People perceive social groups along stereotype dimensions. Several models of social evaluation identify so-called horizontal (relational, warmth, communion) and vertical (achievement, competence, agency) judgments, also known as the Big Two. Each has two facets, respectively indicating perceived morality and friendliness for horizontal judgments plus ability and assertiveness for vertical judgments. Perceivers also locate groups within sociopolitical structures, such as socioeconomic status and ideological beliefs. These six commonly used stereotype dimensions (morality, friendliness, ability, assertiveness, status, and beliefs) each predict specific and pragmatic behaviors toward (members of) groups, including approach, investment, cooperation, and inclusion. Overall, the trait dimensions correlate positively (e.g., the two respective facets of each of the Big Two), but contextual goals can override general patterns. For example, when people encounter two unequal groups and strive for social justice, harmony and positive identity, the horizontal and vertical judgments correlate negatively. Contextual goals and transient motives also moderate the importance of the stereotype dimensions. We conclude by suggesting avenues for future research.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262
2.
AbeleA. E.HaukeN.PetersK.LouvetE.SzymkowA.DuanY. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810
3.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). Academic Press.
4.
BarbedorJ.ScheiderJ.YzerbytV.AbeleA. (2024). A novel approach to the evaluation of groups: Type of group and facet of evaluation matter. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), Article 124471. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.124471
5.
BoenF.VanbeselaereN.FeysJ. (2002). Behavioral consequences of fluctuating group success: An Internet study of soccer-team fans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(6), 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603935
6.
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(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.744
7.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.RusconiP.GoodwinG. P. (2021). The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 64, pp. 187–262). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2021.03.001
8.
CambonL. (2022). Tell me who you are and I’ll tell you what you are worth: The role of societal value in the structuration of six facets of the Big Two. International Review of Social Psychology, 35(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.689
9.
CambonL.YzerbytV. (2018). Two routes toward compensation: An investigation into the mechanisms of compensation for high- and low-status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.002
10.
CarrierA.DompnierB.YzerbytV. (2019). Of nice and mean: The personal relevance of others’ competence drives perceptions of warmth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 1549–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219835213
11.
ConnorP.AntonoplisS.NicolasG.KochA. (2024). Unconstrained descriptions of Facebook profile pictures support high-dimensional models of impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241266651
12.
DuranteF.FiskeS. T.GelfandM.CrippaF.SuttoraC.StillwellA.AsbrockF.AycanZ.ByeH. H.CarlssonR.BjörklundF.DaghirM.GellerA.LarsenC. A.LatifH.MähönenT. A.Jasinskaja-LahtiI.TeymooriA. (2017). Ambivalent stereotypes link to peace, conflict, and inequality across 38 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114(4), 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611874114
13.
EllemersN.FiskeS. T.AbeleA.KochA.YzerbytV. (2020). Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory-building, toward cumulative science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(14), 7561–7567. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906720117
14.
EllemersN.PagliaroS.BarretoM. (2013). Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 160–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.841490
15.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
16.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
17.
GebauerJ. E.SedikidesC. (2018). Agency and communion in grandiose narcissism. In AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (Eds.), Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 90–102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203703663-11
18.
GräfM.UnkelbachC. (2016). Halo effects in trait assessment depend on information valence: Why being honest makes you industrious, but lying does not make you lazy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(3), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215627137
19.
JenkinsA. C.KarashchukP.ZhuL.HsuM. (2018). Predicting human behavior toward members of different social groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115(39), 9696–9701. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719452115
20.
KervynN.FiskeS. T.YzerbytV. Y. (2013). Integrating the stereotype content model (warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency, and activity). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978
21.
KochA.DotschR.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2025). Ideological beliefs as cues to exploitation-exploration behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 117, Article 104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104718
22.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.AlvesH.UnkelbachC. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socio-economic success, conservative-progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046
23.
KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.NicolasG.FiskeS.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, Article 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103995
24.
KochA.SmithA.FiskeS.AbeleA.EllemersN.YzerbytV. (2024). Validating a brief measure of four facets of social evaluation. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 8521–8539. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02489-y
25.
KochA.YzerbytV.AbeleA.EllemersN.FiskeS. T. (2021). Social evaluation: Comparing models across interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, several-group, and many-group contexts. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 63, pp. 1–68). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.11.001
26.
LeachC. W.BilaliR.PagliaroS. (2015). Groups and morality. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.DovidioJ. F.SimpsonJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2., group processes (pp. 123–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14342-005
27.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality versus competence and sociability in the evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
28.
NicolasG.BaiX.FiskeS. T. (2022). A spontaneous stereotype content model: Taxonomy, properties, and prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 1243–1263. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000312
29.
NicolasG.FiskeS. T.KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2022). Relational versus structural goals prioritize different social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(4), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000366
30.
RobertsR.KochA. (2024). Power polarizes moral evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241245181
31.
SimcoeT. S.WaguespackD. M. (2011). Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name?Management Science, 57(2), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1270
32.
ThalmayerA. G.MatherK. A.SaucierG.NaudéL.FlorenceM.AdonisT. A.ShinoE. N.AsatsaS.Witzlack-MakarevichA.BächlinL. Z. M.CondonD. M. (2024). The cross-cultural big two: A culturally decentered theoretical and measurement model for personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000528
33.
WojciszkeB.BazinskaR.JaworskiM. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412001
34.
YzerbytV. (2018). The dimensional compensation model: Reality and strategic constraints on warmth and competence in intergroup perceptions. In AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (Eds.), Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 126–141). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203703663-11
35.
YzerbytV.BarbedorJ.CarrierA.RohmerO. (2022). The facets of social hierarchy: How judges’ legitimacy beliefs and relative status shape their evaluation of assertiveness and ability. International Review of Social Psychology, 35(1), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.695
36.
YzerbytV.CambonL. (2017). The dynamics of compensation: When ingroup favoritism paves the way for outgroup praise. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216689066
37.
YzerbytV. Y.ProvostV.CorneilleO. (2005). Not competent but warm . . . Really? Compensatory stereotypes in the French-speaking world. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205053944
