Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2020.31.3.2

Effect of Interaction between Category Coherence and Base Rate on Presumption of Reasons for Preference  

Doh, Eun Yeong (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University)
Lee, Guk-Hee (Division of General Studies, Kyonggi University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Cognitive Science / v.31, no.3, 2020 , pp. 77-102 More about this Journal
Abstract
Some progress has been made in the study of the category coherence effect, which states that the attributes of soldiers or nuns with similarities in dress and behavior, and easily distinguished from other categories, are likely to be generalized. However, few studies have examined the fundamental psychological mechanisms that underlie this category coherence effect, and this study aims to fill this gap. For this purpose, two experiments were conducted after selecting categories with high coherence (nuns, soldiers, and flight attendants) and those with low coherence (interpreters, wedding planners, and florists). In experiment 1, we observed that the members of a category were presumed to have certain reasons to prefer [property X] (presumption of reasons for preference), with this presumption becoming stronger when [property X] was observed repeatedly in high-coherence categories than in the case of low-coherence categories. Experiment 2 showed that for the high-coherence categories, the presumption of reasons for preference was stronger when [property X], rarely seen in everyday life (base rate of 30%), was observed, while the presumption of reasons for preference was weaker when [property Y] (base rate 70%), frequently seen in everyday life, was observed. In the low-coherence categories, the presumption of reasons for preference tended to be weak for both rare and frequent attributes. That is, there were significant effects of the two-way interaction between category coherence and base rate on the presumption of reasons for preference. This study has implications for psychological essentialism and stereotyping.
Keywords
Category Coherence; Base Rate; Psychological Essentialism; Stereotyping; Presumption of Reasons for Preference;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 이국희, 이형철, 김신우 (2020). 범주 응집성과 기저율의 상호작용이 속성 일반화에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(1), 1-19.   DOI
2 Balkcom, E. R., Alogna, V. K., Curtin, E. R., Halberstadt, J. B., & Bering, J. M. (2019). Aversion to organs donated by suicide victims: The role of psychological essentialism. Cognition, 192, 104037.   DOI
3 Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228-235.   DOI
4 Black, J. B., & Bern, H. (1981). Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(3), 267-275.   DOI
5 Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436.   DOI
6 Butchart, G. C. (2010). The exceptional community: On strangers, foreigners, and communication. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(1), 21-25.
7 Caprariello, P. A., Cuddy, A. J., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 147-155.   DOI
8 Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(5), 461-480.   DOI
9 Colombo, M., Cherubini, P., Montali, L., Marando, L., & Nuovo, P. A. (2012). There’s foreigner and foreigner: Xenophobic reasoning and anti--immigrant discourse. Journal of Community Psychology, 3(4), 135-143.
10 Dantlgraber, M., Kuhlmann, T., & Reips, U. D. (2019). Conceptual fluency in inductive reasoning. PloS one, 14(11), e0225050.   DOI
11 Dhamoon, R., & Abu-Laban, Y. (2009). Dangerous (internal) foreigners and nation-building: The case of Canada. International Political Science Review, 30(2), 163-183.   DOI
12 Edeling, A., & Himme, A. (2018). When does market share matter? New empirical generalizations from a meta-analysis of the market share-performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 1-24.   DOI
13 Hayes, B. K., & Heit, E. (2018). Inductive reasoning 2.0. Cognitive Science, 9(3), e1459.
14 Gawronski, B., Ehrenberg, K., Banse, R., Zukova, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). It’s in the mind of the beholder: The impact of stereotypic associations on category-based and individuating impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 16-30.   DOI
15 Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 404-409.   DOI
16 Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 63-76.   DOI
17 Heit, E., & Feeney, A. (2005). Relations between premise similarity and inductive strength. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(2), 340-344.   DOI
18 Holyoak, K. J., Lee, H. S., & Lu, H. (2010). Analogical and category-based inference: A theoretical integration with Bayesian causal models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 702-727.   DOI
19 Irawan, M. Z., Belgiawan, P. F., Widyaparaga, A., Budiman, A., Muthohar, I., & Sopha, B. M. (2018). A market share analysis for hybrid cars in Indonesia. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(3), 336-341.   DOI
20 Karasawa, M., Asai, N., & Hioki, K. (2019). Psychological essentialism at the explicit and implicit levels: The unique status of social categories. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(2), 107-122.   DOI
21 Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16-32.   DOI
22 Keven, N. (2016). Events, narratives and memory. Synthese, 193(8), 2497-2517.   DOI
23 Lee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., Hayes, B. K., & Navarro, D. J. (2019). Negative evidence and inductive reasoning in generalization of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 289-303.   DOI
24 Kim, S., & Lee, G. H. (2017). Influence of category coherence and type of base-rate acquisition on property generalization. Acta Psychologica, 172, 64-70.   DOI
25 Kim, Y. L., & Jang, A. (2017). Cultural diversity and cultural co-existence between asian immigrants and the natives in Korea. OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society, 7(2), 60-98.   DOI
26 Kutzner, F., & Fiedler, K. (2017). Stereotypes as pseudocontingencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 1-49.   DOI
27 Liu, F., Han, J., Zhang, L., & Li, F. (2019). Inductive reasoning differs between taxonomic and thematic contexts: Electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1702.   DOI
28 Liu, Y., Lin, W., Xu, P., Zhang, D., & Luo, Y. (2015). Neural basis of disgust perception in racial prejudice. Human brain mapping, 36(12), 5275-5286.   DOI
29 Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 93-120.   DOI
30 Newman, G. E., & Knobe, J. (2019). The essence of essentialism. Mind & Language, 34(5), 585-605.   DOI
31 Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185-200.   DOI
32 Patalano, A. L., Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2006). The importance of being coherent: Category coherence, cross-classification, and reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 407-424.   DOI
33 Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1056-1078.   DOI
34 Patalano, A. L., & Ross, B. H. (2007). The role of category coherence in experience-based prediction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 629-634.   DOI
35 Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437-442.   DOI
36 Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 202-206.   DOI
37 Rotello, C. M., Heit, E., & Kelly, L. J. (2019). Do modals identify better models? A comparison of signal detection and probabilistic models of inductive reasoning. Cognitive psychology, 112, 1-24.   DOI
38 Rydgren, J. (2004). The logic of xenophobia. Rationality and society, 16(2), 123-148.   DOI
39 Sanjana, N. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2003). Bayesian models of inductive generalization. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 59-66).
40 Sutherland, S. L., & Cimpian, A. (2019). Developmental evidence for a link between the inherence bias in explanation and psychological essentialism. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 265-281.   DOI
41 Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student affairs practice and higher education. New directions for student services, 2002(97), 21-32.   DOI
42 Thurman, N. (2018). Newspaper consumption in the mobile age: Re-assessing multi-platform performance and market share using “time-spent”. Journalism Studies, 19(10), 1409-1429.   DOI
43 Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (p. 179-195). Cambridge University Press.
44 Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Nagata, M., Sen, R., Holtz, P., & Palacios, F. F. (2010). Essentialist theory of ‘hybrids’: From animal kinds to ethnic categories and race. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(4), 232-246.   DOI
45 Winiewski, M., & Bulska, D. (2019). Stereotype content as a collective memory of place and its past intergroup relations. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2), 1-27.
46 Wu, Y. (2014). Race/ethnicity and perceptions of the police: A comparison of White, Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans. Policing and Society, 24(2), 135-157.   DOI