Crossed Categorization
Running Head: CROSSED CATEGORIZATION
Crossed Categorization
Douglas M. Stenstrom
California State University, Los Angeles
1
Crossed Categorization
2
Crossed Categorization
When we meet someone who differs from us on one dimension of social categorization
(outgroup member) but who is similar on another dimension (ingroup member), crossed
categorization exists (Crisp & Hewstone, 1999; Urada & Miller, 2000). In the crossed
categorization paradigm, orthogonally overlapping two ingroup memberships and two outgroup
memberships produces four target groups that participants evaluate: double ingroup (ii), crossed
groups (io and oi), and double outgroup (oo) (Migdal, Hewstone, & Mullen, 1998; Miller, Urban,
& Vanman, 1998). As an illustration, a participant who is both young and a Democrat is asked to
evaluate groups comprised of young Democrats (ii), young Republicans (io), older Democrats (oi),
and older Republicans (oo). More recent extensions of the crossed categorization research
paradigm have investigated multiple overlapping categories beyond the traditional two-group
model (Urada, Stenstrom, & Miller, 2006). In these instances, participants are asked to evaluate
people with incrementally more overlapping category memberships, such as oi, oii, oiii, oiiii, and
so forth (Crisp, Hewstone, and Rubin, 2001).
The purpose behind crossed categorization is to reduce real-world bias and discrimination.
History is replete with instances where people are distinctively categorized on the basis of their
race, ethnicity, citizenship, political affiliation, social status, religion, gender, sexual orientation,
etc (Urban & Miller, 1998). The result of categorizing people into ingroups and outgroups is
group-based animosity, hostility, and violence. Research into social identity has consistently
shown that merely categorizing people into "us" vs. "them" or "we" vs. "they" is sufficient to
create intergroup bias (Brewer & Miller, 1984), and sometimes even extends to more severe forms
of intergroup hostilities and violence as evidenced by real-world identity-based conflicts between
nations, ethnic, religious, and political groups (Urada et al., 2006). Extreme examples include
Crossed Categorization
3
conflicts with long and intense histories such as Irish Protestants and Catholics, Israeli Palestinians
and Jews, and Rwandan Hutus (Urada et al., 2006). However, the same type of ingroup-outgroup
categorization also impacts more moderate intergroup strife like Republican-Democrat, Pro LifePro Choice, Yankee-Dodgers, and so forth (Crisp et al., 2001).
Crossing category memberships within the crossed categorization research paradigm (CC
paradigm) has been proposed as a technique for reducing these types of intergroup biases in realworld settings where individuals belong to many different overlapping social categories (Ensari &
Miller, 1998). When two people meet, a number of distinct group memberships, such as age,
ethnic background, and gender, can become instantly salient even before either person has had a
chance to speak. Religious jewelry, dress, and speech accent provide additional immediate cues for
category identities (Ensari & Miller, 1998). In other words, people instantly identify multiple
overlapping category memberships.
Making crossed categorizations salient has been advocated as a potentially effective tool to
decrease this intergroup bias by decreasing either category differentiation – a cognitive component,
or group identification – a motivational component (Urada et al., 2006). Unlike the targets with
convergent group memberships (ii and oo), crossed group membership targets (io and oi) contain
conflicting cues about the individual’s group identity (Crisp et al., 2001). As an example, a young
Democratic participant may feel less bias for a group comprised of Republicans who are also
young like the participant because shared membership on one category dimension (young) is in
conflict with, and cancels out, the distinctiveness of the other category dimension (Republicans)
(Urada et al., 2006). In this way, sharing an in-group membership with an out-group member
(crossing categories) can reduce both the differentiation between the groups (cognitive component)
Crossed Categorization
4
and the negative feelings toward the group member (affective or motivational component) (Migdal
et al., 1998).
Given overlapping ingroups and outgroups in the traditional two-group model (ii, io, oi,
oo), research has identified six distinct patterns of evaluation (Miller et al., 1998). The most
common pattern is the additivity pattern (ii > io = oi > oo) wherein double ingroups are evaluated
most positively, double outgroups are evaluated most negatively, and mixed groups are somewhere
in between the two extremes (Crisp and Hewstone, 1999). In other words, the participant positively
evaluates any target with a single ingroup membership higher than a target without an ingroup
membership; and positively evaluates a target with two ingroup memberships higher than a target
with one ingroup membership. With respect to the goal of reducing societal conflict, however, the
most desirable pattern is the equivalence pattern wherein all four target groups are evaluated
equally (ii = io = oi = oo; Mullen, et al., 2001). In this pattern, the outgroup targets (e.g., oo, oi, io)
are rated equivalent to the true ingroup member (ii), and therefore all bias is reduced toward the
outgroup targets compared to ingroup targets.
Example - Research
As a concrete example of crossed categorization research, Urada et al., (2006) investigated
processing of ingroup and outgroup information with stimuli that are more complex than those
used in previous crossed categorization studies. The research question was, given the existence of
a dominant outgroup membership (O), would crossing the outgroup with multiple less dominant
ingroup memberships (Oi, Oii, Oiii) result in bias reduction. The hypothesis was that incrementally
adding more ingroup memberships would result in a “threshold” based evaluation pattern in which
targets would shift from “outgroup like” to “ingroup like” after a certain threshold of two ingroup
memberships (O=Oi<Oii=Oiii=I). In other words, minor ingroup memberships could eventually
Crossed Categorization
5
cancel out or counteract the dominant outgroup membership. The method of the research study
involved participants indicating the groups to which they belonged, and then evaluating potential
partners for an upcoming problem-solving task. The operationalization of “crossed categorization”
within the method was manipulating the group memberships of the potential partners for the
problem solving task. Based upon the participants’ answers to the initial survey about the groups to
which they belonged, the experimenters choose group memberships for the potential partners that
fit the intended crossed categorization groups of O, Oi, Oii, Oiii. If the participant indicated a
strong political group membership (Democrat), for example, and less important memberships with
age (young), citizenship (US), and martial status (single), then the Oiii target would be a
Republican who is old, not a US citizen, and married. The dependent measure was asking
participants how much the participants wished to be partners with each described target. The result
of the research study confirmed the hypothesis that the addition of two non-dominant ingroup
memberships was sufficient to counteract the dominant ingroup membership and result in the
evaluation ratings equivalent to the true ingroup member (O=Oi<Oii=Oiii=I). The implication of
the research is that interventions could be developed that make salient or even create multiple ingroup memberships over a sufficient duration to allow positive personalized interaction to occur.
Example - Real-Life
In a recent news story from CNN entitled “Trapped between worlds, some Latina teens
consider suicide” (Yager, 2009), there is an astonishing report from the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) that one out of every seven Latina teens attempts suicide. Why? The article
discusses a few explanations including the possibility that Latina teens face a conflict between two
cultures – the Latino heritage of their parents, and the American culture in which they currently
live. The conflict creates feelings of confusion, frustration, and being trapped between the peer-
Crossed Categorization
6
group pressure to fit within the American culture and the family-group pressure to fit within the
Latino culture. The article reports that one primary explanation for the suicidal behavior is a
disconnect between the mothers and daughters, with the daughters feeling overwhelming pressure
from their parents to maintain the Latina heritage.
The research on crossed categorization may help explain the conflict, and may also explain
how to reduce the conflict. Crossed categorization, for example, stems from a desire to try to
reduce real-world bias and discrimination that exists when people categorize each other along
ingroup-outgroup lines. Latina teens are faced with that ingroup-outgroup categorization on a daily
basis, and more importantly, they are faced with that categorization from both cultures. One way to
potentially reduce the conflict is through using the principles of crossed categorization. Instead of
maintaining the perception along ingroup-outgroup lines, Latina teens which are currently being
perceived as cultural outgroup members by their mothers could create shared connections along
other lines within the family, thereby creating crossed groups (oi). Alternatively, the Latino teens
could try changing how they are perceived to fit each situation, such that within the family they
focus on the Latina heritage, thereby priming the shared ingroup memberships. Bicultural
individuals, for example, are routinely faced with having to choose between their multiple cultural
identities. At any given moment, their focus or perception of themselves and others may be
influenced by the combination of group memberships to which they belong and the people or
situations in which they are presently surrounded. Consistent with the theorizing behind crossed
categorization, the article reported that reducing the perceived disconnect between mothers and
daughters was an effective intervention for reducing the incidents of Latina teen suicide.
Crossed Categorization
7
References
Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on
desegregation. In N.M. & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact: The Psychology of
Desegregation (pp 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Crisp, R. J. & Hewstone, M. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns,
processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2,
307-333.
Crisp, R. J., Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. (2001). Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup
bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 76-89.
Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (1998). Effect of affective reactions by an out-group on preferences for
crossed categorization discussion partners. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
75(6) 1503-1527.
Migdal, M.J., Hewstone, M., & Mullen, B.M. (1998). The effects of crossed categorization on
intergroup evaluations: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 303324.
Miller, N., Urban, L. M., & Vanman, E. J. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed categorization
effects. In C. Sedikides, & J. Schopler (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup
behavior (pp. 393-420). Mahway, NJ: Earlbaum.
Mullen, B., Migdal, M. J., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Crossed categorization versus simple
categorization and intergroup evaluations: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 31, 721-736.
Urada, D.I., & Miller, N. (2000). The Impact of Positive Affect on Crossed Categorization Effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 417-433.
Crossed Categorization
8
Urada, D. I., & Stenstrom, D. M., & Miller, N. (2006). Crossed categorization beyond the two
group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 649-664.
Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed categorization effects: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 894-908.
Yager, C. (2009). Trapped between worlds, some Latina teens consider suicide. Retrieved October
24, 2009 from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/24/lia.latina.suicides/