Memory-based judgments about multiple categories: A revision and extension of Tajfel's accentuation theory.

Abstract

Accentuation theory states that the classification of stimuli produces encoding biases. Contrast effects enhance intercategory differences; assimilation effects enhance intracategory similarities. Do these biases affect the retrieval of stimuli distributed across many categories? The calendar superimposes arbitrary intermonth boundaries on day-today variations in temperature. In Experiment 1, Ss estimated the average temperatures of 48 days. Differences between estimates for 2 days belonging to neighboring months were greater (contrast) and differences between estimates for 2 days belonging to the same month were smaller than actual differences (assimilation). Experiment 2 showed that assimilation accounted for all categorization effects. When modified by assumptions from an exemplar model of category learning, accentuation theory accounts for the results. The relevance of these findings for social categorization is discussed.

Probabilistic National Stereotypes

“…According to the assumption of consistency, stereotypes are biased in that they portray groups in overly simplistic and internally consistent ways (e.g. Judd, Ryan & Park, 1991;Krueger & Clement, 1994).…”

And Yet They Move: The Impact of Direction of Deviance on Stereotype Change

“…Although the accentuation effect has seldomly been replicated with the original paradigm (see McGarty, 1999), similar effects were demonstrated for attitude statements (Eiser, 1971;Eiser & Stroebe, 1972;Eiser & van der Pligt, 1982;McGarty & Penny, 1988), trait valences (Krueger & Rothbart, 1990), body weights (Krueger et al, 1989), perception of colors (Goldstone, 1995), or judgments of multi-faceted stimuli (Corneille & Judd, 1999;Ford & Stangor, 1992;Goldstone, 1994;Goldstone, Steyvers, & Rogosky, 2003). A variety of different measures has been used to demonstrate the accentuation effect: 1) categorization accuracy for stimuli that deviate from the category's average (Goldstone, 1996), 2) estimated values for specific stimuli (Eiser, 1971;Krueger & Clement, 1994), 3) proto-type judgments (Krueger et al, 1989;Krueger & Rothbart, 1990), or 4) judgments of stimulus typicality (Corneille & Judd, 1999). The present studies are demonstrating accentuation tendencies by use of the latter two measures: perceived typicality and central tendency judgment.…”

Asymmetrical evaluation of ingroup versus outgroup members: a look from an information integration perspective

“…According to this theory a superimposed categorization of stimuli into two classes leads to an overestimation ('accentuation') of differences between, and an underestimation of differences within categories (Tajfel and Wilkes, 1963;Doise, Dechamps and Meyer, 1978). Thus, the simple fact of categorizing people into 'ingroup' versus 'outgroup' members leads to an accentuation of differences between both categories (see also Krueger and Clement, 1994). Motivational assumptions have been stated in order to account for the evaluative bias of this accentuation.…”