ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Validating a brief measure of four facets of social evaluation.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- As warm as competent, really? On the importance of stereotype facets in the context of autism.The British journal of social psychology · 2026Article
- Navigating the credibility risks of environmental scientists' activism.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- The shifting landscape of vaccine discourse: Insights from a decade of pre- to post-COVID-19 vaccine posts on social media.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Five studies (N = 7972) validated a brief measure and model of four facets of social evaluation (friendliness and morality as horizontal facets; ability and assertiveness as vertical facets). Perceivers expressed their personal impressions or estimated society's impression of different types of targets (i.e., envisioned or encountered groups or individuals) and numbers of targets (i.e., between six and 100) in the separate, items-within-target mode or the joint, targets-within-item mode. Factor analyses confirmed that a two-items-per-facet measure fit the data well and better than a four-items-per-dimension measure that captured the Big Two model (i.e., no facets, just the horizontal and vertical dimensions). As predicted, the correlation between the two horizontal facets and between the two vertical facets was higher than the correlations between any horizontal facet and any vertical facet. Perceivers' evaluations of targets on each facet were predictors of unique and relevant behavior intentions. Perceiving a target as more friendly, moral, able, and assertive increased the likelihood of relying on the target's loyalty, fairness, intellect, and hubris in an economic game, respectively. These results establish the external, internal, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the brief measure and model of four facets of social evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39231909What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.