Crossed categorization versus simple categorization and intergroup evaluations: a meta‐analysis

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 defined 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. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.