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.
