Implicit Racial Biases in Preschool Children and Adults From Asia and Africa

Abstract

This research used an Implicit Racial Bias Test to investigate implicit racial biases among 3- to 5-year-olds and adult participants in China (N = 213) and Cameroon (N = 257). In both cultures, participants displayed high levels of racial biases that remained stable between 3 and 5 years of age. Unlike adults, young children's implicit racial biases were unaffected by the social status of the other-race groups. Also, unlike adults, young children displayed overt explicit racial biases, and these biases were dissociated from their implicit biases. The results provide strong evidence for the early emergence of implicit racial biases and point to the need to reduce them in early childhood.

Perceptual individuation training (but not mere exposure) reduces implicit racial bias in preschool children.

“…We focused on Chinese children because Han Chinese faces are highly differentiated from Black and White faces in facial physiognomy. The racial homogeneity, along with the facial physiognomic differences between Chinese and non-Chinese faces, creates a fertile environment for developing implicit racial bias (Dunham et al, 2013; Qian et al, 2016; Xiao et al, 2015), which makes China an ideal setting for the present research. The study was approved by the university research ethics committee, and children participated after receiving informed consent from their legal guardians and providing their own oral assent.…”

“…To measure implicit racial bias against Blacks or Whites, both before and after training, we tested Chinese children using the Implicit Racial Bias Test (IRBT: Qian et al, 2016), which is a preschooler friendly implicit association test, modeled after a preschool friendly gender bias test developed by Cvencek et al (2011a). Like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the IRBT assesses how quickly positive and negative attributes are associated with own- versus other-races (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003).…”

“…The other is explicit racial bias, which refers to consciously accessible racial stereotypes, prejudice, and discriminatory behaviors (Aboud, 1988, 2003; Dovidio et al, 2002). Both of these forms of bias are already in place by the time children are 3 years of age (Dunham, Chen, & Banaji, 2013; Qian et al, 2016; Xiao et al, 2015; see Raabe & Beelmann, 2011, for a meta-analysis) and become consolidated and highly resistant to change with development (Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2008; Gonzalez, Dunlop, & Baron, 2016; Newheiser & Olson, 2012). Thus, it has been recognized that efforts to reduce racial bias must be implemented earlier rather than later in childhood to have greater and more lasting effects (Killen, Rutland, & Ruck, 2011; Lai et al, 2016; Xiao et al, 2015).…”

“…Developmental studies have focused almost exclusively on reducing children's explicit racial bias (Aboud & Doyle, 1996; Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005; see Aboud et al, 2012, for a review), perhaps due to the fact that reliable measures of children's implicit racial bias were only constructed recently (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006; Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011; Dunham et al, 2013; Qian et al, 2016; Xiao et al, 2015). As a result, the current literature offers little guidance about how to reduce implicit racial bias in young children (but see Gonzalez, Steele, & Baron, 2016), and leaves open the question of whether any interventions that might lead to a reduction in implicit bias might also affect explicit bias.…”

The role of individuation in the development of intergroup relations

“…For example, infants prefer to accept toys from native speakers than from speakers with a foreign accent (Kinzler, Dupoux, & Spelke, ) and prefer agents who make similar choices as them (e.g., regarding food and clothing; Mahajan & Wynn, ). Children as young as 3 years of age show own‐race preferences on both implicit and explicit measures (Qian et al, ). By age 5, children share more when they are observed by ingroup members than by outgroup members (Engelmann, Over, Herrmann, & Tomasello, ) and show ingroup preferences on a range of other measures, such as resource allocation (Killen, Elenbaas, Rizzo, & Rutland, ; McGuire, Manstead, & Rutland, ; Sparks, Schinkel, & Moore, ).…”