Social categorization, as the name implies, involves the classification of things based on similarity and difference. At its very core, this is social categorization. But I am not saying that social categorization stops here.

Otherwise, everyone would simply be making decisions based on similarity and difference (and that is just plain strange). Social categorization thrives of equivalence and differences because this allows people to make sense of information as it arrives by the boatload every single day.

Social categorization, like attribution, is an important activity that directly affects a person’s self-concept. Because as a person matures and develops through the years, he amasses his own categorical schemas that in turn shape his drives and desires.

For example, over time, a person would be able to classify a whole bunch of activities as desirable. Inversely, this person would also have a schema of activities that he would never do again because of perceived disadvantages. Without social categorization, there would be no way to create order in a very chaotic physical reality.

This activity gives a person control over the information that he receives so he can classify or even discard information as he sees fit. Social categorization also allows people to directly compare one object to another object or to a whole group of objects. Relationships of varying degrees can also be established with the help of social categorization.

For example, if Person A had a preference for Windows-based computers, he would associate a cellular phone with a Windows-based platform with the current Windows operating system.

This in turn would encourage a person to buy the cellular phone because it has an intimate association with that person’s favorite operating system. Here’s another example: if a person was in love with a brand of fast food, what are the chances of this person buying a condiment (i.e. barbecue sauce) that has the same fast-food brand?

Of course, chances are this person would be converted immediately to the new barbecue sauce brand because it has a deep connection with the person’s favorite fast-food. However, we should remember that the rubric of social categorization itself does not capture the entirety of human perception.

Again, we will hit a brick wall if we choose to fit human perception in a very solid framework. Human perception is very fluid; theories like social categorization are not. The boundaries of theoretical frameworks need to be rigid in order to be believed in by social scientists; human perception is vacuous and is always in a state of flux.

Like mercury in room temperature, it’s hard to pin down human perception with just one finger. It will slip and slide effortlessly, eluding your weary hand. Here’s a good example: what is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the word “pet”? It is likely that you answered either dog or cat.

Some of you may have answered parakeet or turtle. And still some (though these are rare) would have answered baby octopus and sugar gliders. If I ask you why you chose a particular animal when you read the word “pet”, your response would probably be something along the lines of: the animal is more pet-like than the other animals that I know.

There is nothing wrong with picking other animals; this just reflects the fact that some people have different schemas for common categories. But for the majority, the schemas that they are using to utilize social categorization are actually filled with prototypes or stereotypes.

What are prototypes? Let’s erase the negative connotation of the word prototype or stereotype, because this is actually a very important concept in the realm of human influence. Let me explain: categories are actually groups of concepts that are associated with each other in varying degrees.

These categories emerge from popular culture and popular knowledge and we actually learn these categories little by little, as we engage in informal discussions with different people. And of course we cannot ignore the impact of popular media like the Internet and television.

These outlets of mass culture also play a role in creating and propagating categories and stereotypes. Now, let’s go back to the earlier question that I posed to you. Since social categories are simply interconnected bits of information (i.e. objects, events, politics, etc.), eventually, there will be a hierarchy in these sets of information.

Some members of these sets will be more visible and will be more recognizable, too. The most recognizable members of social sets are called the stereotypes. Stereotypes are representative members because the information about these members are highly available to people.

People tend to use the most accessible pieces of information when they need to analyze a situation. And thus, it is unavoidable for people to use stereotypes because these are indeed highly accessible pieces of information. Of course, excessive use of stereotypes can lead to gross errors.

For example, if you believe that only men can be great trial lawyers, you may become slack jawed to see female trial lawyers on the forefront of highly controversial criminal trials.