A great deal of recent work has found that two fundamental dimensions underlie social judgment. The most common labels used to denote these dimensions are agency versus communion, and competence versus warmth. The present work aimed to disentangle agency understood as the motivation to promote the self from competence understood as ability, and to address their distinctive role in status perception. In Studies 1 and 2, participants were presented with a high- versus low-status target and asked to rate this target on agency, competence and warmth. In Study 3, participants were presented with an agentic, competent, and warm target and asked to rate their social status. Overall, our findings indicated that agency and competence operate as distinct dimensions in social judgment, and that agency is more related to social status than competence.

The present research aimed to show that the mixed stereotype content of persons with disability observed at an explicit level does not manifest itself using implicit measures. Two experimental studies were conducted to analyse the stereotype content of persons with a disability at the implicit level. The procedure used in this study was the concept priming paradigm. Furthermore, Study 2 also included an explicit measure. Results show important discrepancies between implicit and explicit measures. At an explicit level, previous work supporting the mixed stereotype content of persons with disability was replicated: participants judged these persons as warmer but less competent than persons without a disability. At an implicit level, a quite different pattern of results emerged: persons with a disability were associated not only with less competence than persons without disability, but also with less warmth. These findings suggest that the mixed pattern between warmth and competence generally observed at an explicit level may be based on societal pressures against prejudice and discrimination.

This research investigates the social judgment of people with a disability in a professional context. In Study 1, participants without a disability were asked to rate people with a disability on scales measuring competence and warmth. In Study 2 individuals with and without a disability were asked to present themselves in such a way as to make the best possible impression on a potential employer. In a second round, they were asked to make the best possible impression assuming that they had (or did not have) a disability. As predicted, people with a disability were systematically presented as warm, but incompetent. This evaluation was observed in groups of people with and in those without a disability.

Focusing on the two fundamental dimensions underlying stereotype content (warmth/competence), the major aim of the present research was to test implicit stereotyping toward persons with disability. We hypothesized that persons with disability are associated with less warmth than persons without disability and with less competence, especially when a competence-relevant context is activated (work context). Three experimental studies were conducted using two different priming paradigms: conceptual priming (Study 1) and evaluative priming (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 3, context (work vs. control) was introduced as an additional factor. Our results showed that persons with disability were systematically associated with less warmth than persons without disability, and with less competence when priming a work context. These results provide a more comprehensive understanding of discriminatory behaviors toward people with disability, despite legislation promoting equal rights.

Building on the two fundamental dimensions of social judgment distinguishing communion from agency, the purpose of the present work was to show that the strength of the relationship between social status and agency depends on specific components at issue: assertiveness, competence, and effort. Four experimental studies were conducted using two complementary paradigms. In Studies 1 and 2, we manipulated social status, and participants had to rate the target on competence, assertiveness, and effort. In Studies 3 and 4, we reversed the design. Results consistently showed that social status was primarily related to assertiveness, somewhat related to competence, and only slightly related to effort. The present research provides a better understanding of how the dimensions of social judgment are used to explain differences in social status.