Logics of categorization at the frontline: Stereotyped and investigative categorization

Abstract

When frontline workers interact with citizens, they often need to categorize individuals and decide who receives what and how. Previous research highlights that some frontline workers rely on negative stereotypes when evaluating certain social groups, thereby perpetuating inequalities. However, studies also suggest that not all frontline workers rely on stereotypes; some are able to suppress these biases during their interactions with citizens. The reasons behind this variation in the use or suppression of stereotypes remain underexplored in the literature. This paper aims to address this gap by proposing a framework to better understand the differences in how frontline workers use and suppress stereotypes. We argue that categorization operates along a continuum with distinct logics. On one end is stereotypical categorization, where individuals are classified as members of a specific group based on a cultural-cognitive framework that amplifies perceived differences between members of that group and others. On the other end is investigative categorization, a dynamic approach that involves forming hypotheses about individuals, testing them, and revising or reformulating these hypotheses based on new information. To illustrate these two categorization logics, we analyze the reactions of 46 Brazilian kindergarten professionals to a vignette, highlighting the theoretical and practical implications of these approaches.