Social categorization and category attribution: The effects of comparative and normative fit on memory and social judgment

Abstract

The present study examined the effects of comparative and normative fit on categorization in memory and social category attribution. We set forth conflicting predictions about the effects of these manipulations. Based on Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff & Ruderman's (1978) perceptual salience hypothesis, social category salience was expected to be stronger when counter‐normative rather than normative category exemplars were presented. On the other hand, according to Oakes (1987) functional perspective on category salience, a reversed pattern of results was hypothesized. Our results contradicted Taylor's social‐cognitive approach and supported the Oakes predictions. In our experiment, social categorizations were activated to the extent that they provided a meaningful representation of social relationships. Social category salience was determined by both the relations between the persons compared (comparative fit) and the agreement between stimulus persons compared and perceivers pre‐existing stereotypical beliefs (normative fit). Furthermore, as hypothesized, we found evidence for differences in nature of both dependent measures. Specifically, it was shown that the attribution measure is a less ambiguous measure of social category salience than the category confusion paradigm (Taylor et al., 1978). Findings are discussed in regard to social identification, stereotype maintenance and current research on subtyping.