Asymmetries in categorization, cerceptual discrimination, and visual search for reference and nonreference exemplars

In two experiments, we examined the representation, treatment, and attention devoted to the members of reference (i.e., club members) and nonreference (i.e., not club members) categories. Consistent with prior work on category interrelatedness (e.g., Goldstone, 1996 ; Goldstone, Steyvers, & Rogosky, 2003), the findings reveal the existence of asymmetric representations for reference and nonreference categories, which, however, decreased as expertise and familiarity with the categories increased (Experiments 1 and 2). Participants also more readily judged two reference exemplars as being the same than they did two nonreference exemplars (Experiment 1) and were better at detecting reference than nonreference exemplars in a set of novel, category-unspecified exemplars (Experiment 2). These findings provide evidence for the existence of a feature asymmetry in the representation and treatment of exemplars from reference and nonreference categories. Membership in a reference category acts as a salient feature, thereby increasing the perceived similarity and detection of faces that belong in the reference, in comparison with the nonreference, category.

[1]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Isolated and interrelated concepts , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[2]  M Steyvers,et al.  Morphing techniques for manipulating face images , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Effects of Categorization on Color Perception , 1995 .

[4]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Perceptual Learning of Alphanumeric-Like Characters , 1997 .

[5]  Contrast and accentuation effects in category learning. , 1990 .

[6]  Kenneth R. Livingston,et al.  Categorical Perception Effects Induced by Category Learning , 1998 .

[7]  J. Eiser,et al.  Accentuation theory, polarization and the judgment of attitude statements , 1984 .

[8]  James Tanaka,et al.  Mapping attractor fields in face space: the atypicality bias in face recognition , 1998, Cognition.

[9]  E. Hearst,et al.  Detecting and identifying change: additions versus deletions. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Perceptions of Ingroup and Outgroup Variability: A Meta-Analytic Integration , 1989 .

[11]  Olivier Corneille,et al.  When memory shifts toward more typical category exemplars: accentuation effects in the recollection of ethnically ambiguous faces. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  J. Brigham,et al.  Cross-Racial Identification , 1989 .

[13]  J. Bruner.  On perceptual readiness. , 1957, Psychological review.

[14]  R. Goldstone.  An efficient method for obtaining similarity data , 1994 .

[15]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[16]  D. Levin.  Race as a visual feature: using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  C M Judd,et al.  Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  P. Quinlan.  Visual feature integration theory: past, present, and future. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  D. Levin,et al.  Categorical perception occurs in newly learned faces, other-race faces, and inverted faces , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  S. Harnad.  Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition , 1990 .

[22]  Olivier Corneille,et al.  Face-based categorization, context-based categorization, and distortions in the recollection of gender ambiguous faces , 2005 .

[23]  A. Markman,et al.  Category use and category learning. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[24]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[25]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. , 1978 .

[26]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Face recognition algorithms and the other-race effect: computational mechanisms for a developmental contact hypothesis , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Z. Pylyshyn.  Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. , 1999, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[29]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  Olivier Corneille,et al.  On the Role of Familiarity with Units of Measurement in Categorical Accentuation: Tajfel and Wilkes (1963) Revisited and Replicated , 2002, Psychological science.

[31]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Computational approaches to the development of perceptual expertise , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  J. Krueger,et al.  Memory-Based Judgments About Multiple Categories: A Revision and Extension of Tajfel's Accentuation Theory , 1994 .

[34]  S. Read,et al.  A Neural Network Simulation of the Outgroup Homogeneity Effect , 2003, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[35]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Classification and quantitative judgement. , 1963, British journal of psychology.

[36]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.