The effects of categorization on social judgement
Abstract
The effects of categorization on judgement have been of considerable importance in recent social psychology. The two principal effects of categorization on judgement are the accentuation of judged similarities within classes and of judged differences between classes. While there is good evidence for each effect independently, specific experiments tend to show one effect or the other but not both. The variables examined here were classification, social influence and information about the classification. In two experiments ( N = 96 and N = 103) both categorization effects were observed as a result of explicit classification (the interclass effect in Expt 1 being significant only with moderate extremity information). Furthermore, in Expt 1 social influence had powerful effects. Interestingly, it was found that providing information per se did not increase the strength of categorization effects. It is concluded that both categorization effects are reliable in a social judgement task under appropriate conditions. The findings are used to argue that accessible categories generally become salient where they provide a meaningful fit to stimulus information and are implicitly normative.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Intergroup accentuation, by which perceived similarities within groups and differences between them become exaggerated, is a robust consequence of categorization, especially when group labels are salient and congruent with ideological content.
“This process of intergroup accentuation, by which perceived similarities within groups and differences between them become exaggerated, has been experimentally demonstrated to be a robust consequence of categorization, especially when group labels are sali-ent and congruent with ideological content (McGarty & Turner, 1992).”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as McGarty & Turner, 1992
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Coghill, D., & Sonuga‐Barke, E. J. S. (2012) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02511.x · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Comellas, J. M., & Torcal, M. (2023) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102615 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España
Rojo-Martínez, J. M. (2025) · Papers. Revista de Sociologia · doi:10.5565/rev/papers.3363
- Authors
- McGarty, C., & Turner, J. C.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- McGarty, Craig
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 253-268
- ISSN
- 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8309
- OpenAlex
- W2130133948
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 9.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- categorization, social judgment, intergroup similarity, intergroup differences, social influence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review