Any given individual presents multiple possibilities for categorization. For example, a person may simultaneously be black, American, female, a doctor, a mother, and an athlete. Each category membership may provide a useful basis for categorization in that it can be used as a gtJide for one's own behavior toward the target and a standard against which their behavior can be interpreted. The questions of interest are (1) which categories become activated, and hence are used as a basis of categorization, and (2) what are the consequences of category activation. Initial interest in the issue of multiple categorization stemmed from anthropological observations of reduced conflict in cultures containing crossedsocietal structures. For example, intergroup conflict between villages was reduced when individuals in different villages shared family ancestry; in other words, individuals were simultaneously ingroup members on one dimension and outgroup members on another. Creating an analogous experimental intergroup situation, crossed-categorization researchers (e.g., Deschamps and Doise, 1978) have compared patterns of intergroup bias in situations involving a single categorization dimension (e.g., gender, called simple categorization conditions) and crossed conditions. In crossed conditions two categorization dimensions (e.g., race and gender) are orthogonally arrayed such that individuals can be classified according to four-subgroupings (e.g., black females, black males, white females, white males). The relationship between various individuals in crossed contexts differs, such that individuals either (1) share ingroup status on both categorization dimensions (i.e., double ingroups), (2) share ingroup status according to one dimension but not the other (i.e., partial outgroups), or (3) do not share ingroup status (i.e., douple outgroups).