This is the user sandbox of FunkyBubble. 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!

Categorical thinking

Categorical thinking refers to the cognitive process of placing someone or something in a category based on category-relevant cues (Remedios & Sanchez, 2018). Categorical thinking is a key component of how the world is perceived and shapes the beliefs about things around us (Allport, 1954; Remedios & Sanchez, 2018). The process of categorisation can result in the activation of stereotypes, which in turn can lead to discrimination and prejudice against a target, but not always (Devine 1989).

Other key concepts in social psychology related to categorisation of the social world includes social perception and social identity theory, which provide more detail about how and why categories form. This article will depict some of the cognitive processes involved in categorical thinking, and discuss key advantages and disadvantages of using categorisation in the social world. It will then focus on the use and measures of categorisation in the media, and how this can result in propagation of negative views about groups and their members.

Cognitive processes

The ability to think categorically is present from as young as age 3-4 (Vasilyeva, Gopnik & Lombrozo, 2018). Research shows that children primed with prototypical behaviour for boys and girls would respond in ways that demonstrated they had understood the priming and chose to follow the structural constraints (Vasilyeva et al., 2018). Many structural constraints, such as gender, are constructed through societal and cultural teachings, which in turn can influence the ways that people think categorically (Liberman, Woodward & Kinzler, 2017). Whether a category is activated, and then whether it is applied to the real world, can depend on a range of components (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000).

Some key cognitive aspects involved in categorical thinking are attention, encoding, and assimilation. Firstly, when an attentional demand is higher, categorical thinking is often used more (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). This is because less cognitive resources are required to categorise things (Remedios & Sanchez, 2018) as the traits related to that category have already been processed at an earlier exposure to the target (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Secondly, categorisation has been found to occur during the encoding phase of processing (Bless et al., 2001). Research findings show that categorisation occurs more heavily when the person is motivated to think categorically (Bless et al., 2001). The brain has the capability to suppress categorical thinking at the point of encoding which means that, for example, racial information may still be recognised but not processed to the point of categorisation completion (Pietraszewski, 2015). Therefore categorisation can be activated without always resulting in stereotypes and discrimination (Liberman et al., 2017). Thirdly, assimilation refers to incorporating new information about something into existing knowledge (Bless et al., 2001). When someone becomes categorised as a group member, this results in them being rated more stereotypically, so reduces the effects of individual information (Bless et al., 2001). One study by Foroni & Rothbart (2011) found that when a participant is given a category label for a target, assimilation increased in the following categorisation task. This effect was greater when the label was peer-generated than self-generated (Foroni & Rothbart, 2011).

Advantages and downfalls

Categorical thinking can be advantageous during situations that have other demanding factors (Remedios & Sanchez, 2018). This is because attention and cognitive resources can then be saved to understand and process other more novel information (Fernbach & Van Boven, 2022; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Thus, perception of the social world can be simplified and processed more rapidly through categorisation (Allport, 1954). However, as a result of this quick unconscious thinking, people are more likely to act and think in systematically biased ways, which could lead to harmful misinterpretations about others (Fernbach & Van Boven, 2022). The process of categorical thinking can be shaped by the information someone receives before forming the category, therefore determining whether a salient cue will lead to a stereotype (Corneille & Judd, 1999; Lombrozo, 2009).

Categorical thinking in the media

Categorical thinking can negatively impact a myriad of social groups. This is because people are categorised by both physical and mental attributes such as race, age, gender, performance, and group membership (Rhodes & Baron, 2019). Category labels in research and media can be used to fuel certain narratives or social biases through targeting groups and normalising negative categorisation (Van Sterkenburg, Knoppers & De Leeuw, 2010).

Placing blame through categorisation

Categorical labels can be manipulated in the media to create moral environments that portray biased narratives and suggest culpability onto certain groups (Housley et al., 2017). Research by Shrikant and Sambaraju (2021) shows that the subtle change of labels in the news can significantly alter the perception of Black shootings in the US. On one hand, blame is placed on the police officer using language such as ‘white police officer’ and ‘unarmed black teen’ which also suggests the event to be an act fuelled by racial discrimination (Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021). On the other hand, the BLM movement and issues surrounding the US police are attempted to be diminished altogether by highlighting the race of the police office as black (Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021). One limitation of this study was that the reports came from a heightened time following the resurge of the BLM movement in 2020, meaning that categorisation may have been even more exaggerated than usual due to the prominent discussion of racial issues across the media globally (Dunivin et al., 2022; Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021). Another study on culpability and categorisation found that users of an online forum on The Guardian utilised categorisation to direct blame towards different groups of people and portray them as problematic (Gibson & Roca-Cuberes, 2019). They also found that categories from previous posts would then be used again in later posts, which links to findings by Foroni & Rothbart (2011). This provides evidence that assimilation in the context of categorisation is enhanced by previously peer-generated categories (Foroni & Rothbart, 2011). Therefore, this suggests that peer-generated categories contribute to categorisation in the context of placing blame (Gibson & Roca-Cuberes, 2019).

The use of categorisation is particularly important to consider for social issues such as racism. Looking to categorical thinking in sports media, Black-White categories are sometimes used which ignores other ethnic identities, and results in different ethnicities outside of White populations being portrayed as “other” (Selvarajah et al., 2020; Van Sterkenburg et al., 2010). Thus, White remains as the privileged group (Van Sterkenburg et al., 2010). Racial categorisation can be harmful to the individuals being reported on and contribute to a culture that normalises categorical thinking and stereotyping of groups that do not meet hierarchical norms (Selvarajah et al., 2020). Van Sterkenburg et al. (2010) also highlight that categorisation is not just a problem within media reporters, but also within researchers. Thus, this indicates the need for mindfulness of inclusive labels to ensure that category members are not discriminated against and to encourage social intersectionality (Selvarajah et al., 2020; Remedios & Sanchez, 2018).

Ambiguity of categorisation in the media

Within media, categorisation labels can have ambiguous overlap and blurred lines where one group differs from another. Research on the categorisation of “unexpected arrivals” also highlight that this group is referred to as "asylum seekers", "boat people" and "illegal immigrants" in the news articles examined (O’Doherty & Lecouteur, 2007). Notably, previous findings suggest that differences are more attended to for between-categories rather than within-categories (Corneille & Judd, 1999). Nevertheless, O’Doherty & Lecouteur (2007) argue the problematic perspective of using categorisation. Categorical labels used can be vague or indirect, thus blurring the boundary between categories which in turn could allow media companies to make sweeping statements about groups of people that may be inaccurate or ultimately discriminatory (O’Doherty & Lecouteur, 2007; Seo & Kavakli, 2022). However, this does simultaneously provide evidence for the nuances of categorisation in that category features and membership prototypes can overlap (Grigoryan, 2019). Selvarajah et al. (2020) highlight that categorisation can be useful in data collection only when applied to a specific context, but this does not apply to media reports. Wrongly categorising an individual or attributing harmful stereotypes to a group could lead to the propagation of racism and systematic bias, even if unintentionally done (Fernbach & Van Boven, 2022).

Intentional, personal bias is much more prevalent in social media where people are free to write what they want, whilst still creating ambiguous labels (Housley et al., 2017). One study on the sharing of antagonistic Twitter posts showed that an influential social media person would target membership categorisation to generate responses from others leading to judgemental evaluations of categorised groups (Housley et al., 2017). In line with news reporters' use of categorisation (O’Doherty & Lecouteur, 2007; Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021), the tweets would follow the categorisation label with a negative depiction in some way to further promote a charged online environment (Housley et al., 2017). This can result in separated social groups and an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality based on social categorisation theories (Turner, 2010).

News and social media provide a secondary account of events, creating explanations about topics and groups, which has been shown in research to increase the reader's/listener's categorical thinking (Lombrozo, 2009). Despite the cognitive advantages of categorisation to simplify perceptions of others, the negative consequences should also be carefully considered (Fernbach & Van Boven, 2022).

Limitations

An overarching key limitation of some studies on categorisation in the media is that qualitative analysis is used to look at only a few select samples. For example, in the study by O’Doherty and Lecouteur (2007) two news articles were analysed as typical representatives of the 200 examined. Whilst the typicality suggests key shared similarities in categorisation of the two spotlighted, it could also mean that other key factors such as the context of the labels used are missed. This is important when ensuring that categorisation is used appropriately (Selvarajah et al., 2020). Moreover, data for research by Shrikant and Sambaraju (2021) was collected only from news anchors, thus other perspectives on racial categorisation such as discussions or interviews weren’t considered. Therefore, to improve the generalisability of findings of categorisation, future research should be conducted across a range of news sources, and samples from a variety of backgrounds should be considered (O’Doherty & Lecouteur, 2007; Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021). Quantitative analysis could also be implemented to provide a different form of analysis and further back up qualitative findings (Housley et al., 2017).

Membership Categorisation Analysis

Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA) was first developed by Oliver Sacks to study peoples’ perceptions of others and how they categorise them into groups (Martikainen, 2020; Sacks, 1972). MCA was designed with the purpose of using it during social interactions to examine categorisation based off of visual cues (Martikainen, 2020). However, there has been much discussion, experimentation and development of the MCA over the last few decades (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2002). MCA is focused on situational aspects of categorisation within conversation and can show how categorisation results in mobilisation of social action in particular scenarios (Housley et al., 2017; Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021). This localised focus can mean that MCA ignores wider social contexts (Housley et al., 2017). Nevertheless, for the purpose of exploring categorisation in the media, MCA has been a useful tool as studies have used it in the context of a certain media setting (Gibson & Roca-Cuberes, 2019; Housley et al., 2017; Shrikant & Sambaraju, 2021). Future research could explore the MCA’s ability to measure and interlink categorisation between contexts to provide a wider representation of the social world.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Bless, H., Schwarz, N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Thiel, L. (2001). Personalized versus Generalized Benefits of Stereotype Disconfirmation: Trade-offs in the Evaluation of Atypical Exemplars and Their Social Groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1459

Corneille, O., & Judd, C. M. (1999). Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.927

Dunivin, Z. O., Yan, H. Y., Ince, J., & Rojas, F. (2022). Black Lives Matter Protests Shift Public Discourse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117320119

Fernbach, P. M., & Van Boven, L. (2022). False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.005

Foroni, F., & Rothbart, M. (2011). Category Boundaries and Category Labels: When Does A Category Name Influence the Perceived Similarity of Category Members? Social Cognition, 29(5), 547–576. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.5.547

Gibson, W., & Roca-Cuberes, C. (2019). Constructing blame for school exclusion in an online comments forum: Membership categorisation analysis and endogenous category work. Discourse, Context & Media, 32, 100331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100331

Grigoryan, L. (2019). Perceived Similarity in Multiple Categorisation. Applied Psychology, 69(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12202

Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200104

Housley, W., Webb, H., Edwards, A., Procter, R., & Jirotka, M. (2017). Membership categorisation and antagonistic Twitter formulations. Discourse & Communication, 11(6), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317726932

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

Lombrozo, T. (2009). Explanation and categorization: How “why?” informs “what?” Cognition, 110(2), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.007

Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social Cognition: Thinking Categorically about Others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93

Martikainen, J. (2020). Membership categorization analysis as means of studying person perception. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1794089

O’Doherty, K., & Lecouteur, A. (2007). “Asylum seekers”, “boat people” and “illegal immigrants”: Social categorisation in the media*. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530600941685

Pietraszewski, D. (2015). Priming Race. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615602934

Remedios, J. D., & Sanchez, D. T. (2018). Intersectional and Dynamic Social Categories in Social Cognition. Social Cognition, 36(5), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2018.36.5.453

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

Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. InDirections in Sociolinguistics, John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds), 325–345

Selvarajah, S., Deivanayagam, T. A., Lasco, G., Scafe, S., White, A., Zembe-Mkabile, W., & Devakumar, D. (2020). Categorisation and Minoritisation. BMJ Global Health, 5(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004508

Seo, S., & Kavakli, S. B. (2022). Media Representations of refugees, Asylum Seekers and immigrants: a meta-analysis of Research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2096663

Shrikant, N., & Sambaraju, R. (2021). “A police officer shot a Black man”: Racial categorization, racism, and mundane culpability in news reports of police shootings of black people in the United States of America. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12490

Turner, J. C. (2010). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity (pp. 243–272). Psychology Press.

Van Sterkenburg, J., Knoppers, A., & De Leeuw, S. (2010). Race, ethnicity, and content analysis of the sports media: a critical reflection. Media, Culture & Society, 32(5), 819–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710373955

Vasilyeva, N., Gopnik, A., & Lombrozo, T. (2018). The development of structural thinking about social categories. Developmental Psychology, 54(9), 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000555

User:FunkyBubble/sandbox