Morality, sociability, and competence are distinct dimensions in person perception. We argue that a person’s morality informs us about their likely intentions, whereas their competence and sociability inform us about the likelihood that they will fulfill those intentions. Accordingly, we hypothesized that whereas morality would be considered unconditionally positive, sociability and competence would be highly positive only in moral others, and would be less positive in immoral others. Using exploratory factor analyses, Studies 1a and 1b distinguished evaluations of morality and sociability. Studies 2 to 5 then showed that sociability and competence are evaluated positively contingent on morality—Study 2 demonstrated this phenomenon, while the remaining studies explained it (Study 3), generalized it (Studies 3-5), and ruled out an alternative explanation for it (Study 5). Study 6 showed that the positivity of morality traits is independent of other morality traits. These results support a functionalist account of these dimensions of person perception.
AbeleA. E.BrackS. (2013). Preference for other persons’ traits is dependent on the kind of social relationship. Social Psychology, 44, 84-94.
2.
AbeleA. E.CuddyA. J. C.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1063-1065.
3.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763.
4.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2013). The big two in social judgment and behavior. Social Psychology, 44, 61-62.
5.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 195-255.
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327-353.
7.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.PaunonenS. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245-252.
8.
BaumanC. W.SkitkaL. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 63-86.
9.
BrambillaM.LeachC. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397-408.
10.
BrambillaM.RusconiP.SacchiS.CherubiniP. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 135-143.
11.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.RusconiP.CherubiniP.YzerbytV. Y. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 149-166.
12.
BryczH.WojciszkeB. (1992). Personality impressions on ability and morality dimensions. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 23, 223-236.
CottrellC. A.NeubergS. L.LiN. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208-231.
15.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
16.
CurryO.DunbarR. I. M. (2011). Altruism in networks: The effects of connections. Biology Letters, 7, 651-653.
17.
DeScioliP.KurzbanR. (2009). The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PLoS ONE, 4, e5802.
18.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacCallumR. C.StrahanE. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
20.
FesslerD. M. T.HolbrookC. (2013). Friends shrink foes: The presence of comrades decreases the envisioned physical formidability of an opponent. Psychological Science, 24, 797-802.
21.
FieldA. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: SAGE.
22.
FiskeS. T. (2012). Warmth and competence: Stereotype content issues for clinicians and researchers. Canadian Psychology, 53, 14-20.
23.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.
24.
GoodwinG. P.PiazzaJ.RozinP. (2014). Moral character information predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148-168.
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
JuddC.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899-913.
27.
KelmanH. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
28.
KelmanH. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.
29.
LandyJ. F.UhlmannE. L. (in press). Morality is personal. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), The atlas of moral psychology: Mapping good and evil in the mind. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234-249.
31.
LongmanR. S.CotaA. A.HoldenR. R.FekkenG. C. (1989). A regression equation for the parallel analysis criterion in principal components analysis: Mean and 95th percentile eigenvalues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 59-69.
32.
MinsonJ. A.MoninB. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 200-207.
33.
MoninB.SawyerP. J.MarquezM. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 76-93.
34.
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.
35.
PeetersG. (1992). Evaluative meanings of adjectives in vitro and in context: Some theoretical implications and practical consequences of positive negative asymmetry and behavioural-adaptive concepts of evaluation. Psychologia Belgica, 32, 211-231.
36.
PiazzaJ.GoodwinG. P.RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2014). When a virtue is not a virtue: Conditional virtues in moral evaluation. Social Cognition, 32, 528-558.
37.
PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD. (2011). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 91-108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
PolletT. V.RobertsS. G. B.DunbarR. I. M. (2011). Extraverts have larger social network layers but do not feel emotionally closer to individuals at any layer. Journal of Individual Differences, 32, 161-169.
39.
ReederG. D.MessickD. M.Van AvermaetE. (1977). Dimensional asymmetry in attributional inference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 46-57.
40.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN.AdamsR. B.Jr.OzonoH.NakashimaS.YoshikawaS.WatabeM. (2010). Polling the face: Prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 1-15.
41.
WojciszkeB.AbeleA. E.BarylaW. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 973-990.
42.
WojciszkeB.BazinskaR.JaworskiM. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1251-1263.
43.
WojciszkeB.DowhylukM.JaworskiM. (1998). Moral competence-related traits: How do they differ?Polish Psychological Bulletin, 29, 283-294.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
