Five adversarial models (the DPM, BRM, DCM, SCM, and ABC) used a plethora of items to measure social-evaluative dimensions and facets between 2002 and 2023. This challenges their negotiated integration of agency and competence into vertical social evaluation with the facets of ability and assertiveness, and their integration of communality and warmth into a horizontal dimension with the facets of morality and friendliness. In seven studies (N = 4,577), we examined the perceived similarities and covariation between all, and 20 prevalent, positive items. Cluster analyses clearly separated both the Big Two and the four facets. In our factor analyses, both models fit the data well but the Facet model did not fit better than the Big Two model. These results retrospectively validate the integration negotiated by the adversarial models, and thereby simplify reading the pre-2024 literature on people’s impressions of the self, other individuals, and groups of people.
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. (2020). Comparing the facets of the big two in global evaluation of self versus other people. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 969–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2639
3.
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, 1810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810
4.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
5.
BarbedorJ.SchneiderJ.YzerbytV.AbeleA. (2024). A novel approach to the evaluation of groups: Type of group and facet of evaluation matter. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), 124471. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.124471
6.
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
7.
BruckmüllerS.AbeleA. E. (2013). The density of the Big Two: How are agency and communion structurally represented?Social Psychology, 44(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000145
8.
Carmona-DíazG.BarbosaS.Arévalo-GarcíaE.Zamora-MarceloG. R.Jiménez-LealW. (2024). Evaluating the convergence of dimensions across social evaluation models. Social Psychology, 55(4), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000557
9.
ConnorP.AntonoplisS.NicolasG.KochA. (2025). 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
10.
de LeeuwJ. (1977). Correctness of Kruskal’s algorithms for monotone regression with ties. Psychometrika, 42, 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293750
11.
DeYoungC. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138
12.
EllemersN.FiskeS. T.AbeleA. E.KochA.YzerbytV. (2020). Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(14), 7561–7567. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906720117
13.
EllemersN.PagliaroS.BarretoM. (2017). Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 160–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.841490
14.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
15.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.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(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
16.
HehmanE.XieS. Y.OfosuE. K.NespoliG. (2018, February19). Assessing the point at which averages are stable: A tool illustrated in the context of person perception [Unpublished manuscript].
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
19.
JaworskaN.Chupetlovska-AnastasovaA. (2009). A review of multidimensional scaling (MDS) and its utility in various psychological domains. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.05.1.p001
20.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
21.
KochA.DotschR.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2025). Ideological beliefs as cues to exploitation-exploration behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 117, 104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104718
22.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic 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, 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103995
24.
KochA.KervynN.KervynM.ImhoffR. (2018). Studying the cognitive map of the US states: Ideology and prosperity stereotypes predict interstate prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715070
25.
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
26.
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
27.
LandyJ. F.PiazzaJ.GoodwinG. P. (2016). When it’s bad to be friendly and smart: The desirability of sociability and competence depends on morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1272–1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216655984
28.
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(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
29.
LiuY.CharlesworthT.KochA.LuttrellA.JacksonJ. C. (2025). The content, structure, and history of English trait words [Manuscript under review].
30.
MairP.GroenenP. J. F.de LeeuwJ. (2022). More on multidimensional scaling and unfolding in R: smacof Version 2. Journal of Statistical Software, 102(10), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v102.i10
31.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
32.
MartinA. E.SlepianM. L. (2021). The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904961
33.
PornprasertmanitS.LeeJ.PreacherK. J. (2014). Ignoring clustering in confirmatory factor analysis: Some consequences for model fit and standardized parameter estimates. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(6), 518–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933762
34.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
35.
RobertsR.KochA. (2024). Power polarizes moral evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241245181
36.
RosenbergS.NelsonC.VivekananthanP. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026086
37.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
38.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.RamosA.VerkasaloM.LönnqvistJ.-E.DemirutkuK.Dirilen-GumusO.KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
39.
SlepianM. L.KochA. (2021). Identifying the dimensions of secrets to reduce their harms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1431–1456. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000202
40.
StolierR. M.HehmanE.FreemanJ. B. (2020). Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0800-6
41.
VerheyenS.WhiteA.StormsG. (2022). A comparison of the Spatial Arrangement Method and the Total-Set Pairwise Rating Method for obtaining similarity data in the conceptual domain. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57(2–3), 356–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1857216
WoitzelJ.KochA. (2025). Ideological favoritism and in-group favoritism: A double dissociation of U.S. progressives and conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251345519
YzerbytV.KochA.BrambillaM.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.NicolasG. (2025). Dimensions of stereotypes about groups. Current Direction in Psychological Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214251345489
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.
