European Bulletin of Social Psychology 36,2 (December 2024)

We are very happy to share this next edition of the Bulletin. It includes a message from our president Nurit Shnabel, and you will find our usual annoucements about upcoming EASP meetings, previous meetings, grant reports, and an annoucement of the new grants that we have recently awarded to our members.

We are very happy to welcome 15 new full members and 8 new postgraduate members. Welcome to our community!

In this edition of the Bulletin, you will also find exciting 'save the date' information about the EASP General Meeting in 2026, and the 2025 SESP conference which will be held in Europe for the first time. You can read an article from one of our longest-standing members Guido Peeters, in which he reflects on social psychology and being a member of EASP over the years.

We are also happy to share the report of our 2024 Summer School and more information and application details for the 2025 Summer School to be held at the University of Kent, UK.

President's Corner

Dear EASP members, colleagues and friends,

As 2024 is about to end, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Executive Committee for dedicating their time and effort to the EASP. Besides the regular aspects of running a scientific association, such as handling the journals and organizing the meetings, we are still facing many administrative tasks related to the changes in legal and tax regulations in the Netherlands. Hopefully, this transition phase will come to an end this year.

As part of this transition, we are required to establish through elections a Supervisory Board by the end of 2024. The task of the Supervisory Board is to approve the activities and decisions of the Executive Committee including the reports, financial and strategic plans, and collaborations with legal entities. I would like to thank the members who volunteered to run for the elections - Fabrizio Butera, Eric Raymond Igou, Hans Rocha Ijzerman, Sabine Otten, Monica Rubini, and Jack Simmons – as well as Theo Alexopoulos, who volunteered to set and launch the elections (which should be done independently of the Executive Committee). Each member received an email with a unique voting link, and you are welcome to vote if you haven’t done so yet.

I would also like to thank all those who took part in making the 2024 summer school in Košice (Slovakia) happen. The local organizers were Jana Papcunová (who also served as EASP’s Social Psychology Ambassador in 2022-2023) and Bibiána Kováčová Holevová, and the coordinator of academic content was Yasin Koc from the University of Groningen. The workshops were led by Hans Alves and Moritz Ingendahl (Social Cognition), Ruthie Pliskin and Islam Borinca (The Social Psychology of Violent Ethno-National Conflicts), Maja Kutlaca and Soledad de Lemus Martín (Solidarity and Social Change), Cameron Brick and Karlijn van den Broek (Cognitions and Environmental Impact), and Yasin Koc and Jenny Veldman (Reacting to Inequality: Sexual and Gender Identities). In addition, specialized workshops were delivered by Marcello Gallucci (multilevel data analysis), Denisa Fedáková and Michal Kentoš (the European Social Survey), and Marcel Martončik and Matúš Adamkovič (responsible research practices and open science principles), and keynote lectures were held by Jozef Bavoľár (social factors affecting risk perception), Pavol Kačmár (personal journey as a young researcher), Barbara Lášticová (diversity challenges in social psychology), Anna Kende (combating anti-Gypsyism), Ivan Ropovik (structural equation modelling), and Sharon Coen (research ethics and integrity). You are welcome to read here more about the summer school, which hosted 60 PhD students from 21 countries and received much praise from the participants: https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/report_on_easp_summer_school_202-1961.html.

Indeed, the summer school is the flagship activity of the EASP, facilitating young scholars establish networks of collaboration and receive international training. Given its centrality and importance, the Executive Committee decided to have an additional summer school in 2025, and I would like to thank Jim Everett and the team from the University of Kent for taking this task upon themselves. Applications are now open, and you are welcome to read about it here: https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/easp_summer_school_2025___applic-1980.html.

Another thanks goes to Manuela Barreto, Rupert Brown, Roland Deutsch, and Esther Lopez-Zafra, who served as panellists in a discussion about the role of scientific societies in addressing social issues. EASP members sent questions (see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14woL_J9EWM1jCep33IaRBUE_-WWjC684Ey9sVVDch0s/edit?tab=t.0), which were sent to the panellists in advance. The discussion revolved around questions like the role of social scientists and scientific societies, whether this differs from the role of scientists or societies in other fields, and whether and how scientists should address social issues. Esther shared her perspective as the current president of the Spanish scientific society of social psychology (SCEPS) and Manuela – as the former president of EASP. Rupert shared his perspective and experience with EASP in earlier periods, such as after the end of the cold war, and Roland shared his perspective on science, such as that the idea that objectivity should be an ideal to which science strives.

In the previous bulletin, I thanked Vincent Yzerbyt and Olivier Luminet for representing the EASP in the ISE (Initiative for Science in Europe: https://initiative-se.eu/) and ECPS (European Consortium for Psychological Science). Those of you who would like to suggest topics for discussion in the inaugural ECPS meeting, which will be held this spring, are welcome to contact Olivier.

Last but not least, I would like to greet Guido Peeters, Professor Emeritus from KU Leuven, who has been the longest-standing member of EASP, with 47 (!) years of membership. Professor Peeters kindly agreed to my request to share with us some of his reminiscences from his distinguished and fruitful career, and you are welcome to read about his insights and experience in this bulletin.

Let’s hope that 2025 will bring with it better news than 2024. For now, I wish you all a good holiday period.

Nurit

Some Reminiscences of a 20th Century Social Psychologist

Guido Peeters

KU Leuven, Belgium

When president, Nurit Shnabel, suggested that after nearly half a century of EASP membership I should put down in writing some thoughts and insights about our field, I was initially hesitant. My command of the field since 2007 had become somewhat limited and biased. However, then an article in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5) caught my attention. It discussed the decrease in the proportion of disruptive papers and patents despite an explosion in research articles, patents, and funding. This paradox made me realize that some of my career’s experiences might shed light on this trend and its causes.

In 1965 I began as a research assistant in the Laboratory of Experimental Social Psychology, recently established at the KU Leuven by Jozef Nuttin jr., one of the founding fathers of the EASP. I now see it was an opportune time and place for developing disruptive ideas. The university was in a phase of accelerated growth and change, but it had the 19th-century academic culture not completely left behind yet. Professors still held untouchable positions enjoying unrestricted academic freedom. This freedom often extended to their assistants. Apart from some administrative and teaching duties, we were free to explore the expanding field of experimental social psychology and to pick up some subjects that attracted our interest and might lead to a PhD thesis. The only restriction was that we should focus on basic rather than applied research, aiming, if possible, to uncover fundamental principles rather than specific solutions to concrete problems. Supervision was minimal and there was no pressure to publish. In fact, regulations stipulated that only unpublished work qualified for a phD thesis. In addition, the regulations required personal work. Collaborating on one topic and splitting it up into two or more dissertations was discouraged and Nuttin liked to have a broad range of social-psychological expertise in his research center. Nevertheless we formed a close-knit group of enthusiasts who were ready to help each other with expertise and experiment logistics.

With a sea of time in front of me, I did not feel I needed to plunge straight into the disciplined path to a doctoral dissertation. There was room for playing around with wild ideas. At the time “cognitive consistency” was a mainstream theme, with Heider’s balance theory being a popular topic. It was the sort of theory laymen quote as evidence that psychologists are conceited windbags whose highbrow theories are just restatements of obvious commonsense. However self-evident the theory might have appeared, around 1970 Jos Jaspars, whose name lives on in the “Jos Jaspars Medal”, pointed out that its validity was still problematic after more than 20 years of research. Apparently the dynamics of cognitive consistency were counteracted by other forces such as a positivity bias. Intrigued, I began to explore the broader psychological literature, eventually seeing the positivity bias as part of a complex system that also included a negativity bias, which, however, was not simply the reverse of the positivity bias.

Around this time Nuttin proposed me to attend a small group meeting organized at the University of Konstanz by future rector Rudolph Cohen. The conference topic was simply “social psychology” without further specification. I now suspect Rudolph had hoped for Nuttin’s attendance, for I found myself, a greenhorn without a PhD, amidst a select group of established EASP members, including future stars like Willem Doise, Dick Eiser, Collin Fraser, and Wolfgang Stroebe. It soon became apparent that the meeting was part of Rudolph's search for a suitable candidate for an academic position in Konstanz. One participant would publicly receive a tempting offer but declined, having recently settled at another university. Meanwhile I had the opportunity to present my paper on positive-negative asymmetry (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14792779108401856), which, to my surprise was received with enthusiasm, and eventually published in the first volume of the EJSP (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420010405).

Apparently the newborn EJSP was still struggling with teething problems, and my article was overhastily published without the correction of some serious misprints. But that couldn't spoil the benignly narcissistic pleasure of seeing one's own words in print. Actually, that was the only reward, because at that time we were not yet judged on publications and citations. Twenty years later, publications and their citation counts in the first five years after publication would become critical measures of academic success. According to this criterion, I would not have scored well—Google Scholar shows just one self-citation in the first five years. However, half a century later, Google counts more than fifty citations in the past five years alone, and the article title has become an entry in specialized dictionaries. It seems that the somewhat chaotic environment of a rejuvenating old university and a young supporting association still feeling its way provided an excellent breeding ground for new ideas.

Of course, not all new ideas are good. Again it was in a first volume -- of the European Monographs in Social Psychology -- that the EASP exposed the scientific community to another of my ideas. This one concerned the application of the covariation principle of causal attribution to verbal information processing, supported by experimental evidence. However, over 50 years later, citations are still absent, and rightly so. When later I had a student replicating the experiment, the original outcomes were confirmed, but additional experimental conditions revealed that the covariation principle did not explain them. In hindsight one might even wonder whether the overhasty publication of my manuscript on positive-negative asymmetry was not a waste of paper, as Kanouse and Hanson’s chapter on negativity in evaluation appeared short after. Although they took a different approach—starting with a negativity bias and ending with a positivity bias--the pathways in-between involved so many similarities that one article could have sufficed to convey the core message.

Although the Kanouse and Hanson chapter became be highly cited, the APA Dictionary of Psychology credits a Belgian psychologist with being the first to describe the phenomenon. Perhaps a honour paid for with misprints! The moral of the story may be that when times are ripe with them, new ideas seem to float in the air like perfumes, waiting to be recognized. However, it took until around 1990 before good-bad asymmetry became a mainstream theme. In the meantime, things were simmering in another place with high academic freedom and no publication pressure: The University of Warsaw. There, academics were given free rein as long as they avoided politics and used their brains without requiring expensive research budgets. Particularly Janusz Czapinski and Maria Lewicka made original and substantial contributions, focusing on the distinction between affective and cognitive effects of aversive stimuli and their interplay. This led to joint publications in the early 1990s, just in time to join the growing mainstream.

Former APA editor John Lanzetta once told me that in the 1950s, an editor felt morally obliged to accept any paper that was found qualitatively acceptable. But in the 1980s I witnessed firsthand how Jozef Nuttin’s study on the name letter effect was initially rejected. Again it was the EJSP that provided an outlet for disruptive content that again was neglected for years despite overwhelming evidence added by the author in collaboration with, among others, his future successor Vera Hoorens. The phenomenon only gained recognition after heavyweights such as Greenwald and Banaji showed positive interest in 1995. Today it is widely recognized as a manifestation of implicit self-esteem.

In the 1980s, the EASP launched a new series: Current Issues in European Social Psychology. Although the series was short-lived, it provided an outlet in 1983 for another new idea I consider one of my better ones. Its fate highlights another striking feature of psychological science: compartmentalization.

With Occam’s razor in mind, I had designed a tool to measure the degree to which perceived interpersonal differences corresponded to just formal differences implied by the positions of persons as nodes in an abstract relational pattern. The tool was based on a model showing that even a simple dyadic relational pattern involved a broad range of possible alternative ways to define differences. However empirical testing revealed that this broad range mainly felt into two categories, representing two mutually unrelated cognitive programs for processing relational information. One program assigns great informational value to whether or not relations are reflexive. It implies that the conceptual distinction between “selfhood” and “otherhood” holds high information value and produces a personalized animistic discourse. The other program ignores that distinction and treats persons as third-person constructs (e.g.: he, she, it, the named X). It produces a depersonalized discourse akin to the natural sciences. For instance, given that John helps someone out, the self-other program may underlie the attribution of generosity to John if “someone” is an “other” person rather than John helping himself. Ignoring the self-other distinction, the third-person program may underlie impersonal inferences about John’s access to resources appropriate for addressing the problem at hand.

Somewhat in the margin, I conducted over the next 25 years about twenty studies demonstrating the presence of these two programs in the explicit and implicit cognitive processing of information across various areas, including person perception, fairness judgments, conceptions of religion, aspects of identity, lay versus expert’s thinking, autistic thinking, causal attribution, self awareness, etc. A common finding was that the third-person program seemed much more flexible than the self-other program, allowing for great interindividual and intercultural variety. Another finding was that the human mind seems set for the more rigid self-other program, meaning that, by default, we all share a nearly identical quasi animistic world where things appear as autonomous animated beings with personalities. This peculiarity has not escaped others’ notice. For instance, in a 1969 JPSP article discussing semantic differential research, Osgood noticed that people deal with objects as with humans, as though languages have primarily evolved to enable humans to talk about humans.

Most of the abovementioned studies were submitted to peer-reviewed outlets. For the greater part they were accepted, though sometimes reluctantly and with significant length reduction. A blessing was Psychologica Belgica, the journal of the Belgian Psychological Society, freely accessible online. Submitted manuscripts were carefully peer-reviewed but the journal was lenient about untimely content and length. Between 1997 and 2007 it accepted three articles by the late Ann Hendrickx and me, where, in addition to new data, there was room for extensive theoretical elaboration and literature review. However, the scientific community seemed not interested, and even articles in more prestigious journals such as EJSP were barely cited. There was, however, one exception. The seminal chapter in the “Current Issues” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261134404_Relational_and_informational_patterns_in_social_cognition) is highly cited, and this exception is revealing about another feature of psychological science: compartmentalization.

The chapter in question reported an unanticipated finding: implicit personality theory was exclusively linked to the self-other program. Specifically, the social-evaluative dimensions of “warmth (communion)” and “competence (agency)” boiled down to: “good-bad for others (other-profitability)” and “good-bad for self (self-profitability).” Research related to implicit personality theory and evaluation was in the spotlight, and the conceptual link with the self-other distinction opened perspectives for researchers in social perception (e.g., Andrea Abele and Bogdan Wojciszke) and automatic valence-related processes (e.g., Dirk Wentura). However the finding that seemingly unrelated areas of knowledge shared a common dynamic cognitive structure failed to raise scientific interest. Amused colleagues did not fail to inform me of self-other and third-person program applications they found in newspapers and even in their children’s comic books. As scientists, however, they remained within the confines of their specialized compartments, with little regard for unification, let alone, for consideration of common denominators underlying knowledge generated in different compartments, and, in this way, facilitating the transfer of insights between compartments.

A high degree of compartmentalization may be an inherent feature of psychology. The wide and qualitatively differentiated range of phenomena addressed may necessitate the splitting of psychology into highly autonomous subareas of academic interest. However, in 2014 Lee Roy Beach argued in the American Journal of psychology that this compartmentalization, with lack of interest in general laws, it is not just a matter of academic interest but also of academic survival. In a world dominated by the “publish or perish” principle, researchers must stick to fashionable areas of research. Spending time, funds and effort in attempts to bridge gaps between areas is too risky when immediate success is required to survive. Perhaps science policy makers should try to make the search for unification fashionable, as it is in physics where huge funds are invested in attempts to bridge the gap between Einsteinian physics of the macro-world and quantum physics of the micro-world.

I witnessed firsthand the consequences of venturing beyond fashionable compartments. The finding that warmth and competence corresponded to good-bad for self and good-bad for others provided a method to reinterpret old data. In this way I could obtain warmth (other-profitability) and competence (self-profitability) values of over a hundred national stereotypes drawn from publications between 1943 and 1982. The general pattern revealed some remarkable features, and I decided to publish. Being at the time a member of the editorial team I felt uncomfortable submitting to EJSP and opted for another journal. Although I knew the manuscript was probably too long and some parts might draw criticism, it was rejected for a different reason: content of stereotypes was an outdated topic that did not deserve journal space today in 1993.

Today in 2024 I regret not submitting the manuscript to Psychologica Belgica where it would likely have been accepted subject to minor revision. However, my attention had shifted to other matters and I did not want to leave out some suggestive results that still required additional empirical support to be conclusive. Therefore I thought that distributing a mimeographed version of the manuscript, later available on the internet, would be sufficient. This decision was nearly of great disservice to a young researcher. Karen Phalet, a future professor at our university, had just obtained her PhD at the KU Leuven and was appointed at the University of Utrecht. There my paper inspired her and her colleague Edwin Poppe to conduct an impressive study on national and ethnic stereotypes in six Eastern European countries. But their manuscript was rejected for the same reason as mine. They then turned to the EJSP where it ended up with me as an acting editor who did not share the prevailing aversion to stereotype content. Despite this aversion, the manuscript became a highly cited EJSP article. And even my unpublished manuscript has been cited quite more often than most of my published papers. What had happened?

Apparently stereotype content was a perfume in the air, ignored until it was sniffed by a heavyweight able and willing to break through the prevailing barriers. The heavyweight on duty was an elegant lady: Susan Fiske. She convinced the editor of the JPSP to accept a stereotype content model based on the dimensions “warmth” and “competence” developed by her and her collaborators. The European predecessors were swept along in the wake of their success, and stereotype content became a mainstream theme.

Towards the end of my career, certain data focused my attention on the difference between assertion content and belief content, between own impressions and impressions attributed to other perceivers facing the same information. I do not know if this topic has been picked up yet. So I'll leave it as it is, because the time has come to complete the moral of the story. It is about what one could do when sniffing the perfume of a new idea. One can try to have it published, but editors overwhelmed with mainstream submissions are reluctant to sacrifice journal space for a product of uncertain immediate interest and unclear future significance. And if it is published, it risks being ignored. Sometimes, a possible solution is to relate the innovation to an existing mainstream theme, as it happened with my self-other program being related to implicit personality theory. The drawback is that the scope of the innovation risks to stay limited to that theme’s compartment.

Another solution presents itself when leading heavyweights put their shoulders to the wheel, either because they were among those who initially sniffed the perfume, as Susan Fiske and her team did, or because they appreciated it later, as Greenwald and Banaji did. But ultimately people, including scientists, do what is rewarded and avoid what is punished. The reward for disruptive contributions is primarily intrinsic: the intellectual pleasure of discovery. Sometimes that pleasure is supplemented by the satisfaction of seeing it published, and, only in the best case, by positive recognition from the scientific community.

Official science policy makers rely on an external reward structure that often focuses not on content but on secondary quantifiable metrics such as the number of publications and citations. And they get what they ask for, sometimes through predatory publishing channels that, for a fee, guarantee not only publication but, if desired, also an impressive citation count. However, I do not believe this state of affairs will continue. Perhaps it is already part of the past, and I am simply lingering in 2007, when I retired. Anyhow, the recent rapid development in information technology and artificial intelligence should open new possibilities for creative minds, not only to achieve, but also to share their achievements with the public. Rereading my text, I am struck by the constructive role the EASP has played in providing opportunities for contact and publication. I hope the association will continue on this path, taking advantage of the rich potential of possibilities offered by these new technologies.

EASP General Meeting 2026

The next General Meeting of the EASP will be held in Strasbourg, France from 30th June - 4th July 2026.

SESP is coming to Europe!

The Society of Experimental Social Psychology will hold its annual conference outside North America for the very first time.

Save the dates (October 16th - 18th, 2025) for the conference in beautiful Lisbon.

More information for EASP members, including those who are not SESP members, will follow!

Upcoming EASP Meetings

In the following links, you can read about recent and upcoming EASP-sponsored meetings.

Reports from Previous EASP Meetings

In the following links, you can read reports from previous meetings sponsored by EASP:

The role of dignity, face, and honour cultural logics in intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup processes
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1885

Identity fragility: Psychological antecedents and consequences of living in permanent crisis and political instability
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1950

Addressing challenges in intergroup contact research - a small-group meeting to develop new and innovative collaborative lines of research
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1991

Report from 2024 Summer School

Following the ongoing commitment of the EASP to diversity and inclusion and the ambassadorship project aimed at supporting underrepresented regions, the EASP Summer School was organised in Košice, Slovakia. This event marks the first time such a prestigious gathering has been hosted in the region, reflecting the dedication to fostering academic collaboration and cultural exchange.

It was organised by the Institute of Social Sciences of the Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and the Department of Psychology at the Faculty of Arts of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, in cooperation with the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, brought together 60 doctoral students from these countries worldwide.

This endeavour began as an initial effort led by Jana Papcunová as the local organiser and Yasin Koc as the academic content coordinator. Recognizing the scale of the task, we later welcomed Bibiána Kováčová Holevová to our organising team, making this a true collaboration of efforts. The project, which fostered not only professional growth but also enduring friendships, was set in motion in September 2024 following the EASP General Meeting in Krakow, facilitated by the Meetings Officer, Claudia Manzi. Her support helped transform this ambitious idea into a meaningful and successful event, reinforcing the community spirit that lies at the heart of EASP.

2025 Summer School

We are excited to welcome students to apply for the 2025 EASP summer school at the University of Kent in beautiful Canterbury, UK. This is a fantastic opportunity to engage in a vibrant community, in which you will participate in a variety of workshops, keynote lectures, and social activities—all designed to inspire collaboration and innovation.

Other Announcements

Call for papers: Special topic of Social Psychological Bulletin on the role of physical threat in social phenomena
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1925

Grants Awarded

Seedcorn Grants:

Axel Chemke-Dreyfus (University of Queensland), Denise Ruggieri (University of Bologna), Mina Movahedi (University of Graz), and Ayça Aksu (University of Groningen), “Women’s Perceptions of Men’s Reactive and Proactive Allyship”.

Kevin Winter (University of Hohenheim) and Nadine Knab (Tel Aviv University), “A paradoxical thinking approach to reduce resistance against climate policy”.

Emine Bilgen (Royal Holloway University of London), Adar Cem Lagap (Dokuz Eylül University), and Acintya Ratna Priwati (Université Paris Cité-Universitas Gadjah Mada), “Understanding Ingroup Heterogeneity and Outgroup Homogeneity through the Evaluative Information Ecology Model”.

Kathi Diel and Marcel Weber (Saarland University), “Be Better, But Stay Close: Curvilinear Emotional Effects of Social Upward and Downward Comparisons Within Romantic Relationships”.

Collaborative Grants:

Oxana Bayer (Aldred Nobel University) and Halyna Tsyhanenko (University of Basel), “Social Exclusion and Institutional Trust Among Refugee and IDP Ukrainians".

Grant Reports

In the following links, you can read reports from previous grants awarded by EASP:

Collaborative Grant
Attitudes on vaccine against COVID-19 and trust in authorities: the role of the quest for personal significance, need for cognitive closure, and conspiracy beliefs
Ankica Kosic
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1891

Seedcorn Grant
Choosing the blue pill: Examining the psychosocial determinants of support for a technocracy of artificial intelligence
Eva Moreno-Bella and Marcos Dono
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1903

Pre-registered Research Grant
Socioeconomic status self-deception as a way to perpetuate classist societies
Davide Melita
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1928

Pre-registered Research Grant
It is not only whether I approach but also why I approach: A registered report on the role of action framing in approach/avoidance training effects
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1956

Seedcorn Grant
Complex identities for a greener future: The effect of social identity complexity on pro-environmental behaviour
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1973

Seedcorn Grant
Explaining the effects of social identity complexity on majority members' acculturation preferences
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1992

New Members of the Association

We are delighted that our membership continues to grow. Here is a list of new members who we warmly welcome to our association! The names of referees appear below each new member's name.

Postgraduate

Maria Nefeli Dimopoulou (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens)
Vassilis Pavlopoulos, Katerina Petkanopoulou

Elena Mikhina (Comenius University in Bratislava)
Xenia Daniela Poslon, Barbara Lášticová

Sara Rodríguez Fregenal (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia)
Ángel Gómez, Alexandra Vázquez

Gaëlle Leman (Université Catholique de Louvain)
Annalisa Casini, Vincent Yzerbyt

Full

Jakub Šrol (Slovak Academy of Sciences)
Barbara Lášticová, Vladimíra Čavojová

Magdalena Zawisza (Anglia Ruskin University)
Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka, Maria Olsson

Executive Committee

Secretary, Grants & Membership Officer
Karen Douglas
University of Kent, United Kingdom
k.douglas@kent.ac.uk

Meetings Officer
Claudia Manzi
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy
claudia.manzi@unicatt.it

Journals Officer
Roland Imhoff
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
roimhoff@uni-mainz.de

Treasurer
Nina Hansen
University of Groningen, The Netherlands
n.hansen@rug.nl

Diversity Officer
Gülseli Baysu
Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom
G.Baysu@qub.ac.uk

Grants & Membership Officer
Alexandra Vázquez Botana
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain
alx.vazquez@psi.uned.es