Who Do We Remember? Facial Anomalies, Race, and Sex in Social Categorization.

Social categorization often occurs automatically, shaping whom we notice, remember, and group together. The present study examined how visual cues indicative of sex, race, and facial anomaly guide spontaneous categorization, testing the hypothesis that anomaly-based categorization is more malleable than categorization by race or sex. Using a within-subjects Who-Said-What (WSW) paradigm, participants viewed faces that varied by sex, race, and presence of a facial scar, each paired with self-descriptive statements. A surprise recall task required matching statements to faces. Categorization strength was computed from recall errors. Participants showed the strongest categorization by sex, weak categorization by race, and very weak categorization by facial anomaly. Regression analyses revealed that scar-based categorization was negatively associated with sex- and race-based categorization. When sex or race was strongly encoded, scar-based categorization was sharply diminished, and the cue appeared only under relatively weak and infrequent conditions. Thus, although visually salient, facial anomalies did not function as an independent or stable basis for social grouping. These findings demonstrate that the categorization system prioritizes evolutionarily primary cues such as sex, treats race as a comparatively weaker cue, and assigns facial anomalies to a minimal and malleable role. Overall, the results highlight the fragile, low-priority, and easily overshadowed nature of anomaly-based categorization in social memory. Importantly, the fragility of scar-based categorization suggests that negative evaluations of anomalous faces (anomalous-is-bad stereotyping) are not automatically translated into robust memories or categorical organization.