When we discuss knowledge, we usually start by describing categories, concepts, and categorization (PSU WC, L10, P3). How we group similar items into meaningful groups and how we access that information is very important. We learned in Lesson 10 different approaches to categorization: the classical approach (based on defining features of groups), the prototype theory (structured around a stereotypical depiction of a group), and exemplar theory (categorized based on examples we have encountered). All of which explain how we store a prototype or representation in our memory; some better than others. This lesson steered me to speculate how we categorize people we meet in our everyday lives.
We judge people and draw conclusions without realizing we form impressions of people we know nothing about. Our lesson’s classical approach example of defining a bachelor as being an unmarried male can be proven incorrect that it does not fully explain a young boy who is also unmarried because he is only 6. Similarly the prototype theory example proved difficult to explain the conceptual boundaries of why a Chihuahua shares more features with a cat than a Great Dane, yet they are both categorized as dogs (WC PSU, L10, P4). Just like these prototypes, many aspects can impact the impressions you make of other people. We take ideas from our environment, our learned social norms, personal cues, or common characteristics into consideration. When meeting new people in social environments we initially categorize individuals as old or young, as male or female, by race, and other basic appearances. We do this automatically, just as we categorize objects into different types. In my own experience, I will admit I have assumed a woman dressed in a fancy business suit that I crossed paths with at a coffee shop in the city must work at a law firm or was the CEO of her own company. Although my insinuations might be erroneous in this case, I took a rational shortcut that allowed me to conclude this based on the physical descriptions of the woman and then established based on what I know of people in this category.
We can also assume with categorization, specifically in a societal situation, it can have both constructive and adverse properties. Preventing stereotypes from forming might be difficult as we can effortlessly point out what might not fit in a particular category, just as we can infer was is similar. Exemplar theories of social categorization suggest that categorization of new, potential instances of a category stems from the similarity of those instances to particular exemplars of the category that are store in memory (Smith & Zarate, 1990). We have learned that we most likely use prototypes and exemplars, as well as different levels of categorization that we organize into numerous semantic networks. Coffee cups, birds, dogs, lawyers, buildings; categorization is a process that ultimately allows us to decipher and recognize every object in our environment. I really enjoyed applying this lesson to my everyday life and can conclude these types of categorization process’ inevitably has encoded every object I know.
Reference List:
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). Lesson 10: Knowledge. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych256/001/content/11_lesson/01_page.html
Smith, E.R., & Zarate, M.A. (1990). Exemplar and prototype use in social categorization. Social Cognition, 243-262.