1 / 24

Hong, C., Dunham Y. Yale Social Cognitive Development Lab

Methodology for studying the p rototype -exemplar theory of facial categorization in minimal group paradigm. Hong, C., Dunham Y. Yale Social Cognitive Development Lab. Categorization. “How do we categorize people?”.  Face . Ingroup v. o utgroup.

carson-ramirez
Download Presentation

Hong, C., Dunham Y. Yale Social Cognitive Development Lab

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Methodology for studying the prototype-exemplar theory of facial categorization in minimal group paradigm Hong, C., Dunham Y. Yale Social Cognitive Development Lab

  2. Categorization “How do we categorize people?”  Face  Ingroup v. outgroup Social psychology: study of human interactions Two prominent theories of categorization Categorization creates groups “Us” “Them” 1. Exemplar theory 2. Prototype theory

  3. Personality & Facial Structure Participant faces computerized using FaceGenModeller Participants took personality tests Result: 121 male European-American participants Personality trait Facial structure < Convex personality > < Concave personality >

  4. Exemplar Theory < Convex personality > < Concave personality >

  5. Exemplar Theory Prototype Theory < Convex personality > < Concave personality >

  6. The Question Which method do we use to categorize faces?

  7. Outgroup Homogeneity Diversity amongst ingroup members Perception of the members of the outgroup being all alike Concave group member Outgroup < Convex personality > Ingroup < Concave personality > “They are all the same” “We are all different”

  8. Prototype-Exemplar Theory Outgroup Homogeneity Each individual instances Average of individual instances Prototype Prototype theory Exemplars Exemplar theory Outgroup Ingroup “They are all the same” “We are all different”

  9. Minimal Group Paradigm Made up on the site of study No real-life significance Social distinction between ingroup and outgroup: Significant social group: Social distinction = race racial group

  10. Hypothesis Hypothesis: exemplar for minimal ingroup, prototype for minimal outgroup Hypothesis: exemplar for ingroup, prototype for outgroup

  11. Personality & Facial Structure Bogus Study Participant faces computerized using FaceGenModeller Participants took personality tests Result: 121 male European-American participants Participants took personality tests Minimal groups Personality trait Facial structure < Convex personality > < Concave personality >

  12. Two Groups of Faces Convex Concave

  13. The Design Personality Test (Bogus) Deception: relationship between personality & facial structure Placed into personality group Learning Task

  14. Learning Task 40 faces Randomly selected: 20 Convex, 20 Concave Personality group label 3 seconds each Shown in randomized order CONCAVE CONVEX

  15. The Design Personality Test (Bogus) Deception: relationship between personality & facial structure Placed into personality group Learning Task Identification Task

  16. Identification Task The remaining 40 faces Without personality label Again shown in randomized order Asked to categorize face into group Which personality group? CONCAVE CONVEX

  17. The Design Personality Test (Bogus) Deception: relationship between personality & facial structure Placed into personality group Learning Task Debriefed Identification Task

  18. Results Incorrectly-categorized faces Identification Task Correctly-categorized faces Ingroup faces Outgroup faces Distance from prototype greater than Average distances from exemplars

  19. Results Ingroup= exemplar mechanism Distance = Similarity / Dissimilarity • < • { • … • averaged

  20. Results Incorrectly-categorized faces Identification Task Correctly-categorized faces Ingroup faces Outgroup faces Distance from prototype greater than Average distances from exemplars Distance from prototype less than Average distances from exemplars

  21. Results Outgroup = prototype mechanism Distance = Similarity / Dissimilarity • < • { • … • averaged

  22. Results Incorrectly-categorized faces Identification Task Correctly-categorized faces Ingroup faces Outgroup faces Distance from prototype greater than Average distances from exemplars Distance from prototype greater than Average distances from exemplars Distance from prototype less than Average distances from exemplars Distance from prototype less than Average distances from exemplars Contradicts hypothesis Supports hypothesis

  23. Future Work Ran pilot study Re-selecting the pair of base faces

  24. Acknowledgements Dr. Yarrow Dunham ShainaCoogan SCD Lab interns Everyone involved with the SRP

More Related