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

The present study examined the effects of comparative and normative fit on categorization in memory and social category attribution. We set forth conf licting predictions about the effects of these manipulations. Based on Tayl or, Fiske, Etcoff & Ruderman's (1978) perceptual salience hypothesis, socia l category salience was expected to be stronger when counter-normative rath er than normative category exemplars were presented. On the other hand, acc ording to Oakes' (1987) functional perspective on category salience, a reve rsed pattern of results was hypothesized. Our results contradicted Taylor's social-cognitive approach and supported the Oakes' predictions. In our exp eriment, social categorizations were activated to the extent that they prov ided a meaningful representation of social relationships. Social category s alience was determined by both the relations between the persons compared ( comparative fit) and the agreement between stimulus persons' compared and p erceivers' pre-existing stereotypical beliefs (normative fit). Furthermore, as hypothesized, we found evidence for differences in nature of both depen dent measures. Specifically, it was shown that the attribution measure is a less ambiguous measure of social category salience than the category confu sion paradigm (Taylor et al., 1978). Findings are discussed in regard to so cial identification, stereotype maintenance and current research on subtypi ng.