Abstract
Previous meta-analytic reviews of the literature on crossed categorization have uncovered a number of important findings; however, several questions remain unanswered and may best be tackled using a more traditional narrative approach. This review of the literature on crossed categorization divides studies into those that are relevant to (a) which pattern of evaluation prevails in multiple categorization contexts, (b) what processes best account for the effects, and (c) whether crossed categorization can reduce intergroup bias relative to simple categorization. Re-examination of existing theory and available evidence suggests a number of important new issues to consider in studying multiple categorization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
