Table 1.

Methodological and Theoretical Overview of the Categorization Studies

Study	Rule tested	Manipulation	Contrasting categories		Prediction	Prediction confirmed?	Conclusion
1	Free rider strategy rule	Intentionality of undercontribution	Found food, ate it	Found food, accidentally lost it	Categorization as FREE RIDERS and COOPERATORS	Yes	Free rider strategy rule confirmed
2	Free rider strategy rule	Intentionality of undercontribution	Did not look for food	Tried but never found food	Categorization as FREE RIDERS and COOPERATORS	Yes	Free rider strategy rule confirmed
3	Return rate rules for free rider categorization	Amount of contribution	Found food, accidentally lost it	Always contributed, lost personal items	Categorization only along a dimension of competence	Yes	Return rate rules falsified
4	Arbitrary categorization rule	Reason for unintentional undercontribution	Found food, accidentally lost it	Tried but never found food	No categorization	Yes	Arbitrary categorization rule falsified
5A/5B	Moral violator rule	Type of immoral action	Found food, ate it	Unprovoked battery (5A)/theft (5B)	Categorization as FREE RIDERS and other immoral type	Yes	Moral violator rule may exist, but cannot explain all results

Note. The prediction column does not give the prediction from each rule. Instead, it gives the prediction from the larger theoretical perspective adopted here.