake et al., 2009), and higher levels of pessimism, which in turn was related to higher levels of depression (Liu & Lau, 2013). However, preparation for bias has been positively associated with ethnic centrality (Rivas-Drake et al., 2009), ethnic exploration, and engagement in ethnic behaviors (Hughes et al., 2009). Preparation for bias was also a moderator, such that for those reporting high levels (but not low levels) of preparation for bias, there was a positive relation between cross-race friendships and social competence (Tran & Lee, 2011). Interestingly, preparation for bias was found to have a curvilinear relationship with school engagement, such that a moderate level was linked with positive school engagement, while low and high levels predicted negative school engagement (Seol et al., 2016). This finding suggests that discussing discrimination too little or too much are both detrimental to school engagement.

Meanwhile, greater promotion of mistrust is generally related to more negative adjustment for Asian Americans in terms of less social competence (Tran & Lee, 2010, 2011), poorer academic achievement (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008), lower levels of ethnic identity (for those who are foreign born; Gartner et al., 2014), and less family cohesion (Liu & Lau, 2013). These findings are consistent with previous research that deems promotion of mistrust to be a negative socialization message, as it may encourage inter-ethnic hostility and is typically associated with negative social and psychological outcomes (Caughy, Nettles, O’Campo, & Lohrfink, 2006; Joseph & Hunter, 2011). However, one study did find that promotion of mistrust was positively associated with self-esteem 2 years later for Asian American adolescents (Gartner et al., 2014). One explanation for this finding could be the context of the study’s sample that drew from a new immigrant community in the Southeastern US. Living in an area where Asian Americans are such a small minority, parents’ promotion of mistrust may be protective in the short term (Gartner et al., 2014). More research taking context into account will be important for understanding the developmental outcomes associated with promotion of mistrust.

Using the Familial Ethnic Socialization Measure (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2001), ethnic socialization was positively related to ethnic identity (Nguyen et al., 2015; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2006), with this link being stronger for females than males (Juang & Syed, 2010). Stronger ethnic identity, in turn, related to greater psychological well-being (Nguyen et al., 2015). For biracial Asian Americans, ethnic socialization was associated with stronger ethnic identity exploration and resolution, but not affirmation (e.g., a sense of belonging to one’s ethnic group; Brittian et al., 2013). These findings are consistent with studies using the cultural socialization subscale of the Ethnic-Racial Socialization Scale that show links to more positive adjustment.

The Asian American Parental Racial-Ethnic Socialization Scale study (Juang et al., 2016) found that maintenance of heritage culture was positively correlated with ethnic identity and ethnic identity centrality while awareness of discrimination was positively correlated with perceived discrimination. In addition, promotion of equality was correlated positively with a pluralistic orientation, while avoidance of outgroups was negatively correlated. Finally, Alvarez et al. (2006) found the relation between racial socialization and perceived racial discrimination was mediated by racial identity schemas (perception of self as a racial being) using the Racial and Life Experiences Scale (Harrell, 1997).

Given the evidence that both racial and ethnic socialization are linked to such a wide range of academic, social, and psychological adjustment for Asian American youth, it will be important to continue to examine how and why these different aspects of racial and ethnic socialization, individually and together, contribute to these important areas. In general, passing along and encouraging pride in heritage culture and encouraging appreciation for diverse peoples and perspectives are related to more positive adjustment. Promoting awareness of discrimination and preparation for bias are related to both positive and negative adjustment, with evidence that no preparation or too much emphasis on discrimination is related to poorer adjustment. Finally, highlighting mistrust and avoidance of outgroups seems to be the most consistently related to negative adjustment. Taken together, these studies suggest it is useful to consider specific dimensions of racial and ethnic socialization as the dimensions are differentially related to adjustment both directly and indirectly.

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Studies

Three qualitative studies examined the racial and ethnic socialization of Asian Americans. One study interviewed 23 Hmong American adolescents regarding their perceptions of parental ethnic socialization practices (Moua & Lamborn, 2010). Ten ethnic socialization practices were identified, with the most frequently mentioned ones being participation in cultural events, sharing history, preparing traditional foods, speaking the language, and wearing traditional clothes.

Another study examined the racial and ethnic socialization of Japanese American, African American, and Mexican American families using mixed methods (Phinney & Chavira, 1995). Eighteen Japanese American adolescents and parents from Los Angeles were interviewed. The majority of Japanese American parents (67%) reported that they taught their children about cultural practices. In contrast, 22% said that they tried to teach their children about mainstream American culture or how to deal with experiences of name calling or discrimination, and only 17% tried to prepare their children for living in a culturally diverse society. Responses to open-ended questions suggested that the most frequently mentioned socialization themes among Japanese American parents included culture (94%) and achievement (56%), followed by adaptation (39%), coping with prejudice (28%), prejudice as a problem (17%), and pride (6%). In this study, parents emphasized ethnic socialization over racial socialization. Yet, with 39% of Japanese American adolescents reporting experiences of verbal racial slurs, racial discrimination is clearly a problem they faced.

The final qualitative study investigated racial socialization of biracial youth (Rollins & Hunter, 2013). Ten of the participants were biracial Asian Americans; six were Asian/White, two were Black/Asian, one was Asian/American Indian, and one was Asian/Latinx. However, Asian biracial youth were grouped with “other minorities” in the presentation of socialization approaches, obscuring what socialization practices may have been unique to Asian biracial youth. The only finding applicable to Asian biracial youth was that parents of White biracial youth (including Asian/Whites) were more likely to be silent with regard to racial socialization than parents of Black biracial youth . As Rollins and Hunter (2013) point out, little research has been done addressing racial socialization among non-Black/White biracial families.

Our review reveals that most studies employ quantitative self-report surveys to study parental racial socialization. Yet self-report quantitative surveys have their limitations: the response scale is forced-choice, the range of parental racial socialization behaviors are constrained, and context is lost (Hughes et al., 2008). From a Critical Race perspective, qualitative methods and narratives are preferred for capturing the complex and contextualized experiences of Asian American individuals (R. M. Lee et al., 2016). Moving forward, it will be important for researchers to clearly define and describe multiple dimensions of racial and ethnic socialization and consider expanding beyond self-report surveys to include qualitative, observational, and mixed-methods approaches to best capture these nuanced constructs and relations.

Five Main Limitations That Point to Future Research Directions

Our review of the Asian American racial and ethnic socialization literature reveals both the challenges and importance of studying this topic. Racial and ethnic socialization clearly play a key role in the development and adjustment of Asian American youth. However, research on racial socialization for Asian Americans is sparse. Here, we highlight five main limitations when considering the 22 studies reviewed: lack of attention to socialization as a dynamic, two-way process, lack of a developmental perspective, lack of attention to context, lack of attention to parenting in tandem with other sources of socialization, and lack of attention to history.

The first main limitation is that most studies have framed parental socialization as happening in only one direction. The most oft-used definition of parental racial socialization by Hughes et al. (2006, p. 78) emphasizes “transmission of information from adults to children.” From a transactional perspective (Sameroff & Mackenzie, 2003), however, socialization is a dynamic process that must consider the child’s role in how and what his/her parents do. Characteristics of the children determine the content and process of how parents socialize. The personality of child, the developmental age, gender, whether the child has a disability or not, all influence the way parents socialize their children regarding racial-ethnic issues. Reactive parenting (e.g., responding to a child when s/he tells a parent about a racist incident) highlights the important role of the child in drawing out parental racial socialization behaviors (Chang, 2016; Juang et al., under review). Indeed, children are self-determining agents who actively interpret and elicit parental racial socialization. And, as children get older, some may actively teach and socialize their parents over issues of race, for instance, admonishing and educating their parents if their parent voices a racist remark or if their parent encourages them to avoid certain racial groups, such as who not to date (Juang, Munez, & Gee, 2014). Thus, examining how racial socialization is a dynamic, reciprocal process is necessary in order to move beyond a simplistic one-way transmission view of racial socialization.

The second main limitation of the studies reviewed is the lack of developmental perspective and exclusion of young children. Most studies of Asian American parental racial socialization either focus on adolescent experiences (e.g., Gartner et al., 2014; Seol et al., 2016) or ask young adults to retrospectively report how their parents socialized them (e.g., Alvarez et al., 2006; Juang et al., 2016; Tran & Lee, 2010). It is important, however, to understand how Asian American parents modify the content and way they socialize their children depending on the child’s cognitive and social development (Brown & Bigler, 2005). Racial and ethnic socialization messages are likely to change throughout childhood and adolescence as parents adjust to their children’s age, maturity, and experiences (Hughes et al., 2006). Chang’s (2016) ethnographic study of parenting Asian-heritage multiracial children is one of the few that explicitly focuses on younger children. Her findings show that over half of her sample (43 of 68 families) did not talk to their young children about racial issues, despite evidence that their children were recipients of explicit comments about their race. Parental racial socialization starts early, even if parents themselves are not aware of it. Importantly, young children observe, learn, and actively form beliefs about race based on the interactions with their parents, family members, and the world around them (Brown & Bigler, 2005).

The third main limitation of the studies reviewed is the lack of attention to setting (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), referring to the places where parental racial-ethnic socialization occurs. Racial and ethnic composition in a particular area can influence the experiences Asian American families have and how parents socialize their children. Juang et al.’s (under review) qualitative study of 34 second-generation Asian American parents across seven cities in the US found that parents adjust their socialization practices depending on the particular neighborhood in which they live. Living in a predominantly white neighborhood led some parents to more consciously and proactively emphasize ethnic socialization and seek out cultural organizations or language schools for their children to strengthen ties and identity with their heritage culture. Parents living in an ethnically concentrated Asian area led some to deemphasize aspects of racial socialization (e.g., awareness of discrimination) as they believed their children were not likely to experience racial discrimination in such a highly diverse environment with many Asians. It is important to note that many of the studies of parental racial socialization that we reviewed were conducted in cities where Asian Americans make up a larger proportion of the local population relative to the general U.S. population. While it may be difficult to recruit Asian Americans that are the small minority in their community, it is also important to understand how parents socialize their children in contexts where resources and opportunities supporting ethnic and racial socialization (e.g., access to ethnic media, food, institutions, and same-ethnic community networks) may be few. Thus, future studies should include participants from settings and contexts with different racial compositions and regions of the US and carefully select and measure the most important characteristics of the setting to better understand how parental racial-ethnic socialization may be tied to the specific place in which it occurs.

The fourth main limitation is that Asian American parental racial socialization is presented as isolated behaviors or practices, without attention to how parenting is embedded within a particular network of relationships and communities. It will be important to investigate how parental racial and ethnic socialization happens in tandem with other sources of socialization, such as with friends, peers, media, extended family, and school context. In doing so, we gain a better understanding of how parents develop their racial socialization beliefs and practices in line with, or in contrast to, other sources. A model of parental racial socialization should also incorporate the parent’s own process of becoming critically conscious, which does not happen in isolation. How do parents themselves reflect on their own identities of being of Asian-heritage in the US? Have parents also internalized negative Asian stereotypes and if so, how may this be communicated to their children both explicitly and implicitly? How do parents learn the lost voices of Asian American history if it was not part of their schooling or their own immigrant parents’ histories? It will be important for researchers to understand parental racial socialization as both an individual and community effort.

The fifth main limitation is the lack of attention to Asian American history. In the next section, we expand on this critique and discuss alternate avenues for studying Asian American parental racial socialization to address this particular limitation.

Alternate Avenues for the Study of Asian American Parental Racial Socialization

A review of the literature of Asian American parental racial socialization reveals the disconnection to Asian American history. Parental racial socialization is informed by the migration history of each specific group from their countries of origin (Kiang et al., 2016; Okazaki, Lee, & Sue, 2007) but also by the history of Asian Americans as a racialized group in the US (Omi & Winant, 1994). Most studies (in psychology) of Asian American parental racial-ethnic socialization, however, tend to overlook these important histories. Notably, the brief review in the first section of this chapter, documenting a long legacy of Asian American resistance and resilience living in a racially inequitable society, is not clearly connected or systematically considered in studies of Asian American parental racial-ethnic socialization.

Here, we consider what aspects of Asian American history from a Critical Race perspective may be particularly important to focus on to better understand Asian American parental racial socialization. Asian American history shows the formation of an Asian American identity emphasizing multiethnic unity, interracial solidarity, and anti-imperialism (Maeda, 2009). It will be important to uncover whether and how these concepts show up in parental racial socialization practices.

Current measures and conceptualizations of parental racial socialization include parental encouragement of cultural pluralism, which emphasizes appreciation for people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives and the importance of building relationships with diverse peoples (Juang et al., 2016). This conceptualization, however, only superficially taps into the idea of multiethnic unity. A fuller approximation of socializing for multiethnic unity would be to focus on what parents do to encourage their children to recognize not only the tremendous diversity and perspectives across Asian ethnic groups, but what parents do to communicate about the shared history, oppression, and resilience and challenging the stereotypes that target all Asian ethnic groups (Yoo et al., 2010).

Concerning interracial solidarity, studying how Asian American parents communicate the shared struggles and common goals of resistance that cut across racial groups will be important. Future research could study how parents encourage alliances across racial lines to emphasize solidarity so that children identify not just with their own ethnic group but also as Asian Americans and people of color. Finally, research could explore what parents do to help their children understand that racism is tied to global, transnational, capitalist motivations and understand consequences of U.S. imperialism and colonialism. Such themes are not captured in current conceptualizations of Asian American parental racial socialization.

History shows that Asian American individuals have, from the earliest time of migration to the US, engaged in active resistance to sometimes violent racial inequities (R. G. Lee, 1999; Takaki, 1989). Research could explore how Asian-heritage parents foster a critical consciousness beyond an awareness of interpersonal and institutional racism and discrimination, but also resistance to the internalization of pervasive stereotypes and action to push back against people and institutions that perpetuate and reinforce those stereotypes. Studying parental racial socialization without linking it to history may miss a large part of what and how parents socialize. For Filipino American parents, for instance, the legacy of Spanish and U.S. colonization, internalized oppression, and colonial mentality will have implications for what and how parents communicate to their children concerning race-related issues (David & Nadal, 2013).

Drawing from socio-political and civic engagement literature and a Critical Race perspective, we propose that Asian American parental racial socialization could focus on three dimensions that highlight process: critical awareness, reflection, and activism. Critical awareness refers to how parents create awareness of Asian American history and heritage culture history, awareness of how white racism operates, of racial inequity in institutions and society, and awareness of how racism intersects with gender, class, and sexual orientation (Chang, 2016; Feagin, 2009). In general, critical awareness provides children with a broader context in which to situate their own experiences, emphasizing history, systems, and institutions to understand the sources of injustices. Some aspects of critical awareness are accounted for in current racial socialization measures (e.g., awareness of discrimination, preparation for bias)—but these measures primarily focus on interpersonal discrimination, less on systemic and institutional discrimination, and not at all on how racism intersects with, for instance, gendered heteronormativity. Including an intersectional lens to understand racism also allows children to connect their own experiences and identities related to gender, class, and sexuality with others beyond their racial background. Researchers could study how parents emphasize the systemic and intersectional nature of racial inequities to build critical awareness.

Reflection refers to how parents help translate what critical awareness means for youth personally. Researchers could explore how parents guide their children to think about the relevance of race-related issues to their everyday lives, to who they are and to who they want to be. Reflection can lead to feelings of efficacy—the perceived capacity to affect racial and social inequities by individual and/or collective action (Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011). Studies have found that adolescents whose parents and family members supported and actively modeled resisting injustice were also more likely to believe they could initiate change in their sociopolitical environments (Diemer, Kauffman, Koenig, Trahan, & Hsieh, 2006). We know little of how Asian American parents facilitate reflection that may lead to feelings of efficacy and agency to resist stereotypes and injustices. This aspect of reflection is missing in Asian American racial socialization literature.

Critical awareness and reflection can lead to activism —actively resisting inequitable systems (Watts et al., 2011). We argue that parents who promote critical awareness and reflection are more likely to have children who will stand up to racial inequities, engage in political actions, and participate in their communities. Studies of African American youth show that parents and family members, both implicitly and explicitly, engage their children in a variety of forms of activism, including role modeling, sharing knowledge, and discussing and building relationships with others to fight for social justice (Watts et al., 2011). Identifying how Asian American parents socialize children for activism against racial injustices is needed. If, for instance, a child encounters racial discrimination, how do parents engage the child in developmentally appropriate, specific, and concrete activities to address the injustice? Importantly, parents themselves must be continually engaged in the development of critical consciousness in order to be a strong and knowledgeable source of positive racial socialization for their children.

In sum, we offer these three processes—promoting critical awareness, reflection, and activism—as a starting point for further research into areas that have not yet received attention in Asian American parental socialization research. These processes may provide Asian American families with valuable skills in navigating and coping with systemic forms of racism. Our review also brings up potential barriers for parents to engage in active racial socialization, such as possible difficulty communicating due to language differences with their children, lack of opportunity to have learned about Asian American history or developed critical consciousness, and not having similarly shared experiences or understanding of race and racism. Thus, identifying barriers to active socialization efforts will also be important to better understand how to best support parents to engage.

Finally, we want to highlight that for new Asian immigrants, although they may not identify as “Asian” or “Asian American,” they will still be subjected to being racialized as such. They will become part of the history of Asian Americans and therefore have a rightful claim to this history. In other words, the historical and contemporary actions and contributions that Asian Americans have made and are making are important aspects of a bigger story that both old and new immigrants from Asia are a part of. More recent immigrant groups (and those born in the US who were not taught Asian American history) may not readily identify with this history in order to be able to apply it in a meaningful manner to their racial socialization practices. Nonetheless, we argue that Asian American history is ours to claim and is relevant for all of us—from new immigrants to those who have been here for multiple generations—to inform how we engage in racial socialization with our children.

Conclusion

Understanding how Asian American parents socialize their children to become aware of issues of race, racial oppression, and resistance will continue to be a critical area for youth development. More studies are needed to illuminate how Asian American parents implicitly and proactively prepare their children to confront racism, develop a critical consciousness, and cultivate appreciation for diverse people and perspectives, beyond simply passing along heritage culture to their children. Studies also need to consider how Asian American parenting is grounded in historical and contemporary struggles and accomplishments to better understand the foundations of parental racial and ethnic socialization. As Bay, the mother who is quoted at the beginning of the chapter, expresses, even if as children felt powerless to address racial injustices, as parents we can use these experiences to provide our own children with the support, skills, and energy to overcome this powerlessness. To do so, we must know our history and (counter)narratives of our people to develop resilience, resist harmful stereotypes, and act against systems of oppression. The eloquent words of Sharon Chang and her hope for children of Asian-heritage parents are a fitting closing to this chapter:

They [our children] must be able to gain the strength of collective resistant heritage from us, their family, and community networks. They must be stimulated to think critically, taught to see complexity and nuances in all people, raise their consciousness through self-inquiry and parallel dialogue with others…. They must be able to reject myths of white superiority and refocus their energies to raise celebrations of who they are…. We must discuss the work of activists with them, help them to learn anti-racist counter-framing aimed at the white racial frame and gain strategies of protest which may be passed across many generations. (Chang, 2016, p. 217).