Cited by 79Social and Intergroup PsychologyCategorization, perception, and languageSocial Power and Status Dynamics

The effects of categorization on social judgement

McGarty, Craig, Turner, John C.·1992·British Journal of Social Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00971.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

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