Crossed categorization typically refers to the crossing of two dichotomous social dimensions, resulting in four groups (double in‐group, two mixed groups, and double out‐group). This paper reports the results of a meta‐analysis of the effects of crossed categorization on intergroup evaluations. The present effort was able to contrast and evaluate 11 models previously proposed to account for the effects of crossed categorization. The category differentiation (reduction) model received the most support insofar as (a) it rendered predictions of intergroup evaluations that were significant and of moderate magnitude, and (b) these predictions varied as a significant function of the proposed underlying mechanism for the model (the similarity between the categorization dimensions). We discuss the implications of these results for future research on crossed categorization.

Crossed categorization typically refers to the crossing of two dichotomous social dimensions, resulting in four groups (double-ingroup, two mixed groups, and double-outgroup). This paper reports the results of a meta-analysis comparing the effects of crossed categorization on intergroup evaluations with the effects of simple categorization on intergroup evaluations. The crossed categorization paradigm is shown to increase or decrease ingroup bias, depending on how ingroup bias is de®ned in the crossed categorization paradigm. Moreover, just as in simple categorization, ingroup bias in crossed categorization is shown to be greater when the proportionate size of the ingroup is smaller. However, contrary to the patterns established in simple categorization, the reality of the group categorizations does not increase ingroup bias in crossed categorization. We discuss the implications of these results for future research on intergroup evaluations.

In an effort to examine paradoxes involving self-awareness, deindividuation, and social identity, this article reports the results of a study that examines the effects of a range of manipulation operationalizations of self and social identity on a complement of measurement operationalizations of self and social identity. Specifically, participants completed measures of self-awareness and ethnic social identity while confronted with their mirror image, while wearing a mask, or while exposed to a family tree delineating their ethnicity. Patterns of mean levels of self-awareness and ethnic social identity are used to examine the paradox of depersonalization and deindividuation, the paradox of (a)symmetrical activation of components of identity, and the paradox of deindividuation and the search for identity. Discussion considers the limitations of this approach and considers the implications of these results for the long-standing study of the interplay between self and social identity.

No abstract