The effects of crossed categorization on intergroup evaluations: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

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.

Facing Differences With an Open Mind: Openness to Experience, Salience of Intragroup Differences, and Performance of Diverse Work Groups

“…Illustrative of this idea, a meta-analysis by Migdal, Hewstone, and Mullen (1998) showed that convergence of attributes (i.e., a diversity faultline) leads to an accentuation of the differences between and similarities within categories (i.e., high comparative fit), whereas the crossing of category dimensions accentuates similarities between the categories and differences within each category (i.e., low comparative fit). Migdal et al's analysis further showed that intergroup bias is reduced when diversity attributes are crossed, which reduces intragroup conflict and enhances information elaboration (Homan et al, 2007b).…”

“…Second, a reward structure that emphasizes the team as a whole decreases the salience of diversity and of subgroups. Third, a reward structure that cross-cuts diversity is associated with relatively high diversity salience but low subgroup salience (Brewer, 1995;Migdal et al, 1998). Because individuals with high levels of openness to experience are more open to differences and value these differences more, openness to experience can be expected to moderate the effects of diversity salience on team performance.…”

Interacting Dimensions of Diversity: Cross-Categorization and the Functioning of Diverse Work Groups.

“…That is, if some men and women are relatively old and some men and women are relatively young, the differences between gender categories and age categories become smaller, because people will have something in common with each other on one of the dimensions. A meta-analysis by Migdal, Hewstone, and Mullen (1998) indeed showed that convergence of attributes leads to an accentuation of the differences between and the similarities within categories (i.e., high comparative fit), while the crossing of two category dimensions accentuates similarities between the categories and differences within each category (i.e., low comparative fit). Although the beneficial effects of cross-categorization have been demonstrated in a number of studies (e.g., Brown & Turner, 1979;Deschamps, 1977;Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz, & Brewer, 1993), the results are limited to intergroup bias (e.g., stereotyping and resource allocation) in non-interactive, simulated groups, and little is known about the effects of cross-categorization on actual group functioning.…”

Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: A Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Despite these alternate options for categorization, the personal preferences or habits of these colleagues cannot be both similar and different with re-spect to the perceiver. As long as there is any basis for shared categorization, the similarities will outweigh the differences (see Migdal, Hewstone, & Mullen, 1998, for a review of research on cross-categorization; and Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 2001, for a review of research on re-categorization).…”