Professor Steven O. Roberts: Conversations About Racism

By Karla Kane, journalist and former Bing parent

Steven Roberts was around 8 years old when he was falsely accused of stealing while shopping for a birthday gift for his little sister. His dad sat him down for a talk. That day, Roberts learned some hard truths, including the fact that someone in his immediate family had been the victim of a horrific hate crime.

“That was my introduction to racism. My entire reality shifted,” said Roberts, an associate professor of psychology at Stanford University and the director of academic programs at Stanford’s Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity. On May 3, he shared the deeply personal story at this year’s Bing Nursery School Distinguished Lecture, “Conversations About Racism.”

Unfortunately, Roberts noted, his family’s experience is far from unique. Black American families are all too familiar with giving “the talk” to their children, trying to prepare them for the racist treatment and even mortal danger they may encounter as they grow up. Roberts’ work is devoted to understanding the psychological bases of racism and how to dismantle them. Over the course of his presentation, he discussed findings from his research into how different types of families talk about racism; the “promises and pitfalls of colorblindness;” and how to have more productive conversations with children on these issues.

Discussions in Black vs. White Households

Roberts and his colleagues conducted an online survey of Black and white American (monoracial) families shortly before and after the murder of George Floyd (a period of increased public focus on racism and police brutality), asking if and how families were discussing racism with their children. Questions included: “How worried are you that your child might be a target of racial bias?” and “How worried are you that your child might be racially biased?” The survey found that both concerns were significantly higher in Black families, and that both worries in Black families increased after Floyd’s murder.

In the aftermath of Floyd’s death, Black parents were more likely to discuss racism with their children, while the inclination of white parents remained mostly unchanged. When asked for more information on how families addressed the topic, there was a significant difference in strategy between Black and white families, which Roberts illustrated by sharing two responses.

In the example from a Black family, the parent spoke frankly to their 6-year-old about their godfather being murdered by police (and the incident receiving no media attention). The white parent, on the other hand, told their 6-year-old child, “Everyone is treated equal. Your color doesn’t matter.” While the latter message may be well-intentioned, Roberts said, it’s “not the most accurate or effective way to have these conversations.” It makes sense, he said, that parents might try to promote a “color-blind” message and to encourage their children not to classify people by race; however, this message fails to provide the tools necessary to overcome racial biases in the real world.

Promises and Pitfalls of Color-Blindness

In a study Roberts conducted at Bing, designed to investigate how children reason about categories, children were introduced to two fictional groups of beings, Hibbles and Glerks, who typically wear certain colors and engage in (morally neutral) group behaviors, such as eating specific types of berries. By offering stereotyped information about the groups, the study sought to determine whether children would judge or criticize those who don’t conform to what is expected for their category.

Roberts shared a video clip of a child who had just been told about a Glerk eating a berry of the type usually eaten by Hibbles, and Roberts says the child’s strong reaction captures a broader pattern. When asked if he would want to be friends with this Glerk, the child adamantly responds “No!” He vehemently insists it is a “bad” Glerk the others would hate or even kill.

While not all participants had such extreme responses, “they do have pretty negative evaluations of individuals who go against the category,” Roberts said. When introduced to Hibbles and Glerks as individuals making individual behavior choices, though, children proved much more accepting. “Once you take the emphasis off the category, children are more tolerant,” Roberts said, justifying, perhaps, parents’ inclination toward color-blind messages. However, he insisted, “we don’t live in a color-blind society.”

Roberts presented a number of sobering facts, including that Black Americans are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans; the median net worth of Black families is approximately 10 times lower than for white families; and infant mortality is much higher for Black children than white ones.

“How can we get children to think very critically about how very important these categories are in the real world, but at the same time not undermine how they see and evaluate individuals?” Roberts asked. “That’s been a very tough challenge for developmental psychologists. No one’s really found how to have that balance.” Children are exposed to information about categories all the time and, understandably, use that information to develop their worldview.

Even if we might want children to take on a “color-blind” perspective when it comes to race, Roberts said, “they still are given clear messages, and associations are being built between categories and things like divinity and power and knowledge.” If you do a Google Images search for “God,” for example, the majority of results, Roberts said, are “a lot of old white guys.” Because the dominant image is that of a white male God, researchers conjectured, many people associate whiteness with being more godlike and worthy of leadership.

The Power of Perception

In addition to working with adults on this topic, Roberts’ research team surveyed 176 Christian (mostly Black and white) children between the ages of 4 and 12 attending Sunday schools in California and North Carolina. They asked the children to draw a picture of God and found that the children were more likely to draw God as white (and male). The children were also shown pairs of faces of similar age and gender but different races and then asked which looked more like God. Again, there was a bias toward whiteness. Finally, they were shown a group of facial photos, told they were pictures of people who worked together, and asked to identify which three they thought were the “bosses” of the group. Sure enough, the more likely they were to have a concept of God as white predicted how likely they were to select white or light-skinned faces as being in positions of authority.

As part of the study conducted at Bing, participants were presented with a story about Zombot, the fictional planet where the Hibbles and Glerks live and pray to Liakbor, a divine being they believe created Zombot and all its life forms. So the children would initially assume that Hibbles are the more powerful group, they were told both Hibbles and Glerks believe that Liakbor is a Hibble.

The participants were randomly sorted into three storyline groups: In one, Liakbor is revealed to be a Hibble; in another, Liakbor is actually a Glerk; and in a control group, Liakbor is a different type of being entirely. The children were then asked, in light of this new information, which group should rule over Zombot, and the results were straightforward: The children believed the group created in the image of the divinity should be in charge.

“If children are bombarded with this image that this powerful, all-knowing entity has a certain race or a certain gender, of course they’re going to use that to make inferences,” Roberts said.

The Importance of Cultural Context—and Conscious Messaging

When having conversations with children about racial bias—as a way to counter the color-blind narrative—Roberts noted that it is important to impart information on the wider, systemic foundations of injustice rather than focus on individual actions. He offered the example of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd. While one could make the case, Roberts said, that Chauvin is a bad person who did an evil thing, there are larger structural forces at play, such as the systemic prejudice and societal conditions that led Chauvin to make the choices he did. Individual action and the broader cultural context, he noted, are not mutually exclusive, but by focusing on individuals and their particular crime and punishment without addressing the structural and historical context in which they exist, the bigger issues remain unexamined.

To what extent are parents talking about the structural roots of racial inequality? Roberts shared some ongoing research into this topic led by his doctoral student Nicky Sullivan. In this study, a group of local parents and children are presented with a story about Alex, a child living in the fictional town of Williamsville. Alex sees a group of protestors speaking out against repeated acts of brutality by the town’s police force against Black citizens. Researchers then ask the parents to have a brief conversation with their child about the story, addressing why this mistreatment is happening. In one shared example, the child is told the blame lies with “bad, racist cops,” while in another, the parent attempts to offer some background on systemic racism. In general, Roberts said, focusing on the individuals is much more common. And when the children are shown a list of possible explanations for the racist police action and asked to rate which explanations seem the most likely, they are more inclined to give high ratings to reasons that emphasize the individual, which correlates with the conversations they had with their parent. “The work that we’re doing is looking at the structural explanations,” Roberts said. “How to get children to think about these inequalities and also what predicts why a white parent in particular might elicit a structural explanation versus an individual explanation.”

Toward the end of his lecture, Roberts described one of his “all-time favorite” studies, also conducted at Bing. To explore how talking about categories in positive or negative ways can impact children’s thinking, a researcher presented herself as a Hibble and invited children to be Hibbles too (by giving them shirts in the color associated with being a Hibble). Some children were given positive messages about Glerks—that Hibbles really like Glerks and enjoy playing and sharing with them—and some were given negative messages (told that Hibbles do not like or interact with Glerks). When a second researcher, playing the role of a Glerk, came in and attempted to interact with the child, the children’s reactions to and feelings about the newcomer differed depending on the messaging they’d received. Embedding positive norms around categories, therefore, could be another strategy—in addition to structural explanations—for shaping the way children think about racial bias.

Roberts and his colleagues, who recently submitted a paper on the challenge of helping children understand such complex issues from a young age, acknowledged that many questions remain and their work is ongoing. “These are really big concepts and topics,” he said. “They are really hard for a young child to grasp, and we really need to figure out how to get them to grasp them.”  

Professor Steven O. Roberts

Steven O. Roberts, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at Stanford University. He is also director of academic programs at Stanford’s Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity. Professor Roberts received his PhD in psychology from the University of Michigan. Professor Roberts’ research examines the origins of racist thinking and the social structures that foster it. He has received numerous awards, including Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching, Rising Star Award from the Association for Psychological Science, and Janet Taylor Spence Award for Transformative Early Career Contributions from the Association for Psychological Science (2021).

About the Author

Karla Kane is an award-winning local journalist and musician (best known as the lead singer, songwriter, and ukulele player in the band The Corner Laughers). She holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in anthropology and lives in Redwood City with her husband and bandmate Khoi Huynh, her daughter, Octavia (a proud Bing alumna!), and several cats.