European Journal of Social Psychology

Barbosa, Sergio; Carmona‐Diaz, Gino Marttelo; Jiménez‐Leal, William

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.70089pmid: N/A

A recent adversarial collaboration on social evaluation has united a number of competing models under a bi‐dimensional structure of social evaluation. This proposed structure posits that social evaluation is conducted using two independent dimensions: Horizontal and Vertical. In turn, each dimension is divided into two facets: The Horizontal dimension is composed of the Friendliness and Morality facets, and the Vertical dimension is composed of the Ability and Assertiveness facets. Although commendable, direct evidence for this proposed model remains scarce. Specifically, the literature fails to test for plausible competing models that separate Friendliness and Morality into independent dimensions. Across two preregistered studies (n = 681) and a re‐analysis of six recently published datasets (Barbedor et al. 2024, n = 1265; Koch et al. 2024, n = 6368), we systematically compared theoretical models of social evaluation in the context of regional stereotypes (Study 1), cross‐national stereotypes in Latin America (Study 2), arbitrary social groups (Studies 3–7 and 9) and individual targets (Studies 8 and 9). Preregistered results provide mixed evidence for bi‐, tri‐ and four‐dimensional models of social evaluation. We discuss the implications of these results for adversarial collaboration, specifically regarding potential moderators of the number of dimensions, such as the evaluated social target.

Alba, Beatriz; Vázquez, Alexandra

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.70087pmid: N/A

Previous research has focused on disadvantaged groups seeking social change, overlooking how dominant groups mobilize to preserve the status quo. Across three studies (two correlational, one experimental), we explored how collective grievance—the feeling of being or having been collectively wronged by an outgroup—drives system‐preserving collective actions and aggressive intergroup tendencies. Additionally, we examined whether conservative orientations moderate and dehumanization mediates these effects. Study 1 found that grievance was linked to outgroup dehumanization, non‐normative collective action intentions and aggressive inclinations more than other predictors, such as identity fusion and moral convictions. Studies 2 and 3 revealed that collective grievance increased outgroup dehumanization, strengthening non‐normative collective action dispositions and aggressive tendencies, but only among conservative individuals. This research highlights how majority group members, particularly with conservative ideologies, can be motivated by collective grievances to mobilize in defence of the status quo and exhibit aggressive intentions towards outgroups through their dehumanization.

Körner, Robert; Schütz, Astrid; Petersen, Lars‐Eric; Groulon, Marine; Chen, Serena

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.70090pmid: N/A

Sense of power and self‐compassion both impact important intrapsychic and interpersonal outcomes. However, how powerholders treat themselves when experiencing failure or personal setbacks is unclear. We propose that powerholders are more apt than their lower‐power counterparts to exhibit self‐compassion when faced with difficulties. Across six main studies (and four supplemental studies) using experimental, correlational and real‐world designs (Ntotal = 3325), converging support was found for a positive link between power and self‐compassion. This held for experimentally‐induced, self‐ and peer‐reported and structural power, and for direct and indirect self‐compassion measures. Further, as power means reduced dependence and increased security, we theorized and found that power enhances authenticity, which explained powerholders’ greater self‐compassion. These findings advance theory in suggesting that power is linked to adaptively dealing with personal adversities, carry implications for organizational politics and HR practices and suggest that self‐compassion interventions for low‐power individuals may be useful.

Sternberg, Béatrice; Badea, Constantina

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.70091pmid: N/A

Traditional models of social categorisation focus on singular identity dimensions or shared identities between targets and perceivers. Intersectionality models, by contrast, emphasise how multiple stigmatised identities interact to produce unique forms of bias. Few efforts have systematically compared these approaches, and none have articulated how intersectionality advances beyond them. In this article, we argue that the key contribution of the intersectional approach lies in its attention to social category interactions and the broader normative context that shapes them. Unlike prior social categorisation models, which tend to treat identities additively or in isolation, intersectionality accounts for the distinct bias that emerges at the intersection of multiple marginalised identities. To demonstrate this added value, we present a comparative framework outlining each model's distinctive features and predictions regarding bias towards stigmatised individuals. This perspective offers new directions for understanding when intersectional versus traditional categorisation models may be most appropriate, guiding the development of interventions that target the unique biases emerging at the intersection of multiple stigmatised identities.