New research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin shows that adults’ beliefs about how children perceive and engage with race are influenced by whether the child’s race is explicitly mentioned. When a child’s race was specified as either Black or White, adults were more likely to believe that child noticed racial differences and developed race-related understandings earlier. Black children, in particular, were consistently viewed as developing these capacities earlier than White children or children whose race was not mentioned.
The study was designed to better understand how race influences adults’ assumptions about childhood development in the context of a racially diverse society. Many adults in the United States adopt a “color-evasive” stance when thinking about children, assuming that young people don’t notice race and don’t need to discuss it. The researchers aimed to examine whether naming a child’s race disrupts this default assumption and prompts more nuanced thinking about how children perceive race—and when adults believe it’s appropriate to talk with them about it.
The research team conducted five pre-registered studies. Across these studies, more than 5,000 participants were recruited through online platforms such as TurkPrime, Prolific, and Connect. All participants were adults living in the United States, fluent in English, and completed a series of measures designed to assess their beliefs about when children begin to develop race-related capacities and how color-evasive they perceive children to be. Some studies also included an experimental intervention and open-ended questions to assess how participants would talk to children about race.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of several conditions in which they were asked about either “children” in general or children specified as Black or White. In some studies, participants were shown a brief educational paragraph explaining that children notice and think about racial differences at an early age. The researchers used sliding scales to measure the ages at which participants believed children first show racial preferences, categorize people by race, or associate race with social status. They also asked when it was appropriate to begin discussing race with children, and in one study, had participants respond to a hypothetical question from a child about why most U.S. presidents have been White men.
The findings revealed two consistent patterns. First, adults believed that “children” (when the race was unspecified) were more color-evasive—that is, less likely to notice or think about racial differences—than children identified as Black or White. This suggests that generic language like “children” may prompt race-neutral thinking, in which adults don’t consider children’s lived experiences in a racialized society.
Second, when race was specified, especially when the child was Black, adults believed that children began to understand race at younger ages. On average, Black children were seen as developing race-related capacities about seven months earlier than White children or unspecified children.
These perceptions had consequences. The earlier adults believed a child developed race-related capacities, the younger the age they reported being willing to talk to that child about race. In other words, the assumption that Black children understand race earlier led adults to say they would talk to them about racism at younger ages. This belief did not appear to apply as strongly to White children or to children in general. Additionally, when adults believed that children were more color-evasive, they were less likely to say they would talk to them about race at a young age.
One study included a brief intervention to test whether these beliefs could be shifted. Participants who read a short paragraph explaining that children are naturally aware of race subsequently reported lower beliefs in color-evasiveness across all child groups and said they would be willing to start conversations about race at earlier ages. This suggests that targeted information can change adult beliefs and potentially support more proactive conversations about race with children.
In an exploratory part of the research, participants were asked how they would respond to a child who asked why nearly all U.S. presidents have been White men. Their answers were coded for whether they addressed racism directly or minimized it. Adults were more likely to minimize racism in their responses when the question came from a White child, compared to when it came from a Black child or a child with no specified race.
The more participants believed children understood race, the more they addressed racism directly. Conversely, the more color-evasive they believed children were, the less likely they were to acknowledge racism in their responses.
Notably, adults tended to view the generic category of “children” as White and race-neutral. This aligns with previous research showing that dominant social categories (like “Americans” or “humans”) are often unconsciously imagined as White unless otherwise specified. This mental default may contribute to a lack of engagement with racial issues in conversations with children when their race is not mentioned.
The study also included exploratory analyses comparing responses from White participants and participants of color. White participants tended to believe that children—regardless of racial identity—developed race-related capacities earlier than did participants of color. White participants also reported being more willing to talk about race at younger ages. The authors suggest this might reflect increased awareness or performative intentions in response to recent national conversations about racism, but they emphasize the need for further research to understand these differences more fully.
All five studies in the research were preregistered, meaning the researchers publicly documented their hypotheses, study designs, and planned analyses before collecting data. Preregistration is an important practice in psychological science because it helps prevent questionable research practices, such as selectively reporting results or modifying hypotheses after seeing the data. By committing in advance to specific methods and analyses, researchers increase the transparency and credibility of their findings.
But the researchers acknowledge some limitations. While the sample sizes were large, the participant pool was predominantly White, which may have influenced the results. The study also focused on only two racial groups—Black and White children—limiting the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Preliminary data from an exploratory study that included Asian, Latino, Indigenous, and biracial children suggested similar trends, but more research is needed to draw firm conclusions.
Future studies could explore how adults think about race in relation to other marginalized or mixed-race groups, how beliefs vary across different social and educational settings, and whether these beliefs change over time. Researchers are also interested in whether adults’ assumptions about children’s race-related understanding influence actual parenting, teaching, or policymaking practices.
The study, “U.S. Adults Believe That “Children” Are Color-Evasive and “Black Children” Process Race Early,” was authored by Leigh S. Wilton, Jess Sullivan, and Evan P. Apfelbaum.
