Among the myriad of lessons that children of color learn in their day-to-day navigation of society, one of the most prudent is that of race and what it means to be a member of their racial group. These lessons encompass what many race and ethnicity scholars refer to as ethnic-racial socialization, which is the transmission of messages about race and ethnicity from adults to children (Hughes et al. 2006). Since its theorized conception by scholars Boykin and Toms (1985) along with Hughes and Chen (1997), several scholars have examined ethnic-racial socialization by focusing on its dimensions, agents, causes, and consequences for Black youth (Butler-Barnes et al. 2018; Hughes et al. 2009; Lesane-Brown 2006; Saleem and Lambert 2016).

Within the past 15 years, scholars have begun to ask more critical questions regarding the differential effects of ethnic-racial socialization for other racial and ethnic groups and how the intersections of other demographic factors (e.g., gender, SES, age, residential conditions) influence the manifestation of ethnic-racial socialization in youth’s social, psychological, and academic development. However, there are few studies that compare the prevalence of ethnic-racial socialization within different racial/ethnic groups altogether. Understanding the prevalence of ERS in different racial/ethnic groups is important to the study of ERS because it extends its relevance to a wider population. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping, literature review is to highlight the universality of ERS messages in five different racial/ethnic groups (Black/African American, Biracial, Latinx, Asian American, and White American) and offer similarities and variations between groups with a particular orientation toward its impact on social, psychological, and academic outcomes within the school context.

Key Concepts/Dimensions of Ethnic-Racial Socialization

Boykin and Toms (1985) offered a theoretical framework that provided insight into how Black parents impart the significance of race to their children using either a mainstream, minority, or Black cultural socialization approach. These three approaches of socialization messages were called the “triple quandary” (Boykin and Toms 1985). Mainstream socialization values the standards set in place by the dominant culture while cultural socialization centers the promotion of strong ethnic pride and appreciation of one’s ethnic group. Unique to these two approaches is minority socialization, which fosters the awareness of racism and discrimination because of one’s minority status (Boykin and Toms 1985).

Expanding on Boykin and Toms’ (1985) conceptual framework of socialization, several scholars have provided more detailed explanations of the different ways that parents engage their children in the process of ethnic-racial socialization (Caughy et al. 2002; Demo and Hughes 1990; Hughes et al. 2006; Lesane-Brown 2006; Stevenson 1994; Thornton 1997; Thornton et al. 1990). For instance, Hughes and Chen (1997) conceptualized ethnic-racial socialization using terminology to represent its key components: cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Hughes and Chen (1997) describe cultural socialization as a process of intentionally educating children about the history, culture, and traditions of Black/African Americans. Preparation for bias socialization takes on a more preventative tone as it describes the practice of making children aware of and prepared for potential discriminatory or racist treatment toward them because of their race/ethnicity. In addition, providing a sense of coping mechanisms for such negative racial encounters is an important component of preparation for bias socialization. Similarly, the promotion of mistrust relates to the installment of skepticism toward members of the outgroup.

Both terms, promotion of mistrust and preparation for bias, stem from the reality that minority youth are treated poorly because of their otherness. Yet, the difference lies in the use of coping methods. Parents who utilize preparation for bias socialization typically provide youth with coping methods in response to experiences of racism and/or discrimination, whereas parents who ascribe to promotion of mistrust socialization, simply teach their children not to trust individuals of another racial/ethnic group. In addition, the terms “egalitarianism” and “silence about race” were introduced as alternative terminology to Boykin and Toms’ (1985) “mainstream socialization” (Hughes et al. 2006). Egalitarianism socialization refers to the emphasis of equality among racial/ethnic groups, while silence about race describes a lack of communication about race or a colorblind ideology, in which children are taught not to notice race. Among the research conducted in the last four decades, three key terms of ERS have remained relatively consistent: cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and egalitarianism. Therefore, these key terms will be referenced most often throughout this review.

Methods

For the purposes of advancing the research on familial ERS processes, a scoping review is the most appropriate way of mapping the literature to address the commonalities and potential gaps in the research. The methodology used to execute this scoping review follows a modified framework suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010). Four key phases were included: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying and selecting relevant studies within criteria, (3) charting the study characteristics and data, (4) and summarizing pertinent results. This review’s main objective was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of studies on the differential effects that racial/ethnic identification has on the exchange of ERS messages from parents to children. Certain limitations were placed on subjects studied, location of research, and methodology used. The following section will discuss the criteria for how certain studies were included for this review along with a table (see Appendix) accounting for previous studies that have examined ERS processes in different racial/ethnic groups.

Eligibility Criteria

Ethnic-racial socialization is a widely studied field, so in order to narrow the research to best suit the purpose of this literature review, certain criteria for inclusion were implemented. These criteria were (1) use of clear quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodology; (2) clearly defined predictors or outcomes relating to psychosocial development and/or educational progress in the school context; (3) focus on U.S. populations and/or the stratification of race/ethnicity used in the United States; (4) uses ERS from parental guardians as a study variable; (5) uses responses from parental/familial guardians and/or their youth at least 5 years of age; (6) published in a peer-reviewed journal. Studies that did not meet the set eligibility criteria listed were excluded from examination in this scoping review.

Information Sources and Search

The preliminary search was conducted in three electronic databases: PsycINFO (psychological, social, behavioral, and health sciences databases; 1967–present), Academic Search Complete (multidisciplinary database; 1892–present), and PsycARTICLES (psychological database; 1894–present). The databases were chosen to cover mostly the psychological domain but also to include work with a multidisciplinary approach. Initial search terms were included using advance search options, which separated terms with “AND” to give more precise search results (e.g., Parental ethnic-racial socialization AND African American, Biracial, Latinx, Asian American, White American). 90 studies were originally found across the three electronic databases with the listed search terms, however only 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The remaining 66 studies were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the predictors and outcomes did not relate to psychosocial development or educational progress in the school context; (2) ERS from parental guardians was not considered as a study variable; (3) study participants included parents of youth under 5 years of age; (4) the sample did not focus on U.S. populations.

Synthesis of Results

In conjunction with synthesizing previous research, this review offers a table listing the number of studies focused on ERS processes in different racial/ethnic groups within the discussed criteria. Displayed in Table 1 (see Appendix) are citations for 24 ERS studies corresponding to their focal racial/ethnic group studied, the age or school grade of target subjects, sample size, type of respondent, and main findings.

Results

Ethnic-Racial Socialization in Different Ethnic/Racial Groups

The majority of work done on ERS processes has been centered on Black/African American families (Butler-Barnes et al. 2018; Hughes and Chen 1997; Lesane-Brown 2006; Richardson et al. 2015; Saleem and Lambert 2016). However, studies on other U.S. minority populations such as Biracial (Csizmadia et al. 2014; Stone and Dolbin-MacNab 2017), Latinx (Hughes 2003; Knight et al. 1993; Umaña-Taylor et al. 2009), Asian-American (Seol et al. 2016; Tran and Lee 2010), and White American families (Loyd and Gaither 2018; Vittrup 2018; Zucker and Patterson 2018) are emerging. The following sub-sections include a discussion of which ERS messages are most prevalent among the aforementioned five racial/ethnic groups along with the associated effects of such prevalent parental messages of ERS. Ethnic-racial socialization processes are not limited to the five racial/ethnic groups that this review will focus on. Other racial/ethnic groups such as Native, Middle Eastern, Black/other country of origin, and transracially adoptive Americans also negotiate messages of ERS in their households. In particular, research on the ERS practices of transracially adoptive American families lends itself to a complex discussion of identity in cases where parents and adopted children are of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds. In this scoping literature review, the topic of ERS in transracially adoptive families are briefly discussed in conjunction with ERS in White American and Asian American families. However, the wider discussion of ERS practiced in transracially adoptive American families is outside the scope of this review as it requires a more comprehensive analysis within itself. Therefore, this literature review will draw connections between previous ERS scholarship on Black/African American, Biracial, Latinx, (and with a minor orientation toward transracial adopted youth) Asian American, and White American families.

Black/African American Families

The conceptualization of ethnic-racial socialization started with the examination of Black/African American parenting (Boykin and Toms 1985). Scholars have undeniably concluded that conversations of ethnic-racial socialization are almost inevitable and deemed important for survival by Black/African American parents when teaching their children how to navigate potentially harmful social systems. Therefore, majority of the studies (n = 13) selected for this review centered ERS processes in Black/African American families. Research has demonstrated that Black parents utilize ERS throughout a child’s development—spanning from early childhood (e.g., as early as 12 months; Blanchard et al. 2019; Doucet et al. 2018) to late adolescence (e.g., as late as 17 years of age; Caughy et al. 2002; Hughes 2003; McHale et al. 2006; Neblett et al. 2009; Richardson et al. 2015; Saleem and Lambert 2016). A common approach that race researchers have used to test the intentions of Black/African American parental ERS involves quantitative, survey-based data that allows for parent and/or child responses to items about ERS practices to be quantified and analyzed longitudinally.

Through the use of ERS instruments such as Hughes and Chen’s (1997) 16-item racial socialization measure or Stevenson’s (1994) 45-item scale for racial socialization for adolescents for instance, research has been able to capture the frequency of different ERS messages exchanged within Black/African American families. Several studies have been able to identify cultural socialization, promotion of mistrust, and preparation for racial bias as the most frequently communicated dimensions of ERS used by Black/African American families (Hughes et al. 2006, 2009; Neblett et al. 2009). Altogether, these ERS dimensions center messages of racial bias awareness, racial pride, and outgroup mistrust.

Research on ERS dimensions has demonstrated both positive and negative effects on Black youths’ development of racial identity, self-esteem, and academic outcomes. For instance, research shows that frequent preparation for bias can promote group connectedness and racial pride. However, preparation for bias socialization has also been known to emphasize the negative societal status of Black individuals to adolescents, which in turn, has predicted low public regard (Stevenson and Arrington 2009), low academic efficacy, and less academic engagement (Hughes et al. 2009). However, Black/African American parents recognize that part of their role as parents is to make their children aware of the negative social status of Black/African Americans and to protect them from racism and discrimination (Anderson et al. 2018; Butler-Barnes et al. 2018; Hughes and Chen 1997; Hughes et al. 2009; Lesane-Brown 2006; Richardson et al. 2015; Saleem and Lambert 2016). Throughout several research domains such as developmental psychology and education, racism and discrimination has been shown to have a negative effects on the well-being of Black/African Americans such as depressive symptoms (English et al. 2014; Saleem and Lambert 2016; Seaton et al. 2008), anxiety (Banks et al. 2006), weaken racial/ethnic identity (Butler-Barnes et al. 2018), less academic motivation (Chavous et al. 2008), poorer academic achievement (Powell and Arriola 2003), and aggressive/problem behaviors (Brody et al. 2006; Simons et al. 2006). With the threat of racial discrimination showing such pervasive effects for Black/African American youth, it is within reason to note the pertinence of parents’ communication of ERS messages to their children.

Recently, an interest in the way that Black parents are now talking to their children about encounters with the police has risen given the many senseless recorded killings of Black/African American children and adults by police officers. These conversations that Black/African American parents are having with their youth have been popularly referred to as “The Talk” (Diaquol 2017, p. 513). Among the many other lessons that “The Talk” includes, one of the most prevalent involves instructions on how to behave submissively in the presence of a policeman. These conversations often include scripted verbal and body language such as announcing movement, moving slowly, and keeping hands visible on the sternwheel of a car or in the air at all times. “The Talk” takes on a more severe form of what academic research calls preparation for racial bias and promotion of mistrust.

Nevertheless, Black/African American parents also participate in positive, optimistic forms of ERS. Cultural socialization activities such as exposing youth to Black/African American books and other various forms of media, cooking and eating ethnic foods, celebrating Black history and holidays (Hughes et al. 2006), and having representative artifacts in the home (Caughy et al. 2002). Previous scholarship has shown many positive outcomes for children who receive frequent cultural socialization messages from their parents such as a greater knowledge about their racial/ethnic group, strong private regard in terms of racial identity, and affirmative self-concepts (Butler-Barnes et al. 2018). Black/African American families have been the primary subjects of research on ERS processes and for good reason, considering the unique and systemic challenges that this group has historically faced and continues to face to this day. Moving forward, the remainder of this paper will focus on the reasons why other racial/ethnic groups (e.g. Biracial, Latinx, Asian American, and White American) engage in conversations of ERS.

Biracial Families

Few studies have focused on the ethnic-racial socialization of biracial youth; only four essential studies on ERS practices in biracial families met the inclusion criteria of this review. Of the four studies analyzed, most are centered on Black/biracial families. To disaggregate the literature on biracial youth further, the Black/White biracial identity is the most studied (Csizmadia et al. 2014; Stone and Dolbin-MacNab 2017). There has been little research on the ethnic-racial socialization of biracial identities outside of the Black/White biracial identity. The experience of Black/White biracial adolescents is one that the literature points to as “unique” in the discussion of parental ERS as these youth “belong to two racial groups that have historically been at a great social distance” (Csizmadia et al. 2014, p. 259). Other studies acknowledge ERS in biracial families as complicated because monoracial parents, whether White or Black, do not share the racialized biracial identity with their children, limiting the insight that comes along with sharing such identity in other families (Snyder 2012; Stone and Dolbin-MacNab 2017). In the past, Black/White biracial youth have been considered Black as a result of the historical “one-drop rule”, which has been colloquially defined by the phrase: “one drop of Black blood makes a person Black” in regard to the ancestry (Hickman 1997, p. 1163). However, it is important to understand how Black/White biracial families negotiate the conjunction of these two identities.

In a quantitative study examining the ethnic-racial socialization practices of 269 Black/White biracial families, Csizmadia et al. (2014) found that accounts of ERS varied as a function of racial identification and parent characteristics. For instance, parents who thought that their biracial children would be accepted as White choose to identify them as White and in turn discussed their child’s ethnic-racial heritage less frequently. On the contrary, parents that identified their biracial child as Black discussed ethnic-racial heritage more frequently. This finding suggests that it matters how Black/White parents identify and perceive how others identify their youth in the decision to send ERS messages to them. However, some parents focus more on how the child chooses to identify themselves as a means to how they transmit messages of ERS.

Stone and Dolbin-MacNab (2017) used a qualitative methodology to understand the parental ERS practices of nine White mothers in the Pacific Northwestern region and its association with their adult children’s Black/biracial identity development. Many of the respondents, both mothers and adult children, talked about the importance of having supportive family environments, being educated about both sides of their biracial heritage, and having pride in their biracial identity. Throughout these themes, the notion of relying on biracial children to talk about their experiences as biracial was a major determinant for how their White mothers decided to prioritize messages of ethnic pride (i.e. cultural socialization). The same idea related to White mothers’ will to prepare their children for racial bias; Black/biracial children’s previous experiences with discrimination was where most conversations about race started for White mothers (Stone and Dolbin-MacNab 2017). In another qualitative study by Snyder (2012), ten multiracial Black adults who were raised by either at least one Black parent or only a White parent through birth or adoption were interviewed to understand how their parents prepared them for racism particularly in the school context. Interestingly, there was a clear divide noted by participants in the way that their guardians taught them about racism growing up. Through rigorous, multiphase interpretive analysis, Snyder (2012) found that Black interviewees who were raised in households in which at least one Black parent was present talked about the reality of racism in today’s society. On the other hand, Black interviewees who were raised in White families with no Black parent present discussed how their parents “denied, downplayed, and overlooked the significance of race and racism in [their] lives” (Snyder 2012, p. 240). This study adds more perspective to the Stone and Dolbin-MacNab (2017) study as it provides insight about Black multiracial individuals who were raised by White parents only.

The stark difference in racial socialization processes in households with at least one Black parent present versus no Black parent present shows that ERS conversations are held at a different value between White and Black families, even if they have a Black biracial child through birth or adoption. Taking a deeper look into the ERS processes used by other biracial families outside of the Black/White identity, a qualitative study conducted by Rollins and Hunter (2013) included a sample of participants who had children from about nine biracial heritages: Black/White, Black/American Indian, Latino/White, Asian/White, American Indian/White, Black/Latino, Black/Asian, Asian/American Indian, and Asian/Latino. However, for analyses, youth were split between Black, other minority, and White biracial combination, meaning that youth were labeled as Black/White, Black/other minority, or White/other minority. In the state of Maryland, 73 mothers were interviewed to understand how they talked to their biracial youth about racial stratification, racism, and discrimination in the U.S. Responses from mothers regarding their socialization processes were coded as either “protective socialization”, “promotive socialization”, or “passive socialization” to address how messages of ERS can be layered (Rollins and Hunter 2013, p. 146). Protective socialization represented what the established literature refers to as preparation for bias messages as the primary message along with occasional cultural socialization or egalitarianism messages. Promotive socialization related to the delivery of cultural socialization and egalitarianism messages while passive socialization related to a silence about race (Rollins and Hunter 2013). Similar to many other studies on biracial youth, mothers with a Black/White biracial child engaged in promotive socialization (i.e. cultural socialization and egalitarianism) more often than mothers of Black/other minority or White/other minority children. Supporting the idea that non-Black biracial families engage in cultural socialization or preparation for bias less frequently than Black biracial families, Rollins and Hunter (2013) also found that mothers of White/other minority youth participate in more passive socialization (i.e. silence about race). ERS processes in biracial families are still an emerging topic with studies adopting new methodological approaches to capture the nuanced racial/ethnic development of biracial youth. Qualitative approaches have shown to be most useful in studying ERS in biracial families (Rollins and Hunter 2013; Snyder 2012; Stone and Dolbin-MacNab 2017), however, more advanced quantitative strategies that acknowledge the complexity of race/ethnicity would contribute to establishing set measurement and statistical practices that can offer an accurate view of how biracial families raise their youth.

Latinx Families

The examination of five primary ERS studies of Latinx families revealed an overwhelming prevalence of ethnic pride/cultural socialization communication (Hughes 2003; Knight et al. 1993; Umaña-Taylor et al. 2009). Hughes (2003) surveyed 273 African American, Dominican, and Puerto Rican parents of youth aged 6-17 years old and found that Dominican and Puerto Rican parents who possessed a strong sense of connection to their ethnic group reported sending frequent messages of cultural socialization to their children. Many studies share similar findings to Hughes’ (2003), in that they discuss the prevalence of cultural socialization messages exchanged in Latinx families.

Likewise, with a sample of 45 Mexican American mothers and children, Knight et al. (1993) found that mothers who identified strongly with their Mexican heritage frequently communicated messages of ethnic pride (i.e. cultural socialization) about being Mexican. Although these positive relationships present a straightforward narrative about parent ethnic identity and frequency of ERS messages, Umaña-Taylor et al. (2009) complicates this narrative to give a comprehensive view of the specific identity factors (e.g. generational status, language fluency) that also contributes to ERS patterns. Some research has suggested that ethnic exploration and commitment becomes weaker by generational status in the U.S. In other words, later-generation youth are less likely to show an interest in familial values and exploring their ethnic group heritage (Sabogal et al. 1987). Umaña-Taylor et al. (2009) suggest that there is something more to this negative association. In their quantitative examination of generational status’ effect on ethnic exploration and commitment, Spanish language fluency, and family values, Umaña-Taylor et al. (2009) offers the frequency of ethnic socialization messages as a likely mediator (Generational Status → Frequency of ERS → Ethnic exploration and commitment, language fluency, family values). Researchers found that generational status was not directly associated with familial values but was indirectly associated through familial ethnic socialization (i.e. family teachings about their native culture) as a mediator; meaning that later generation youth reported less frequent messages of familial ethnic socialization and consequently, less of a commitment to familial values.

An important factor to consider among this research involves acculturation as a guiding theoretical framework. Acculturation is defined as a mechanism that explains certain phenomena for groups of people experiencing the continuous contact of different cultures along with changes in the original culture (Redfield et al. 1936). In Berry’s (1997) model of acculturation and adaptation, the extent of a person’s acculturation and adaptation relies on group characteristics such as the society of origin, group acculturation, and the society of settlement along with individual factors present prior to and during acculturation (e.g., age, gender, education, migration motivation, social support, and societal attitudes on prejudice and discrimination). Moreover, when taken from an acculturative lens, the notion that ethnic identity and commitment to an individual’s origin culture is weakened by the length of time spent in the new, dominant culture lends itself to a more complex process that involves several group- and individual-level factors (Berry 1992, see also 1997).

More recently, indeed, studies are including more dimensions of ERS in Latinx families as the racial/ethnic climate in the U.S. shifts in a not-so-desirable direction. The current political climate of the U.S., backed by a history of anti-immigration ideals, has allowed for policies that ultimately, negatively affect the Latinx community (Androff et al. 2011). Derogatory statement about immigrants from the Trump administration has given rise to “anti-immigrant sentiments and hostile environments for immigrants and their children” (Ayón et al. 2019, p. 246; Hooghe and Dassonneville 2018). As a result of these negative sentiments, Latinx parents are more aware of the factors that bring their origin and settlement culture into conflict resulting in conversations with their children that involve messages of preparation for bias and egalitarianism, along with cultural socialization (Ayón et al. 2019). Instead of assessing different ERS messages separately, Ayón et al. (2019) examined parental messages of ERS as a whole, using low-, average-, and high-ERS as categories in a sample of 300 Latinx, Arizona state residents. Similar to Umaña-Taylor et al.’s (2009) study, generational status was also included in the analyses. Latinx parents who had immigrated to the U.S. more recently with older, foreign-born children reported using ERS more frequently. Although insightful, research should not settle for compiling messages of ERS together. More studies should examine the difference in frequency among the various ERS messages (i.e. preparation for bias, cultural socialization, and egalitarianism) in Latinx families. In addition, it is important for researchers to consider the nuances of identity specific to the Latinx community. Complex ideas about racial/ethnic within group variability, generational status, and gender still remain understudied in ERS research for Latinx individuals and therefore, call for more relevant, comprehensive approaches to studying ERS within this population.

Asian American Families

Within the research on ERS processes in families of color, Asian American families are the least studied. Researchers have justified this lack of research for Asian Americans by claiming that ERS practices are less important to Asian American families (Hughes and Johnson 2001) than they are to Black/African American families. On the contrary, recent scholarship on ERS processes are slowly beginning to examine its relevance in Asian American families (Tran and Lee 2010). This review analyzed four ERS studies focused on the experience of Asian American youth and families and among such studies, an orientation toward adopted youth was the most common (Johnston et al. 2007; Seol et al. 2016) while studies that focus on U.S.-born youth were few (Tran and Lee 2010). However, from what the literature offers on the ERS of Asian American families, factors such as generational status and ethnicity are typically considered in conjunction with the most frequently used ERS messages in their households (Tran and Lee 2010).

Similar to Latinx families, Asian American parents seem to infuse socialization and acculturation practices to aid their children in their racial/ethnic identity development (Tran and Lee 2010). This idea of acculturation being a part of ethnic-racial socialization process for parents has shown to be a function of generational status and ethnicity (Berry 1997; Tran and Lee 2010; Umaña-Taylor et al. 2009). In other words, children of immigrant parents (i.e. first-generation) may receive specific messages of ERS that bring about a negotiation of identifying more with either their American-ness or their families’ specific ethnic group depending on their place of birth. Researchers speculate that this negotiation tends to lean more so toward an American-assimilated identity for later generations (Tran and Lee 2010; Umaña-Taylor et al. 2009). This type of finding aligns with acculturation theory, which claims that an individual is more likely to adopt aspects of the host culture when more time is spent within that context (Berry 1997; Redfield et al. 1936). Since ERS mostly centers conversations around racial/ethnic identity, the inclusion of acculturative process becomes necessary for families who typically have an immigrant background such as Asian American individuals.

Moreover, Tran and Lee (2010) found some interesting associations that contribute to the notion of acculturation being a factor in ERS process. While testing for differences in the frequency of ERS in Asian American families, Tran and Lee (2010) asked 166 late adolescents from a Midwestern university to specify their ethnic identification and place of birth. Majority of the sample identified as Hmong, while others identified as Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, or other. In regard to place of birth, over 57% of participants were born in the U.S. Native ethnic identities were important for ERS process as Tran and Lee (2010) found that those identifying as Hmong were more likely to receive frequent messages of preparation for bias. In addition, adolescent who were non-U.S. born, identified as Hmong, and were raised by an educated mother were more likely to receive cultural socialization and pluralism (i.e. egalitarian) messages. Here, the difference in ERS messages can be attributed to mother’s education and place of birth. Those who had a mother with more education and were earlier in generational status (foreign-born) received more messages about belonging and pride in their ethnic group. From these results, one could concur that the question pertaining to frequently used ERS messages among Asian American families is not straightforward; it is a relationship best explained through mediation of other demographics variables. Another widely studied demographic variable common in the Asian American and ERS literature is adoptive status. ERS Research on adopted Asian American youth typically include the parenting practices of White American parents (Johnston et al. 2007; Seol et al. 2016). Due to the complexity of transracially adoptive families, research on the ERS of White American parents and their adopted and non-adopted youth will be discussed more in the following section.

White American Families

Two recent studies on the ERS practices of White American families were assessed in this review. From this small pool of research, ERS process in White American families appeared in the literature through two main mechanisms: (1) White American parents utilizing ERS in raising transracially adopted youth and (2) White American parents utilizing ERS to provide their children with better intergroup relations skills. The type and frequency of ERS for White American parents with adopted children seemed to involve a dependence on parents’ connectedness to their child’s ethnic identity (Johnston et al. 2007). Using a sample of 193 White mothers of Asian American adopted children, Johnston et al. (2007) found that White mothers engaged their adopted Asian American youth in more messages of cultural socialization and egalitarianism than messages of preparation for bias, especially when the mother felt more connected to the Asian American culture. This suggested that White American parents who are more immersed in their adopted child’s ethnic identity also felt more comfortable transmitting positive messages of ethnic pride (i.e. cultural socialization) and egalitarianism. Although such messages have the intention to promote a positive ethnic identity, Seol et al. (2016) reasoned that messages of cultural socialization may serve as a reminder that adopted youth are different from their White parents resulting in negative social outcomes such as a lower sense of school belonging (Seol et al. 2016, p. 14). In other cases, for which White American parents are participating in ERS, a different narrative emerges.

Outside of transracially adopted youth, research on how White American parents use ERS with their White American youth is a rather recent area of study (Loyd and Gaither 2018; Vittrup 2018; Zucker and Patterson 2018). The fundamental difference between ERS in families of color and White American families is in its intention. For instance, Black/African American and Latinx parents primarily use ERS as a means of preparation for and protection from the negative outcomes associated with their children experiencing racism and discrimination. White American parents, on the other hand, use ERS to promote equity and inclusion as well as to ensure that their youth are aware of the “social conditions of others” (Loyd and Gaither 2018, p. 61). Zucker and Patterson (2018) and Vittrup (2018) both sought to understand what ERS messages White Americans were sending to their youth and the results were undeniably congruent. White American parents were less likely to engage in “color-conscious” socialization (i.e. the acknowledgement that racism exists and that racial minorities experience racial hardships) and more likely to partake in “color-blind” socialization that centers on egalitarian values and a silence about race (Vittrup 2018, p. 671; Zucker and Patterson 2018, p. 3907). Interestingly, Zucker and Patterson’s (2018) mixed methodology allowed for an in-depth look into parents’ responses to race-related issues. 154 White parents were prompted to respond to vignettes about their child overhearing a racial slur, a hate crime incident, and news coverage about the Black Lives Matter movement. In every vignette example, the majority of White parents (84.2%) reported that they would respond with color-blind socialization, meaning that they would not directly address race nor encourage their child to take action in addressing a similar occurrence. Vittrup (2018) provides some context for why White parents would react in such ways. Through the thematic coding of open-ended parent responses, Vittrup (2018) was able to extract reasoning for the lack of color-conscious socialization from 107 White parents located in the Southwestern region of the U.S. White parents claimed that the topic of race did not come up in their household, therefore it was not a relevant conversation to have with their children.

ERS scholars posit color-blind conversations and the lack of ethnic-racial socialization as a whole in White American families as an issue worth further examination. Not addressing the reality of racism and discrimination preserves its subtle existence while dismissing the severe impact it has on marginalized populations (Loyd and Gaither 2018; Vittrup 2018). Ultimately, ERS researchers hope that their work will have more practical implications: White families should seek guidance on how to talk to their children about race and shift their perceptions of its relevance to their youth’s development.

Discussion

Over the past 35 years, research on ERS has primarily focused on its prevalence in Black/African American families (Boykin and Toms 1985; Hughes et al. 2006). Considering the historical context of Black individuals experiencing systematic barriers to avenues of upward mobility (Thompson 2002) and life-threatening encounters with law enforcement (Diaquol 2017), there is a consensus among researchers, practitioners, and caregivers that ERS is essential to Black youth’s well-being (Bowman and Howard 1985; Hughes and Chen 1997). There is no denying the importance of engaging in ERS practices within the Black/African American community. However, a small, but emerging pool of research on the ERS processes of other racial/ethnic groups suggest that the study of ERS communication is not exclusive to Black/African American families (Priest et al. 2014). The purpose of this literature review was to explore ERS messages in five different racial/ethnic groups and provide a discussion around the similarities and variations between these groups. It is important to acknowledge the ethnic differences among youth in this work because it extends the current conceptualizations of parental ERS. In other words, this approach questions if the current theoretical frameworks and measurement for ERS help move the research on non-Black racial/ethnic groups forward. The lack of ERS studies on Latinx, Asian American, and White American families included in this review, in particular, shows that more is needed to appropriately address this question. This literature review is one of few that brings together previous scholarship on the ERS of various racial/ethnic groups. As a result, some interesting perspectives from different racial/ethnic families were noted. One important concept drawn from this literature review is the significance of mediators and moderators in understanding how racial/ethnic group identification solicits the exchange of ERS messages from parents to children.

Clear distinctions can be observed in the types of ERS messages delivered to Black/African American youth compared to Biracial, Latinx, Asian American, and White American youth. For example, several studies suggested that Black/African American parents sent more messages pertaining to the preparation for racial bias and cultural socialization to their youth because parents perceived that the likelihood of their children experiencing racism and discrimination was high (Hughes et al. 2006; 2009; Neblett et al. 2009). However, for racial/ethnic groups known to come from immigrant backgrounds (e.g. Latinx and Asian American families), the type of ERS messages delivered were driven by some other common factors such as generational status and ethnic identity.

For Latinx, and Asian American youth, generational status played a significant role in the type of ERS conversations parents had with their youth. Earlier generation youth, mostly those who were foreign-born, received more messages of cultural socialization (Joseph and Hunter 2011; Tran and Lee 2010; Umaña-Taylor et al. 2009). The ethnic pride and cultural knowledge taught via cultural socialization was intended to promote youth’s identity development according to their native culture. Ethnic identity appeared to be a collective determining factor in the type of ERS messages relayed to Biracial, Latinx, and Asian American youth (Ayón et al. 2019; Csizmadia et al. 2014; Stone and Dolbin-MacNab 2017; Tran and Lee 2010). When parents identified more strongly with their child’s racial/ethnic group, they were more likely to send messages of cultural socialization- this was especially true for those of immigrant background.

A group that deviated significantly from the other racial/ethnic groups were White Americans. Considering the novelty of studying ethnic/racial processes in White American families, research on ERS practices within this population were quite sparse. Nevertheless, studies showed that when White American families had conversations about race, they were more likely to engage their children in egalitarian or colorblind socialization (Loyd and Gaither 2018; Vittrup 2018; Zucker and Patterson 2018). White Americans have a greater chance of living in an environment, in which they are the majority and the primary agents of mainstream culture (Bonilla-Silva 2011; Loyd and Gaither 2018). It is possible that within such homogeneous circumstances, conversations about racial bias and ethnic pride are not intended to be protective like they are for other ethnic/racial groups. Instead, when White parents engage their youth with messages of ERS, it is intended to make them more knowledgeable about others and/or to find some comfort in the idea that everyone is the same and possesses equal opportunities to succeed (Loyd and Gaither 2018). The differences highlighted in this literature review around how ERS is used in different ethnic/racial groups calls for more in-depth research.

Conclusion

The current review was limited to evaluating the prevalence of ERS processes in five ethnic/racial groups. However, future research should venture into theorizing how acculturation and generational status influences ERS for youth who come from immigrant backgrounds. Infusing theories of acculturation and ERS could also lends itself to more specific measurement. The studies examined in this review utilize two types of ERS measurement: measures specific to the focal race/ethnicity of the sample (e.g., The Latino Immigrant Family Socialization scale; LIFS; Ayón 2018) or adaptable measures that used language that could be applied to any racial/ethnic group (e.g., Perceived ethnic-racial socialization; Hughes and Johnson 2001). Despite its ability to reach broader samples, the use of “one-size-fits-all”, adaptable measures limit how potential findings inform current social conditions of different racial/ethnic groups. Future research should examine the development of more specific ERS instruments that include constructs specific and relevant to various racial/ethnic groups.

In addition to measurement, this study also recommends more research be conducted on interventions and resources to assist families from different racial/ethnic groups engage in more informed ERS conversations. The Engaging, Managing, and Bonding through Race (EMBrace; Anderson et al. 2018) intervention focuses on how Black families can communicate messages of ERS to their youth in order to reduce the racial stress and trauma that follows experiences of racial discrimination. EMBrace and its guiding theory serves as an ideal framework for future studies seeking to aid other racial/ethnic families with ERS communication that promote long-term, positive psychosocial development. Moving forward, this literature review hopes to raise questions for future theoretical development within ERS research that will inform how schools and other social environments foster more positive outcomes for minority youth.