Brit. J . Psychol. (1963), 54, 2, pp.

101-114 101
Printed in Great Britain

CLASSIFICATION AND QUANTITATIVE JUDGEMENT

BY HENRI TAJFEL AND A. L. WILKES
Department of Xocial and Administrative Studies, University of Oxford
The investigation is concerned with the effects on judgement of some relations between the
manner in which stimuli of a series are classified and the magnitudes of the stimuli. It is
shown that when the classification stands in a direct and predictable relation to a physical scale,
the stiniuii be!onging to different classes are judged as farther apart on that scale than in a n
unclassified series. A classification which is not coherently related to the physical scale does not
affect judgement in this manner.
There is also evidence in the results that, as a function of past experience with the classifica-
tion, a n increase occurs in the apparent differences between stimuli belonging to different
classes, and in the apparent similarity of stimuli belonging t o the same class.
The relevance of these findings to the general problem of stereotyping is discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the present paper is to report experiments designed to test some of
the hypothesis put forward in a previously published paper (Tajfel, 1 9 5 9 ~ ) The .
principal trend of the argument in that paper was that shifts and biases in stereotyped
judgements can be subsumed under similar shifts existing in absolute judgements of
series of physical quantities. This is best shown when one takes into account the effects
on judgement of those aspects of judging situations that cannot be included in the
description of the physical properties of the stimuli. Examples of such ‘non-physical ’
determinants of judgement are : the relevance to the subject of differences between
the stimuli in a series (e.g. Bruner & Tajfel, 1961; Tajfel, 1957; Tajfel, 1959b;
Tajfel & Cawasjee, 1959); the subject’s perception of some stimuli as relevant or not
relevant to his judgement of other stimuli (e.g. Davidon, 1960); and the manner
in which a series is classified by the subject.
Most work on psychophysical phenomena has been concerned with the formulation
of functions relating orders of physical magnitudes to series of corresponding dis-
criminative responses. The existence of predictable relations between these two
orders of events does not preclude the possibility of existence of second-order laws
which would state coherent and predictable relations between judgement and some
subjective aspects of the judging situation. These second order laws would be most
directly relevant to prediction of shifts and biases in social situations. However,
they should first be established through investigations of scales of response pertaining
to series of physical magnitudes in simple and well-controlled judgement tasks.
The experiments reported here are concerned with classification as a variable. A
series of stimuli may be classified in a number of ways, and there can be a number
of possible relations between a classification and the physical magnitudes which
are subjected to judgement. A series of stimuli may be classified in terms of a dis-
continuous attribute (e.g. a group of people classified into, say, Swedes and Italians) ;
the dimension along which the judgements are made (e.g. height) may be a
continuous one. If in our group of people all the Swedes were taller than all the
Italians, there would be a perfect correlation between the classification and the
7 Gen. Psych. 64. 2
102 HENRITAJFELAND A. L. WILKES
physical attribute under judgement, though the series was not classified in terms of
that attribute. If our group of people consisted of, for example, French and Italians,
and there was no difference between the means and the spreads of the heights of
individuals in both groups, we would have a classification standing in no relation to
the physical attribute under judgement.
These two imaginary cases may be considered as two extremes of a continuum,
ranging from an entirely predictable relation between a classification and a physical
dimension to a complete lack of relation. Most real life cases would fall, of course,
between the two extremes; though some (e.g. skin colour and some racial classifica-
tions) approach very nearly to a perfect correlation, and many could be found at the
uncorrelated end of the continuum.
The problem with which the present experiments are concerned can be stated as
follows : how does the subject’s knowledge that stimuli fall into various classes affect
the judgements of a physical dimension of the stimuli when this dimension stands i n
a certain correlation to the classification Z
The predictions stated in the paper previously referred to (Tajfel, 1 9 5 9 ~ were
) as
follows :
‘ (i) When a classification in terms of an attribute other than the physical dimen-
sion which is being judged is superimposed on a series of stimuli in such a way that
one part of the physical series tends to fall consistently into one class, and the
other into the other class, judgements of physical magnitudes of the stimuli falling
into the distinct classes will show a shift in the directions determined by the class
membership of the stimuli, when compared with judgements of a series identical with
respect to this physical dimension, on which such a classification is not superimposed.
‘ (ii) When a classification in terms of an attribute other than the physical dimen-
sion which is being judged is superimposed on a series of stimuli, and the changes
in the physical magnitudes of the stimuli bear no consistent relationship to the
assignment of the stimuli to the distinct classes, this classification will have no effect
on the judged relationships in the physical dimension between the stimuli of the
series’ (pp. 20-21).
The effects predicted in paragraph (i) above depend on the information which the
classification offers regarding the differences between the stimuli. Each stimulus is
judged individually, and each has a label identifying it as belonging to one or another
of two classes. I n the subject’s past experience, the stimuli belonging to the distinct
classes differed consistently from each other along the quantitative dimension which
he is judging. The effect of this situation on judgement can be stated in terms bor-
rowed from the experimental literature on anchoring.
An anchoring stimulus placed outside a series of stimuli may determine either
a contrast or an assimilation effect in the judgements of the stimuli of the series. I n
the case of contrast, judgements of the stimuli shift away from the value of the anchor
stimulus; in the case of assimilation they shift towards that value. There exists a
good deal of evidence that when the anchor stimuli are placed relatively far outside
the original series, they determine a contrast effect; when they are placed very near
or a t the extremes of the series, they often lead to an assimilation effect.
It is a fair assumption thai; the judgemental process underlying the contrast and
assimilation effects reduces itself to the perceived extent of similarity and of difference
 ClassiJication and qwantitative judgement 103
between the anchoring stimuli and the stimuli of the series. When the anchoring
stimulus is perceived as definitely different from those nearest to it in the original
series, the judgements of these stimuli rdflect this differentiation by shifting away
from the judged value of the anchor; when the anchoring stimulus is perceived as
very similar to the stimuli of the series, the opposite happens: the judgements of the
stimuli nearest to the anchor reflect the subjective equivalence by shifting towards
the judged value of the anchor stimulus.* This would fit in with the general results
of experiments on anchoring which show that when the values of anchoring stimuli
progressively approach the values of the end stimuli of the original series, the extent
of contrast is reduced (e.g. Heintz, 1050) until finally assimilation takes over (Sherif,
Taub & Hovland, 1958).
A classification superimposed on a series of stimuli may be regarded as determining
the same type of shifts in the extent of judged similarities and differences between
the various stimuli. The nature of these shifts will depend on the relationship between
the division of the stimuli into classes and the pattern of variation in the magnitudes
of the stimuli which the subjects are requested to judge.
I n a series in which a classification is directly and consistently related to the
physical dimension under judgement, the class identification of a stimulus provides
a supplementary source of information about the relationship of its magnitude to
the magnitudes of other stimuli, whether identified as belonging to the same class or
to a different class. In absolute judgements upon a series of stimuli which are
presented in successive random orders, ail identity in the lahelliiig should therefore
produce assimilation or convergence in the assessments, whereas a difference should
produce contrast or divergence. Therefore, the differences between the judgements
of magnitude of stimuli belonging to the distinct classes should in such a series be
greater than in an identical series on which a classification has not been super-
imposed. At the same time, differences between the judged magnitudes of stimuli
belonging to the same class should show a tendency to be smaller than the corre-
sponding differences in an unclassified series.
There is no reason to assume that any consistent shift in the differences between
the judged magnitudes of stimuli belonging to distinct classes should be observed
when a classification superimposed on a series stands in no coherent relation to the
magnitudes of the stimuli. I n this situation, ‘the physical magnitude of a stimulus
does not help in its assignment to one of the various classes, and the identification
of a stimulus as belonging to one of the classes does not provide any cue as to its
physical magnitude’ (Tajfel, 1959a, p. 23).
Two subsidiary hypotheses concerning the effects on judgement of a consistent
relationship between a classification and physical magnitudes can be briefly stated
as follows:
(i) The predicted effects of an increase in the differences between the judged
magnitudes of stimuli belonging to the different classes and of a decrease in such
differences between stimuli belonging to the same class should become accentuated
as the classification is made more salient to the subjects. The term ‘salience’ is used
* This assumption was independently validated in experiments (Tajfel & Wilkes, in preparation) in
which the relative extent of contrast was seen to depend on the manner in which the anchoring stimuli
were classified in relation to the classifications imposed on the stimuli of the original series.
7-2
104 HENRITAJFELA N D A. L. WILKES
here in a restricted sense. A classification may become more salient to a subject
because of an increase in the amount of past experience with i t ; or because of its
unvarying consistency. I n the present experiments salience was manipulated by
presenting the subjects with varying conditions of visual impact of the classification.
(ii) These effects should also become accentuated in direct relation to the amount
of past experience in judging the classified series.

11. METHOD
The purpose of the experiments was to assess the effects of classifications on simple
quantitative judgements. Judgements of length of a series of lines were used. This
choice was dictated by the relative simplicity of judgements of length; if it is found
that classification exercises its predicted effects in this context, that ‘stereotypes ’
can be formed about the length of lines, then such effects are likely to be even more
marked when the complexity of the task of judging increases, with the corresponding
tendency of the subject to rely increasingly on all the available sources of informa-
tion about the stimuli.
Two pilot experiments showed that the series of stimuli described below was
clearly discriminable in an absolute judgement situation, and that the effects of
classification clearly tended in the predicted directions.
StiWlUli
A series of eight lines differing from each other by a constant ratio of approximately 5 yo of
length were used as stimuli in all the experiments. The shortest line was 16.2cm. long; the
longest 22.9 em. Each line was drawn diagonally on a sheet of white cardboard whose dimensions
were 63.5 cm. x 50.8 cm. The relatively large size of the sheets of cardboard was chosen in
order to minimize the cues about the differences in the length of lines that could be provided
by comparisons with the frame. Each length of line was presented several times (see below),
but a separate sheet was prepared for each presentation of each stimulus, in order to avoid
the possibility of an identification of a stimulus on the basis of irrelevant cues.

Subjects
Sixty-one subjects took part in the first two experiments (Expts. I a and I I a ) . They were
volunteers, men and women, drawn from students a t Oxford University, Westminster Training
College, and Manchester University. Of those sixty-one subjects, fifty-four were available for
the second sessions (Expts. I 6 and I1 b).
Procedure
(i) Procedure common to all experimental situations
The eight lines were presented one by one six times in successive random orders. The subjects
were requested to judge tho length of each line in centimetres. Judgements in centimetres
rather than inches or fractions of inches were used because in this way the differences in length
between the stimuli could be made fairly small while avoiding at the same time the tendency
for rough judgements in terms of the nearest inch. Before the beginning of judgements, a ruler
was shown and several examples of relationship between centimetres and inches were given.
The subjects were tested individually. They were seated facing the stimuli which were presented
by the experimenter a t a distance of about 8 ft. They called out their judgements which were
recorded by the experimenter. There was no time limit for the presentation of a stimulus which
was held in front of the subject until the judgement was made. The interval between the presen-
tation of successive stimuli was 4 see. The subject was not told how many different lengths of
lines were presented t o him. Each subject was requested to come for a second session a week
a.fter thc first.
Table 1 presents the summary of the procedures used in the four experiments.
 ClassiJication and quantitative judgement 105

Table 1. Summary of the experimental procedure

Number of
presentations
Mode of prior of the series
Experiment Groups* presentation of stimuli
I a (first session) C, R,u Successive 6
I b (second session) C, R,U Simultaneous 11
I I a (first session) Cl, Ul Simultaneous 6
I1b (second session) Cl, Ul Simultaneous 6
* C and C,, classified series; U and U , , unclassified series; R, randomly classified series.

(ii) Classification
Three groups of subjects served in Expts. I a and I b , and two groups in Expts. I I a and I I b .
Experiment l a . Group C (classified). This group was presented with a classification super-
imposed on a series in such a way that there was a stable and predictable relationship between the
lengths of lines and their labels. Each of the four shorter lines had a large letter A drawn above
its middle a t each presentation; each of the four longer lines a letter B drawn in the same way.
The group consisted of twelve subjects.
Group R (randomly classified). This group was presented with a classification which bore no
relationship t o the lengths of lines. The stimuli were labelled with letters A and B as for group C;
but each of the eight stimuli was labelled A a t half of its presentations and B a t the other half.
The order of appearance of labels A and B was randomized for each stimulus. The group con-
sisted of thirteen subjects.
Group U (unclassified). Conditions of presentation of stimuli for this group were identical
to thosc for groups C and R, the only difference being that the lines were presented without any
labels. The group consisted of twelve subjects.
Experiment I b . A week later, the subjects in groups C, R and U were tested again. The con-
ditions of presentation of stimuli were the same for each group as in Expt. I a . In group C, ten
out of the original twelve subjects were still available; all the thirteen subjects from group R
reappeared; and eleven out of twelve from group U.
Experiment I I a . Group C, (classified). Conditions of presentation of stimuli were tho sa.mo
aa for group C in Expt. I a . The group consisted of twelve subjects.
Group U , (unclassified). Conditions of presentation of stimuli were the same as for group U
in Expt. I a . The group consisted of twelve subjects.
Experiment 11b. The same subjects were tested again a week later. Tho conditions of presenta-
tion of stimuli were the same for each group as in Expt. I I a . Eleven out of twelve subjects
were still available for group C,, and nine out of twelve for group U,.

(iii) Salience of the classification

All the subjects in all the experiments were familiarized with the sbimuli prior to thcir presenta-
tion for judgement. They were told that the lines shown to them before the judgement,s were
representative of those they would have to judge subsequently.
One kind of procedure for this prior presentation was adopted in Expt. I a , and a different)
one in Expts. I b , I I a , and I I b . In Expt. I a , the series of eight) lines was presented twice, each
line separately and in succession. The first presentation of tho series was done in t>hefollowing
order: the shortest of the longer stimuli (those in class B) was presented first. followed by the
other stimuli of that class in order of incroasing length. The longest stimulus B was followed by
the shortest stimulus of the class A followed in turn by the ot,her stimuli of that class in order of
increasing length. This was reversed in the second presentation of t,he serics in which first the
shorter stimuli (class A) were prescntcd in order of decrea.sing lengt,h, followed by the longer
stimuli (class B) presented in the same ordor, so t,hat)a . p i n the short,cst,st)inirilusof class A was
contiguous with the longest st,irnulns of class 13. It was hoped t,hat this introduction of sharp
contrast between the A's and the B's would help to convcy the idca of tho classification t,o the
subjects. The same order of prior presentation was adopted for the t,hrce groups of subjects.
For group C, the stimuli were labellod in the samc manner as in the subsequent prcsent.ations
for judgements, with labels A for the four shorter lines and labels B for t,he four longer lines. For
 106 HENRITAJFELAND A. L. WILKES
group R, the labels alternated randomly along the dimension of length. For group U, the lines
were presented without labels.
I n Expts. Ib, IIa and I I b prior presentations of stimuli were made simultaneously, not
successively. The sheets of cardboard containing the eight lines of different length were displayed
on long tables in such a way that the longest stimulus of class B was placed next to the shortest
stimulus of class A. The labels followed the same pattern as in the subsequent presentations for
judgement, i.e. they were related to length for groups C and C,, unrelated to length for group R,
and no labels appeared for groups U and U,. The subjects were allowed t o walk around and look
at the lines for as long as they wished.
I n the experiments with groups C and C,, in which the stimuli t o be judged were explicitly
classified according t o length, it was assumed that a simultaneous presentation would render the
correlation between lengths and classes far more obvious to the subjects than a successive presen-
tation. Groups C and C, differed in the extent of salience for their first sessions; for their second
sessions, in which they had the same condition of simultaneous prior presentation, they differed
in the extent of salience built into their past experience of the classification.

(iv) Past experience

(a) Effects of past experience at successive sessions. A s each group of subjects underwent two
experimental sessions a t an interval of a week, the data allowed an assessment of the cumulative
effects of classification on judgements of length.
(b) Effects of past experience within a session. This was investigated in Expt. I b , which was,
it will be remembered, the second experimental session for groups C, R and U. After these three
groups had completed their judgements of the series of stimuli presented six times, the serics
was presented without interruption in five additional successive random orders, identical for all
groups, and identical in their respective conditions to the previous six presentations for each of
the groups. Thus, the effect of past experience within a session was assessed by comparing the
judgements of the first six with the last five presentations of the series in this experiment.

111. RESULTS
(i) Description of the general pattern of results
Table 2 sets out the general results: means of all the control groups (randomly
classified and unclassified) were combined, as their patterns are highly similar. The
table shows the mea,ns of the judgements of each stimulus. Stimuli have been
numbered from 1 to 8 in order of increasing length. Stimuli 1 to 4 belong to class A,
stimuli 5 to 8 to class B in the classified series (groups C and Cl). Therefore, the
inter-class difference is between stimuli 4 and 5. All the other differences between
adjacent stimuli are intra-class differences. The data from Expt. I b include only
the first six presentations of the series.

Table 2. Mean judgements of stimuli in the various experimental conditions

Class A Class B
r
* \ r
Stimuli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Actual values 16.2 17.0 17.9 18.8 19.7 20.7 21.7 22.8
Expts. l a and IIa (Prst sessions)
Groups C and C, 16.0 17.3 18.1 19.3 21.1 22.3 23.6 25.3
Groups R, U 16.4 17.3 18.2 19.3 20.3 21.5 22.6 24.2
and U,
Expts. I 6 and I I b (second sessions) /

Groups C and C , 15.6 16.5 17.2 18.3 20.3 21.6 22.4 24.4
Groups R, U 16.6 17.4 17.9 19.0 20.3 21.3 22.8 24.6
and U,
 ClassiJcation and quantitative judgement 107
I n Figs. 1 and 2 the actual difference between each two adjacent stimuli was
taken as a basis, and the deviations of the judged differences from the actual ones
are expressed as percentages of the actual differences. These deviations are plotted
as positive when the judged differences are greater than the actual ones ; as negative
when they are smaller.
D
C
2
& +loo -
-3-
z
+75-
:
g +50- Classified series
22

-$
.-
.*
+25-

$ 0
-u
0
2 -2j-
B
2z -50 I I I l l l l
1-2 2-3 3-4 4 5 5-6 6-7 7-8
Adjacent stimuli
Fig. 1. Comparison of actual and apparent differences between adjacent stimuli in
Expts. Ia and IIa.

Adjacent stimuli

Fig. 2. Comparison of actual and apparent differences between adjacent stimuli in

Expts. IIa and 116.

An inspection of Figs. 1 and 2 will show that, as predicted, the inter-class differences
(between stimuli 4 and 5) are by far larger for the classified series (groups C and C,)
than for the randomly classified and unclassified ones, both in the first and in the
second sessions. I n the first sessions the relevant percentage figures are as follows:
apparent difference 100 % greater than the actual difference for the classified series ;
11 yogreater for the randomly classified and unclassified ones. In the second sessions :
122 % greater than the actual for the classified series, 44 % for the unclassified ones.
This represents, of course, a considerable exaggeration of the actual inter-class
difference for the classified series. There are two other points a t which a difference
between two adjacent stimuli is markedly exaggerated for these groups. The first
108 AND A. L. WILKES
HENRITAJFEL
is between the stimuli 7 and 8 ; but this seems t o be a consistent phenomenon for all
the groups of subjects and is therefore probably inherent in the nature of the range
of stimuli and in the pattern of presentation. The differences between the experi-
mental and control groups are very small as compared with corresponding differences
at the point of the inter-class break.
The second point at which the intra-class differences are considerably larger than
the actual differences for the classified series is between the stimuli 1 and 2 in the
first sessions for groups C and C,. At this point, the difference is not only larger than
the actual one, but also larger than the differences in the control groups (the percen-
tages are : apparent differences 62 yogreater than the actual differences for the classi-
fied series ; 13 yo greater for all the control series). The direction of this relationship
between the classified and control series is maintained in the second sessions (see
Fig. 2). I n the classified series the apparent difference between the stimuli 1 and 2
is 13 % greater than the actual difference ; in the control series the apparent difference
is 11 % smaller than the actual one. This problem will be dealt with in the section
devoted to the discussion of results.

(ii) AnaZysis of results

It was assumed in the Introduction that a stable and predictable relationship
between a classification and a variation in physical magnitudes would lead to an
increase in the apparent differences between the classes, and a decrease in the apparent
differences within the classes. Therefore, an analysis of results was required which
would take into account the combined effects on judgements of both these predicted
phenomena. I n order to do this, the judgements of stimuli belonging to each of the
classes were treated separately, and a linear function was fitted to the judgements of
the stimuli from each of the classes, independently of the other. This was done for the
judgements of each subject in all the groups. The method of averages was used.
The calculations yield the following scores : m,, the slope for the judgements of stimuli
belonging to the shorter class; ml, the corresponding slope for the longer class;
&, the derived value for the judgement of the longest stimulus of the shorter class ;
yS, the derived value for the judgement of the shortest stimuli of the longer class.
Thus, the m, and m, slopes provided direct measures of the apparent differences
between the stimuli of the same class, the intra-class differences. The difference
between the derived values Y4 and & provided a measure of the apparent inter-
class difference. This last measure is, of course, affected both by the difference between
the judged values of the stimuli 4 and 5 at which the break between the classes
occurred, and by the intra-class slopes. It would increase as a function of an increase
in the judged differences between the stimuli 4 and 5 and of a decrease in one or both
of the intra-class slopes, and it would decrease in the opposite case. It fulfils, there-
fore, the conditions for testing the combined predicted effects of the classification.
At the same time, the separate contribution to the results of the intra-class differences
could be assessed by a statistical analysis of the slope indices.
ClassiJcation and its salience. The analysis of results in relation to the effects of
the classification and of its salience was conducted in the following separate stages:
( a ) A 2 x 2 analysis of variance using the groups C and C,, U and U, in first sessions
(Expts. I a and IIa). This allowed an assessment of the effects of classification and
 Classification and quantitative judgement 109
of salience of classification (simultaneous versus successive prior presentation) for
the classified versus unclassified series.
(b) A 2 x 2 analysis of variance using the groups C and C,, U and U, in second ses-
sions (Expts. I I a and I I b ) . This allowed an assessment of the effects of repeated
classification and of differences in t,he extent of its salience in the past for the classi-
fied versus the unclassified series. (It will be remembered that Expts. I b and I I b
did not differ in the manner of the prior presentation of stimuli, which was simul-
t,ancous in the case of both experiments. However, subjects in Expt. I b had pre-
viously experienced a successive prior presentation; those in Expts. I I b a simul-
taneous one. See Table 1.)
(c) Only Expts. I a and I b included groups of subjects judging the randomly
classified series. This asymmetry in the design (mainly due to difficulties in finding
sufficient numbers of available subjects at the time) made it impossible t o include
these groups in the previous analysis. Separate Mann-Whiting U tests were therefore
conducted comparing the performance of the group judging the classified series with
the group judging the randomly classified series. The following comparisons were
made: (i) group C versus group R in Expt. I a ; (ii) group C versus R in Expt. I I a .
The main prediction of relatively greater inter-class differences for group C than for
group R was the same as for the comparisons between the classified and the
unclassified series.

Table 3. Mean inter-class diaerences and intra-class slopes

Expts. Ia and I I n (first sessions)
Inter-class
differences Intra-class
Groups (Y5- Y4) slopes
C and C , 1.9 1.22
U and U, 1.1 1.18
R 1.1 1.06
Expts. I b and 1 1 6 (second sessions)
C and C , 2.1 1.08
U and U, 1.4 1.17
R 1 .I 1.01

Table 3 provides the group means of the scores relevant to the analysis, namely:
mean intra-class slopes +(ma+ m,) and the inter-class differences (yS - Y4).
The results of the statistical analysis were as follows :
( a ) The analysis of variance for the inter-class differences (y5-Y4) in Expts. I a
and I I a shows that the classification, as predicted, determines an increase in the
apparent inter-class difference (P ratio for the classification is 6.12: P < 0.025).
Differences in the extent of salience (manner of prior presentation) do not lead to any
changes in the apparent inter-class differences.
( b ) The analysis of variance for mean slopes &(m,+m,) shows that neither the
classification nor its salience determined any consistent differences in the apparent
intra-class differences This does not confirm the prediction that an introduction of
the classificationwould lead to an increase in the judged similarity of stimuli belonging
to the same class.
110 AND A. L. WILKES
HENRITAJPEL
( c ) Analysis of variance for Expts. I b and I I b shows results parallel to the previous
analysis. The predicted effects of classification for inter-class differences are significant
(F ratio = 4.40;P < 0.05). No other differences between the groups are significant.
( d ) A comparison of apparent inter-class differences between groups C (classified)
and R (randomly classified) in the first session (Expt. I a ) yields a strong tendency for
the differencesin group C to be larger, as predicted; but this tendency does not reach
statistical significance. In the second session (Expt. I b), this difference between the
groups is significant in the predicted direction at P < 0.01. A comparison of the two
groups taking as a score for each subject the means of his performance in the first
and second sessions is significant at P < 0.025 in the direction of larger inter-class
differences for group C. There are no differences between the intra-class slopes of the
two groups, either in the first or in the second session.

Eflects of past experience

The possible cumulative effects of classification as function of past experience
from first session to the second were assessed by comparing the relevant scores in
Expts. Ia and IIa with those in Expts. I b and I I b . The effects of cumulative experi-
ence with the classification within a session were assessed by comparing the scores
in the first pix presentations of the series in Expt. I b with those obtained in the last
five presentations in that experiment.
(a) Comparisons of first and second sessions. A 2 x 2 analysis of variance was con-
ducted on the shifts of the inter-class differences from Expts. Ia to I b and IIa to
I I b for groups C, C,, U and U,. Neither the effects of past experience alone (Expts.
IIa to I I b ) nor the effects of past experience combined with an increase in the
salience of the classification (Expts. Ia to I b ) are significant. The same is true of the
analysis of intra-class slopes, and of rt separate comparison made of the shifts from
first to second sessions in inter- anci intra-class differences for groups C and R
(Expts. I a to I b ) .
( b ) Eflects of past experience within a session. It will be remembered that in Expt.
I b there were three groups of subjects (C, R and U) who after having completed their
judgements of the series presented six times, judged the length of lines in five additional
p r w ntations of the series. Table 4 sets out the group means obtained from these
additional presentations. Fig. 3 presents the percentage differences between the
actual and apparent differences for judgements of each two adjacent stimuli ; these
percentages have been plotted as positive when the apparent differences exceeded
the actual ones; as negative in the opposite case.
As can be seen from Table 4 and from Fig. 3, it is only at the predicted point of
inter-class break (stimuli 4-5) that the apparent difference between the stimuli
for group C exceeds considerably both the actual differences and the corresponding
differences for the two control groups.
Linear functions were fitted to these data in the manner previously described.
Group C was then compared separately with group R and with group U, both for
its derived inter-class differences (yS - y4) and mean intra-class slopes &(ms+mi).
The two control groups R and U do not differ from one another (see Table 5); the
inter-class differences in group C are significantly larger. than those in group U
at P < 0.01; than those in group R at P < 0.001.
 Classi$cation and quantitative judgement 111
At the same time, the intra-class slopes show a tendency to be less steep in group C
than in the two other groups ;but this tendency does not reach statistical significance
when group C is compared with each of the two control groups separately.
An inspection of these results shows indirectly the accentuated effects of the classi-
fication as function of repeated trials within the same session. A direct assessment
of these cumulative effects of classification was made by calculating for each subject
the shift of his scores for inter-class differences and for intra-class slopes from the
first six to the last five presentations of the series. The statistical significance of the
difference in these shifts between group C and each of the control groups was assessed
separately. An inspection of the data in the second part of Table 2 and in Table 4
will show that, as function of practice within a session, apparent differences between
the stimuli tended to decrease with the only clear exception of the inter-class difference
in group C. The stability of the inter-class differences in group C within the session
Table 4. Mean judgements of stimuli in the last five presentations
of the series in Expt. I b
Class A Class €3
h A
I \ I \

Stimuli ... 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8
Actual values 16.2 17-0 17.9 18.8 19.7 20.7 21.7 22.8
Group C 17.1 17.9 18.6 19.1 21.4 22.0 22.8 24.2
Groups R and U 16.9 18.1 18.6 19.8 20.4 21.2 22.2 23.8

Adjacent stimuli

Fig. 3. Comparison of actual and apparent differences between adjacent stimuli in the
second part of Expt. Ib.

Table 5. N e a n inter-class differences and intra-class slopes in the

last five presentations of the series in Expt. I b
Inter-class
differences Intra-class
Groups (y6- Y4) slopes
C 2.0 0.83
R 0.7 0.99
U 0.9 1.02
112 HENRITAJFELAND A. L. WILKES
as cc mpared with bhe decrease of the corresponding differences in the control groups
does not quite reach statistical significance at P = 0.05. The decrease in the intra-
class differences (i.e. the flattening out of the intra-class slope) compared with the
corresponding decrease in each of the two control groups is significant in both
cases at P < 0.01.

IV. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Before the results can be summarized and conclusions drawn, certain problems
of control arising from the data and from the experimental procedures must be
briefly discussed.
The results concerning the effects of classification on judgement cannot be at-
tributed to extraneous factors irrelevant to the experimental variables :
(i) The mean scale values of the classified (C and C,) and control (U, U, and R)
groups were compared ; there are no significant differences between the experimental
groups and any of the control groups.
(ii) Variability scores for the judgements of each stimulus by each subject in all
the groups were calculated, and comparisons of mean scores made. There are no
significant differences between the experimental and the control groups.
(iii) An inspection of Fig. 1 shows that there is a marked difference between groups
C and C, and the three other groups not only at the predicted point of inter-class
break (stimuli 4-5) but also, to a lesser extent, between stimuli 1 and 2. An analysis
of variance, parallel to the one conducted on the inter-class differences, was done on
these data. There is not even a hint that the difference between the experimental
and the control groups is statistically significant (the F ratio for the classification
variable is 0.47). It seems therefore safe to conclude that the only consistent difference
between the experimental and the control groups is at the predicted point of the
inter-class break.
(iv) There was a possibility that the larger inter-class differences found in all the
experiments for groups C and C, were due not to the effects of classification but to
some measure of differential over- or under-estimation in one direction or another
inherent in the use of letters A and B as labels. This could be checked by inspecting
the data from group R where these two labels were used in random alternation for
each of the stimuli. The mean judgements of each stimulus were calculated separately
when i t was labelled A and B. They are practically identical; the mean scale value
for label A is 19.5; for label B -19.6. The same applies to the mean differences
between the judgements of adjacent stimuli when they were labelled in the same
way (both A or both B), and when one was labelled A and the other B ; the respective
means are 1.07 and 1.12. This eliminates the possibility that the experimental results
could have been due not to the predicted effects of the classification but to some
inherent differences in the judgements of the same stimulus when labelled A or B.
The following conclusions can therefore be drawn from the experimental results :
(i) A classification superimposed on a series of stimuli in such a way that there is
a consistent and direct relationship between the magnitudes of the stimuli and the
division of the stimuli into two classes determines a significant increase of the
apparent differences between the stimuli at the point of transition from one class
 Classification and pantitative judgement 113
to another. This does not happen when the classification superimposed on the series
does not stand in a coherent relationship to the physical dimension.
(ii) There is no direct evidence that this relationship between a classification and
the judged physical dimension determines an increase in the judged similarity of the
stimuli belonging to the same class.
(iii) There is no evidence that an increase in the extent of salience of the classifica-
tion, as introduced in the present experiments, determined any accentuation of the
effects of the classification. This negative finding cannot, however, be generalized.
It is quite likely that the method used for enhancing salience was not adequate for
its purpose ; there is therefore the possibility that the salience of a classification may
have some effect if more drastic methods are used to increase the relevance of the
classification to the subjects’ judgements.
(iv) There is no evidence that a repeated experience of the same classification after
an interval of a week increases its effect on judgement.
(v) The evidence is very clear that the classification increases its predicted effects
on judgement as a function of repeated experience during the same experimental
session. This seems due to two judgement trends happening concurrently: the appar-
ent inter-class differences in the classified series do not follow the trend of the control
groups towards a progressive decrease in the apparent differences between the stimuli
in the middle of the series; and there is a definite increase in the judged similarity
of stimuli belonging to the same class. It is therefore possible that repeated and
frequent experience of the same type of classification would lead, despite negative
results reported in (iv) above, to an accentuation of its effects on judgement which
would include both a relative increase in the subjective differences between the classes
and in the subjective similarity within the classes.
These findings may possibly have some fairly wide implications for a variety of
judgement situations. They represent, in a sense, a simplified exercise in stereotyping.
An essential feature of stereotyping is that of exaggerating s m e differences between
groups classified in a certain way, and of minimizing the same differences within
such groups. It may be important to note that these effects were shown to exist in
the present experiments despite the relative ease and simplicity of judgements, the
minimal amount of experience with the classification, and its minimal significance
to the subject. The drastic effects of a small but consistent and direct increase in
the amount of experience with the classification can be seen when one considers the
results of the additional trials in one of the experiments.
There is therefore the possibility that the phenomenon of stereotyping, occurriiig
in situations where judgements are usually neither easy nor simple and where
classifications have been built through long and continuously repeated past experi-
ence is no more than an exaggeration of the effects found in the present experiments.
Several writers (e.g. Berkowitz, 1960; Campbell, Hunt & Lewis, 1957; Helson, 1959;
Ittelson & Slack 1958; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Rommetveit, 1960; Tajfel, 1959a)
have recently attempted to show that many judgement phenomena found to occur
in complex social situations can perhaps be reduced to relatively simpler principles
found to be valid in psycho-physical judgement situations. These attempts have not
met with general unqualified approval. For example, the following statement can
be found in a recent book review : ‘This underlies the point made by another reviewer
114 HENRITAJFELAND A. L. WILKES
that while it is quite legitimate to look for lawful relations in social psychology, social
perception should not be treated as a kind of psycho-physics of social objects, but in
terms of individual differences’ (Moray, 1962, p. 58). One of the aims of the investi-
gations reported here was to show that evidence for the essential unity of judgement
phenomena, social or physical, can be slowly accumulated and that, without denying
the importance of individual differences, it is possible to attempt an understanding
of seemingly varied phenomena in terms of the same general judgement principles.

This investigation was conducted as part of a research project supported by a

grant from the D.S.I.R.
REFERENCES
BERKOWITZ, L. (1960).The judgemental process in personality functioning. Prrychol. Rev. 67,130-
42.
BRUNER,J. S. & TAJFEL,H. (1961). Cognitive risk and environmental change. J . Abnorm.
SOC.Psychol. 62, 231-41.
CAMPBELL,D. T., HUNT,W. A. & LEWIS,N. A. (1957). The effects of assimilation and contrast
in judgements of clinical materials. Amer. J. Psychol. 70, 347-60.
DAVIDON, R. S. (1960). Shifts in adaptation levels induced by a multi-dimensional standard,
one dimension of which is made relevant to the judgements (Abstract). Bull. Brit. Psychol.
SOC.41, 1OA (insert).
HEINTZ,R. K. (1950). The effect of remote anchoring points upon the judgement of lifted
weights. J . exp. Psychol. 40, 584-91.
HELSON, H. (1959). Adaptation level theory. I n Koch, S. (ed.): Psychology :A Study o f a Science,
Vol. I, pp. 565-621. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ITTELSON, W. H. & SLACK, C. W. (1958). The perception of persons as visual objects. In Tagiuri,
R. & Petrullo, L. (eds.): Person Perception and Interpersonal Behviour, pp. 21&28. Stanford
University Press.
MORAY, N. (1962). Review of Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 12. Quart. J. exp. Psychol. 14,
58-60.
ROMMETVEIT, R. (1960). Selectivity, Intuition and Halo Effects in Socic.1 Perception. Oslo Uni-
versity Press.
SHERIF,M. & HOVLAND, C. I. (1961). Social Judgement. Assimilation and Contrast Effects in
Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
SHERIF,M., TAW, D. & HOVLAND,C. I. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring
stimuli on judgement. J . Exp. Psychol. 55, 150-55.
TAJFEL,H. (1957). Value and the perceptual judgement of magnitude. Psychol. Rev. 64,
192-204.
TAJFEL,H. (1959a). Quantitative judgement in social perception. Brit. J. Psychol. 50, 16-29.
TAJFEL,H. (1959 b ) . The anchoring effects of value in a scale of judgements. Brit. J . Psychol. 50,
294-304.
TAJFEL,H. & CAWASJEE,S. D. (1959). Value and the accentuation of judged differences: A
confirmation. J . Abnorm. SOC.Psychol. 59, 436-39.

(Manuscript received 24 July 1962)