The architecture of prototype preferences: Typicality, fluency, and valence.

Abstract

A classic phenomenon known as prototype preference effect (PPE) or beauty-in-averageness effect is that prototypical exemplars of a neutral category are preferred over atypical exemplars. This PPE has been explained in terms of deviance avoidance, hedonic fluency, or preference for certainty and familiarity. However, typicality also facilitates greater activation of category-related information. Thus, prototypes rather than atypical exemplars should be more associated with the valence of the category, either positive or negative. Hence, we hypothesize that the evaluation of a prototype depends on the valence of its category. Results from three experiments crossing a standard PPE paradigm with an evaluative conditioning procedure support our hypothesis. We show that for positive categories, greater typicality increases liking. Critically, for negative categories, greater typicality decreases liking. This pattern of results challenges dominant explanations of prototype evaluation.

From likely to likable: The role of statistical typicality in human social assessment of faces

“…Even in our own analysis [consistent with prior findings (50, 54)], we find a separate linear component, apparently unique to each social trait. Relatedly, we recently found that the liking "function" over the stimulus space may be modified by positive/negative encounters with specific exemplars, which are then extrapolated to the rest of the space depending on the clustering (categorical) structure of the data (91). Nevertheless, statistical typicality already provides a parsimonious and normative account of several previously proposed causal factors of attractiveness.…”

Perceived Prototypicality of Asian Subgroups in the United States and the United Kingdom

“…People who deviate from the prototype of their social groups are negatively evaluated or simply erased from cultural discourse and representation (Phelan & Rudman, 2010;Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008;Schug et al, 2017;Vogel et al, 2021). Non-prototypical group members are also considered to be outsiders and deemed less deserving of belongingness in certain spaces (Cheryan & Monin, 2005;Cheryan et al, 2017;Zou & Cheryan, 2017).…”

“…For instance, women vary considerably in race, physical features, and psychological traits, but some women (e.g., White women, stereotypically feminine women) are seen as more prototypical and representative of the female gender group than others (e.g., Black women, masculine women) in most Western societies (Goh et al, 2021;Lei et al, 2020;Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008;Thomas et al, 2014). Those that deviate from the prototypical image of their social groups are often disliked, forgotten, punished, or discredited (Goh et al, 2021;Phelan & Rudman, 2010;Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008;Schug et al, 2017;Sesko & Biernat, 2010;Vogel et al, 2021).…”

Perceived prototypicality of Asian subgroups in the United States and the United Kingdom

“…use to organize complex social groups such as gender and race into simpler, overarching mental representations (Brewer, 1988;Rosch, 1978;Turner et al, 1987). Prototypes are culturally and contextually determinant and they are informed by numeric representations as well as familiarity with the group (Dotsch et al, 2016;Hogg, 1993;Lei & Rhodes, 2021;Rosch, 1978;Vogel et al, 2021). For instance, women vary considerably in race, physical features, and psychological traits, but some women (e.g., White and stereotypically feminine women) are seen as more prototypical and representative of the female gender group than others (e.g., Black women, masculine women) in most Western societies (Lei et al, 2020;Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008;Thomas et al, 2014).…”

“…For instance, women vary considerably in race, physical features, and psychological traits, but some women (e.g., White and stereotypically feminine women) are seen as more prototypical and representative of the female gender group than others (e.g., Black women, masculine women) in most Western societies (Lei et al, 2020;Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008;Thomas et al, 2014). Those that deviate from the prototypical image of their social groups are often disliked, forgotten, punished, or discredited (Goh et al, 2021;Phelan & Rudman, 2010;Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008;Schug et al, 2017;Sesko & Biernat, 2010;Vogel et al, 2021).…”