Abstract
Test stimuli are rated as less “good” when they follow very good context stimuli than when they are presented alone. This diminution in rating is called hedonic contrast. Contrast is attenuated if the context and the test stimuli are perceived as being in different categories. Because experts use as their basic-level categories what are the subordinate levels for novices, they will categorize when novices do not. Therefore, in the following studies, both experts and novices showed hedonic contrast when attractive context orchids preceded more neutral test orchids. However, only the novices showed hedonic contrast when attractive context irises preceded the test orchids. Novices viewed the irises and the orchids as “flowers” and therefore members of the same category, resulting in contrast. Experts, however, viewed the irises and the orchids as being in different categories; therefore, hedonic contrast did not occur.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beebe-Center, J. G. (1965).The psychology of pleasantness and unpleasantness. New York: Russell & Russell. (Original work published 1932)
Cliff, N. (1993). Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions.Psychological Bulletin,114, 494–509.
Dolese, M. J., Zellner, D. A., Vasserman, M., andParker, S. (2005). Categorization affects hedonic contrast in the visual arts.Bulletin of Psychology & the Arts,5, 21–25.
Fechner, G. T. (1898).Vorschule der Ästhetik II (2nd ed.). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Hollander, M., &Wolfe, D. A. (1999).Nonparametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Johnson, K. E., &Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels ofexpertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 248–277.
Marascuilo, L. A., &McSweeney, M. (1977).Nonparametric and distribution-free methods for the social sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Schwarz, N., &Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin and A. Tesser (Eds.),The construction of social judgments, pp. 217–245. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stapel, D. A., &Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 634–646.
Tanaka, J. W., &Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?Cognitive Psychology,23, 457–482.
Wanke, M., Bless, H., &Igou, E. R. (2001). Next to a star: Paling, shining, or both? Turning interexemplar contrast into interexemplar assimilation.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,27, 14–29.
Zellner, D. A., Kern, B. B., &Parker, S. (2002). Protection for the good: Subcategorization reduces hedonic contrast.Appetite,38, 175–180.
Zellner, D. A., Rohm, E. A., Bassetti, T. L., &Parker, S. (2003). Compared to what? Effects of categorization on hedonic contrast.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 468–473.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rota, L.M., Zellner, D.A. The categorization effect in hedonic contrast: Experts differ from novices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 179–183 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194047
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194047