Social Categorisation

This is the user sandbox of Cm2803. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Social categorisation is a term used in social psychology to describe a subconscious psychological process which involves assigning people into groups based on meaningful characteristics determined by society (Barth et al., 2018). This grouping of persons in a way which makes sense to the perceiver (Tajfel, 1978) enables individuals to simplify their social environment. This simplification of the social world is beneficial because it allows individuals to comprehend and navigate complex environments more efficiently. Social categorisation works as a mental shortcut known as a heuristic. This enables the categorisation of persons based on surface level characteristics which is time effective and effortless (Jhangiani & Tarry, 2022). Stereotype formation occurs as a result of these shortcuts because people have a tendency to overgeneralise perceptual features to all members of the same category (Jhangiani & Terry, 2022). These perceptions are often misinformed and incorrect which can lead to prejudice and discrimination. The categorisation of persons is often complex and overlapping (Crisp and Hewstone, 2007). Social categories can differ in terms of level of inclusiveness for example, English people would be included in the British category which would be included in the European category. The category which is most relevant is determined by context. Although social categorisation is a necessary and uncontrollable cognitive process, it still has various implications in society.

Consequently, the present article focuses on three aspects of social categorisation and will commence with an evaluation of social categorisation during early development and the significance of gender and ethnicity as the earliest markers of social categorisation. Secondly, this article will discuss how social categorisation can lead to the formation of in-groups and out-groups. Finally, this article will examine the implications of social categorisation on prejudice and discrimination.

Social Categorisation in Early Development

Social categorisation starts to develop within the first year of life as infants demonstrate a preference for individuals similar to themselves (Mahajan & Wynn, 2012). Children begin to categorise individuals by seeking visible characteristics and external properties to form social categories (Mari, 2022). These formed social categories are used to make inferences about the shared features of its members and how they should interact as a collective (Mari, 2022). The assumptions of how the members from the same social category should behave and interact results in the formation of shared social norms (Rhodes & Baron, 2019). This understanding of shared norms and conformity to group regularities is present as early as 4 years old (Roberts et al., 2017). For example, children presume there is an issue with a group member who does not adhere to the norms of their social group (Rhodes & Baron, 2019). The first social categories which infants begin to notice and adhere to are race and gender (Rhodes & Baron, 2019) perhaps because of their visible differences. Visual cues are important in the formation of social categories (Mari, 2022) because it enables infants to categorise individuals according to visible characteristics such as race and ethnicity. In addition to visible cues, linguistic cues and behavioural cues are also fundamental in the development of social categorisation (Mari, 2022).

Gender categorisation

Gender is one of the earliest markers for social categorisation in children. At 3 to 4-months old, infants can differentiate between male and female faces (Quinn et al., 2002). At 24-months, most children are able to label the different genders (Martin & Ruble, 2010) and by the age of 3, children are able to sort photographs into categories based on gender (Shutts et al., 2013). Despite these findings, it is challenging to determine exactly when an infant is aware of gender due the ethical implications associated with testing on young children (Martin & Ruble, 2010). Nonetheless it is still important to understand the mechanisms behind the development of gender categorisation. There are two conflicting theories which attempt to explain these processes. On the one hand, Gender schema theory (Bem, 1981) takes a social learning approach towards gender development. This theory suggests children develop concepts and ideas about masculinity and femininity and these ideas are used to organise information and regulate behaviour (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). Children also use gender information to make inferences and judgments (Zosuls et al., 2008). On the other hand, cognitive developmental theories (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) suggest a child's understanding of gender is unimportant because gender-specific behaviours emerge before gender identification occurs (Martin & Ruble, 2010). Recent research examined the influence of gender categories on generalisations about gender-related biological and and behavioural characteristics (Pillow et al., 2022). The key findings indicate children exposed to stereotypes made significantly more gender-based generalisations (Pillow et al., 2022). This suggests children aged between 3 and 5 have developed an understanding for gender and this information is used to categorise individuals or in this particular case they were required to categorise photographs. This empirical evidence supports the perspective that children learn information about genders and conform to the norms of their gender category through various factors such as behaviours and toy preference (Martin & Ruble, 2010).

Racial and Ethnic categorisation

The formation of racial and ethnic categories is potentially the second earliest conventional marker for social categorisation however, it is challenging to determine when racial categorisation develops in childhood and the difference between visual preference and categorisation. For instance, Liu et al., 2015 investigated the visual preference for own race faces versus other race faces using eye-tracking technology. The research suggests 3-month olds preferred own race faces whereas, 6-month olds and 9-month olds preferred other race faces (Liu et al., 2015). The tendency for older infants to look at other race faces for longer may be an indication of racial categorisation however, they may just notice a visible difference between faces without categorising them based on their perceptual features (Rhodes & Baron, 2019). The notion that these findings do not indicate racial categorisation is supported by research conducted by Shutts et al., 2013. A review of several studies investigating gender and race categorisation in 3 and 4 year olds suggests only 4 year olds use race as a category to guide inferences (Shutts et al., 2013). This indicates below the age of 4, children do not attend to race-based categories, instead they are more inclined to use gender to guide inferences about others (Shutts et al., 2013). The participants used in the experiments mentioned in Shutts et al., 2013 were from predominantly white social environments in the United States. Therefore, the suggestion that racial categorisation emerges at 4 years old may not be applicable to other cultures and backgrounds. For example, factors such as socio-economic status and numerical group size may impact the development of racial categorisation (Gedeon et al., 2021). A recent review found that children from low socioeconomic statuses (SES) are more aware of racial categories due to parenting and their social environment (Gedeon et al., 2021). Further research is required to establish cross-cultural differences in the emergence of racial categorisation amongst children.

In-group and Out-group Formation

Individuals simplify their social environment by categorising people into social groups based off their similarities. People then come to identify with certain social groups and this has impacts on social identity as stated by Self-Categorisation Theory (Turner et al., 1987). An individuals identification with a social group is understood as their in-group, and this group membership has consequences for how they behave and interact with other in-group members (Turner et al., 1987). Therefore, a social group which an individual does not identify with is considered an out-group. The extent to which an individual identifies with a social category can vary for example, group members will strive to become more prototypical by employing various strategies. One way in which group members feel more prototypical is through the derogation of other group members who do not conform to the group norms (Marques et al., 1988). Non-prototypical members employ this strategy as they feel members who do not conform to the group norms threaten group identity and therefore, by challenging this they are acting more prototypically and strengthening their identity with the group. This phenomenon is known as the black sheep effect (Marques et al., 1988). The features required to be seen as a prototypical member can change because group norms are flexible. Group norms can be modified or changed entirely however, this can cause intragroup conflict if group members have different views on their groups' identity. This conflict between group members which can cause division within the group is called a schism (Sani, 2008).

People often have more positive views and attitudes towards fellow in-group members because they often share a similar social identity. However, this can have negative effects on attitudes and behaviours towards out-group members resulting in the derogation of out-group members and in-group biases. The phenomenon of in-group favouritism and ethnocentrism was first investigated by Tajfel et al., 1971 in the minimal group paradigm studies. Tajfel et al., 1971 categorised participants into two groups based off arbitrary criterion and assessed in-group favouritism using a reward allocation task. The main findings suggest the participants favoured the in-group during allocation of resources however, there was a comprise between fairness and maximum group gain (Tajfel et al., 1971). These outcomes are similar to further research that found individuals gave more money to their own group than a neutral out-group and discriminated against the out-group by giving more money to the neutral group (Abbink & Harris, 2019). Both studies demonstrate the presence of in-group favouritism and intergroup discrimination.

Prejudice and Discrimination

Social categorisation can result in prejudice and discrimination because it leads to stereotyping and biases which elicit negative attitudes and behaviours (Stolier & Freeman, 2016). Stereotypes are formed due to the categorisation of people based on their perceptual features which leads to overgeneralisation. This overgeneralisation leads people to exaggerate the differences between social groups, this is known as category accentuation (Sherman et al., 2009). In other words, individuals will perceive members of the same social category as being more similar than in reality (Jhangiani & Tarry, 2022). These distorted perceptions can influence negative attitudes towards people based on various factors such as age, race, gender and SES. Prejudice arises during childhood as children demonstrate a preference for others similar to them and have negative feelings towards individuals from out-groups (Liberman et al., 2017). For example, research conducted by Roberts et al., 2017 suggests children make negative judgments of individuals who do not conform to group norms. This implies children value conformity and individuals who do not conform to the norms of the in-group are perceived negatively. Furthermore, prejudice against racial groups is a prevalent issue in society which may be a product of social categorisation and stereotyping. For instance, Correll et al., 2002 examined the negative implications of ethnic stereotypes and prejudice using a video game task where participants had to make a decision whether to shoot African American or White targets. The main findings suggest participants made a quicker decision to shoot an armed target when they were African American than if they were white (Correll et al., 2002). This highlights the negative implications of racial categorisation and stereotyping. In this instance, the stereotypical association between African Americans and violence may have caused participants to make a faster decision to shoot (Correl et al., 2002; Stolier & Freeman, 2016). Participants were required to make a quick decision which may have elicited a mental shortcut or schema associated with specific racial groups (Correll et al., 2002). These research outcomes signify the negative implications of racial stereotypes and how these concepts can have a detrimental effect in society. These cognitive biases are often subconscious beliefs which are influenced by culture, media and social environment (Correl et al., 2002). Therefore, it is important to have an awareness of these biases to avoid negative preconceptions determining attitudes and behaviours.

References

Abbink, K., & Harris, D. (2019). In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0221616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221616

Barth, D. M., Mattan, B. D., & Cloutier, J. (2018). Social Categorization by Age of Faces. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 1–3). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2433-1

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1314–1329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1314

Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple Social Categorization. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163–254). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39004-1

Gedeon, C., Badea, C., & Esseily, R. (2021). Racial Categorization and Intergroup Relations in Children: The Role of Social Status and Numerical Group Size. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 719121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719121

Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H. (2022). Principles of social psychology (1st International H5P Edition). BCcampus.

Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., & Kinzler, K. D. (2017). The Origins of Social Categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(7), 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.004

Liu, S., Xiao, W. S., Xiao, N. G., Quinn, P. C., Zhang, Y., Chen, H., Ge, L., Pascalis, O., & Lee, K. (2015). Development of visual preference for own- versus other-race faces in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038835

Mahajan, N., & Wynn, K. (2012). Origins of “Us” versus “Them”: Prelinguistic infants prefer similar others. Cognition, 124(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.003

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

Mari, M. A. (2022). How cues to social categorization impact children’s inferences about social categories. Acta Psychologica, 229, 103707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103707

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of Gender Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511

Pillow, B. H., Vilma, T., & Low, N. (2022). The Influence of Gender Categories and Gender Stereotypes on Young Children’s Generalizations of Biological and Behavioral Characteristics. Psychological Reports, 125(1), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120973933

Quinn, P. C., Yahr, J., Kuhn, A., Slater, A. M., & Pascalis, O. (2002). Representation of the Gender of Human Faces by Infants: A Preference for Female. Perception, 31(9), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3331

Rhodes, M., & Baron, A. (2019). The Development of Social Categorization. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084824

Roberts, S. O., Gelman, S. A., & Ho, A. K. (2017). So It Is, So It Shall Be: Group Regularities License Children’s Prescriptive Judgments. Cognitive Science, 41(S3), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12443

Sani, F. (2008). Schism in Groups: A Social Psychological Account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 718–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00073.x

Sherman, J. W., Kruschke, J. K., Sherman, S. J., Percy, E. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Conrey, F. R. (2009). Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013778

Shutts, K., Roben, C. K. P., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Children’s Use of Social Categories in Thinking About People and Social Relationships. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.638686

Starr, C. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2017). Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34 Years: A Review of its Reach and Impact. Sex Roles, 76(9–10), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0591-4

Stolier, R. M., & Freeman, J. B. (2016). The Neuroscience of Social Vision. In Neuroimaging Personality, Social Cognition, and Character (pp. 139–157). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800935-2.00007-5

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 1(2), 149-178.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. (pp. x, 239). Basil Blackwell.

Zosuls, K. M., Lurye, L. E., & Ruble, D. N. (2008). Gender: Awareness, Identity, and Stereotyping. In Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development (pp. 1–12). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370877-9.00069-4