Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39231909›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Validating a brief measure of four facets of social evaluation.

Alex Koch, Austin Smith, Susan T Fiske, Andrea E Abele, Naomi Ellemers, Vincent Yzerbyt

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alex KochUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. alex.koch@chicagobooth.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6267-8066
Austin SmithUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Susan T FiskePrinceton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Andrea E AbeleUniversity of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Naomi EllemersUtrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Vincent YzerbytUniversity of Louvain, Louvain, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MoralsAdolescentAdultAssertivenessFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSocial PerceptionYoung AdultAdversarial collaborationBig TwoBrief measureFour facetsValidity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.