Crossed Categorization
Running Head: CROSSED CATEGORIZATION
Crossed Categorization
Douglas M. Stenstrom
California State University, Los Angeles
(this paper is only an example to help you understand what is
expected of you when writing your own paper for this class)
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, discrimination,
and violence. 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 identitybased conflicts between nations, ethnic, religious, and political groups (Urada et al., 2006).
Crossed Categorization
3
Extreme examples include 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 Life-Pro 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 violence in
real-world 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 Israeli may feel less bias for a group comprised of Palestinians 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 (ethnicity)
(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
Crossed Categorization
4
component) and the negative feelings toward the group member (affective or motivational
component) (Migdal et al., 1998).
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 would Latina
teens engage in this self-inflicted violence?
The research on crossed categorization may help explain the suicides because the news
article argues 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-group pressure to fit within the
American culture and the family-group pressure to fit within the Latino culture. In other words,
the teens are faced with conflicting ingroup-outgroup categorization on a daily basis, and more
importantly, they are faced with that cross categorization and discrimination from both cultures.
Cross categorization may also help explain how to reduce the conflict. 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. Instead of maintaining the perception along ingroup-outgroup lines in which
Latina teens are currently being perceived as cultural outgroup members by their mothers, the
Latina teens 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 and within the
peer group they focus on the American heritage, thereby priming the shared ingroup
Crossed Categorization
5
memberships within the situation. 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.
Example - Columbine
Can cross categorization help explain the mass killings at Columbine High School by
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? The original news reports after the massacre were that both boys
were social outcasts seeking revenge against the “jocks” who had bullied them unmercifully for
years (Chen, 2009). If those news reports were correct, then the research on cross categorization
would be relevant by proposing that the act of being bullied categorized Harris and Klebold into
an “us” versus “them” mentality that fostered hate and animosity toward their aggressors.
According to cross categorization research, people are distinctively classified into an ingroupoutgroup classification on the basis of visible external attributes, such as clothes. The original
news reports suggested that Harris and Klebold were part of the “trenchcoat mafia” (Toppo,
2009) which lends support to the theory that both killers were deindividuated into what they
perceived as an “outgroup” clique.
However, the original news reports were incorrect. The boys were not bullied or part of
the “trenchcoat mafia” (Toppo, 2009). Instead, they had a circle of friends, and even went to the
prom with a dozen friends in a limo days before they committed the massacre (Chen, 2009). The
boys also didn’t target specific groups, such as the jocks, but instead planned to kill
Crossed Categorization
6
indiscriminately (Chen, 2009). All of those facts suggest that cross categorization is not a
relevant theory to explain the killings by Harris and Klebold because there were no ingroupoutgroup categorizations that fostered an environment of “us” versus “them”. The predominate
theory of the killings, instead, is that both boys suffered from clinical disorders such as
psychopathy and depression (Toppo, 2009).
That said, there is some evidence to suggest that the clinical disorders like psychopathy
and depression may have lead to feelings of exclusion and animosity that fueled the rampage.
According to evidence discovered after the killings, the last journal entry by Harris read, “I hate
you people for leaving me out of so many fun things” (Toppo, 2009). That quote lends support to
the theory that social exclusion may be been a precipitating factor for the killings. In Klebold’s
journal, he wrote that "I have always been hated, by everyone and everything” (Toppo, 2009).
Once again, the extreme level of depression and antipathy toward others may have caused the
rampage at Columbine High School. The feelings of “being left out of so many things” and being
“hated, by everyone and everything” suggests that the boys perceived themselves as distinct and
separate from others into an ingroup-outgroup categorization, consistent with research on cross
categorization.
If cross categorization was a relevant theory for the Columbine High School killings, then
it may also be relevant to reduce similar events in the future. Since people belong to many
different overlapping social categorizations, by integrating disaffected teens into one of the
available social categorizations within a high school setting may help alleviate the feelings of
social exclusion. Joining relevant social and academic-related teams, clubs, cliques, and groups
may help decrease category differentiation or group identification, consistent with the research
on how cross categorization can reduce intergroup bias and aggression.
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.
Chen, S. (2009). Debunking the myths of Columbine, 10 years later. Retrieved April 5th, 2010
from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/
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.
Crossed Categorization
8
Toppo, G. (2009). 10 year later, the real story behind Columbine. Retrieved April 5th, 2010 from
usatoday.com: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbinemyths_N.htm
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.
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/