European Bulletin of Social Psychology 37,1 (April 2025)

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

We are also very happy to welcome a large group of new EASP members to our community.

In this edition of the Bulletin, you will also find an update on the 2026 General Meeting in Strasbourg, and on the 2025 Summer School soon to be held at the University of Kent.

In a special section of the Bulletin, two of our members - Manuela Barreto and Rupert Brown - have written pieces on science and activism.

We are also happy to share our recent diversity report, which provides an overview of regional and gender diversity amongst applicants to our grants and meeting funding schemes.

President's Corner

Dear EASP members, colleagues and friends,

I am writing this president corner a couple of weeks after the spring meeting of the Executive Committee, which took place in Strasbourg. After visiting this beautiful city, including the Palais des Congrès, where EASP’s 2026 General Meeting will be held, and the university’s gardens, where we will have the GM’s opening reception, we became even more confident that it is going to be a great GM. I would like to thank Odile Rohmer (University of Strasbourg), Bruno Chauvin (University of Strasbourg), Maja Becker (University of Toulouse), and Vincent Yzerbyt (UCLouvain), for hosting us so nicely.

One of the issues discussed in our EC meeting is our concern over the recent attempts in the U.S. to restrict academic freedom and research on topics that are at the very heart of our discipline, such as gender, sexuality and diversity. On behalf of the EC, I wish to express our solidarity with our American colleagues.

Of direct relevance to the issue of science and politics, I invite you to read the texts written by two of the panellists in the online panel on the role of scientific societies in addressing social issues, which was held in November 2024. Manuela Barreto argues that “truth” does not exist, whereas Rupert Brown provides a rebuttal to this claim. Other EASP members are also invited to write short opinion texts, like the ones written by Manuela and Rupert, about topics that are of interest to our community - to be published in our next bulletin(s).

As part of our wish to preserve and honor the legacy of EASP, I had the pleasure of interviewing Charlan Nemeth, a Professor of the Graduate School at UC Berkeley who has been a member of the association for over 50(!) years. In this interview, Charlan shares that as an undergraduate she majored in math, but the one course she took in social psychology changed her life. Following this course, Charlan decided to pursue a career as a social psychologist, due to her belief in the potential of our discipline to contribute to understanding complex social issues – such as minority influence, a topic in which Moscovici and Nemeth’s work has become seminal. While Charlan enjoyed decades of recognition from the research community, she transitioned to addressing the public at large with a book published in 2018. The vast interest in the book, titled “In defense of troublemakers: The power of dissent in life and business”, strengthened Charlan’s confidence that the insights gained through rigorous and comprehensive social psychological research can be highly valuable. Her message is that we should be humble yet confident in what our discipline has to offer to society.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of EASP’s Ethics Committee: Naomi Ellemers (Utrecht University, the chair of the committee), Barbara Krahé (University of Potsdam), Silvia Galdi (University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli), Michal Bilewicz (University of Warsaw), Francesca Guizzo (University of Padova), and Agneta Fischer (University of Amsterdam, EASP’s Ethics Officer). The committee was established in the GM in Krakow, with the goal of reconsidering current EASP guidelines and procedures for dealing with issues relating to research ethics and professional interpersonal conduct and proposing revisions and extensions where needed. As part of its work, the committee consulted relevant guidelines of other associations in Europe and the US and discussed hypothetical cases and potential outcomes based on its members’ collective experience and research expertise. The committee’s recommendations are currently discussed and finalized; for now, I would like to express the EC’s gratitude for the serious and comprehensive work.

Finally, I am glad to update that as part of the need to adhere with current Dutch regulations, and thanks to the efforts of our Treasurer, Nina Hansen, EASP finally has an official address - located at the University of Groningen.

With wishes for a lovely spring,

Nurit Shnabel

We have moved to LinkedIn!

EASP General Meeting 2026

Preparations for the General Meeting in the beautiful Strasbourg, which will take place from 1–4 July 2026 (with preconferences on 30 June), are well underway. The event is currently a work in progress, with the local organizing committee, coordinated by ADRIPS, working with great dedication and energy to make it a memorable meeting.

In March, the Executive Committee (EC) visited Strasbourg together with the organizing team to tour the stunning venue: the Palais des Congrès, where the conference will be held. This visit allowed us to define the layout and use of spaces for the different sessions and activities.

A special thank you goes to Konstantinos Kafetsios, head of the Scientific Committee, who has already selected the team that will support him in managing the scientific content of the conference. We’re also grateful to everyone who responded to our call to join the committee, and to the colleagues who accepted to be part of the team—thank you for your commitment!

The call for preconferences will be launched before the summer break, while the main conference call is expected to open in early September.

We encourage you to start thinking about how you would like to contribute to this exciting event, where we will once again have the opportunity to come together as a community!

2025 Summer School

The 2025 edition will be held in Canterbury at the University of Kent in the UK, and is organized by Jim A.C. Everett with the participation of 13 workstream leaders, 10 guest teachers, and 2 keynote speakers across 6 thematic workshops. All students will benefit from an overarching series on “Methods, Mentorship, and Meta-Science”, as well as taking part in one of the six workstreams covering Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation; Moral Psychology and Artificial Intelligence; Human-Animal Relations; Political Cognition; Close Relationships; and Social Identity, Uncertainty, Extremism, and Change. The organisers received 178 applicants, and were able to offer places to 70 students coming from 21 different countries. Further details on the summer school can be found here: https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/easp2025/

Jim A.C. Everett said the following:

“We are incredibly honoured to be hosting the 2025 EASP Summer School at the University of Kent. Ours is a School of Psychology originally founded as a Centre for Social Psychology and we are delighted to be bringing that back to the fore by hosting this event. With six workstreams and 70 PhD students, we are poised to be the largest EASP Summer School in recent history and are excited to welcome our students to the beautiful city of Canterbury. We were taken aback by how many excellent applicants there were, and it was a real struggle to make the decisions from so many excellent students from all around the world. I am so excited to welcome all these students to Kent, learn about their own research, and work together to showcase the crucial importance of social psychology as a tool for good in a changing world.”

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:

Science and Activism

Last November the EASP organized a round table on social scientists’ involvement in social issues. I was one of the social psychologists invited to this table and would like to outline here some of the key points I made for those who might be interested, or open to thinking in a different way.

We were asked several questions, but the gist of the discussion was around whether social scientists can or even should be involved in social issues, be it by stating their views on these, or even as participants or activists. I am not one for saying what other people should do, but I can certainly say what I believe and am committed to.
For a start, we need to acknowledge that there is no one way to do science and we should resist the imposition of that idea. There are different epistemological or philosophical models of science, several of which are totally legitimate, in their ways, and within their boundaries. My own view of science, in general, and social science in particular, is that it is never neutral. The assumed neutrality of scientists is a fallacy and one that serves certain constituencies very well, usually the dominant and powerful ones. Psychologists are often stuck to this idea of neutrality or objectivity because they needed it in the past to assert their place as a discipline. But we are no longer there and we can now do more justice to the issues we study. We all come from somewhere when examining the issues we examine and this gives us a position. This is most often pointed out when a researcher belongs to a minority group—an autistic researcher should not be researching autism, they say, cannot possibly be objective—or when they state a position that highlights oppression—a feminist should not teach or research gender issues. But really, is the alternative neutral? should autism only be researched by neurotypical individuals? Should gender only be mentioned by those who have no beliefs around gender equality? (or does this, perhaps, betray ignorance?) The bottom line is that we all stand somewhere in relation to the group or issue we examine, no one stands nowhere. And the same happens when we think about other social issues, such as when a country invades another, or when countries are at war. So my preference is to acknowledge my standing and then work with it—to reflect on how it might influence my research, rather than to pretend there is none, and let it leak in hidden or disguised ways.

Some are of the opinion that our role as social scientists is to uncover “the truth.” I find this worrying. The idea there is one truth is easier to believe in from a position of privilege, when one’s own group is the one who tends to dominate discourse. It is so easy to think that dominant discourses are the truth, but as social scientists we should be aware of cultural hegemony and the different truths that are as deeply believed in as one’s own. What truth will we privilege? Whose truth? Social psychologists do a lot of different things, to be sure, so this might apply differently if you are trying to figure out whether people ascribe power to different objects than if you are examining intergroup relations where both parties describe themselves as victims. There is no one truth in these cases, everyone has their own. Our role is to understand how people construct these truths and help point out the ways in which sometimes these are manipulated. If we believe there is one truth to uncover, which truth are we going to end up with? Who are we going to oppress in the process?

Do not get me wrong, I still think that we should seek rigour, transparency, and high ethical standards, but I also think that doing so is incompatible with the belief that there is only one truth. In fact, one of the reasons why I value research transparency is precisely to allow readers to contextualise and question findings from their own (e.g., cultural) standpoints. Scientific rigour and ethics are not about pretending neutrality, and high-quality research includes a much wider range of methods than those that aim to be neutral.

There was a concern as well about our credibility as scientists if we are seen to have ‘positions.’ Instead, I wonder how credible it is that someone would not have a position about some of these issues. Importantly, my own experience engaging and working with non-academics is that they are not bothered by that. More than us scientists, they understand about standpoints and might precisely want to know where we stand before they engage to avoid the risk of working with someone who might be outed in problematic ways. But they also believe we have a lot to give despite—or perhaps even because—of those positions.

And this leads me to involvement in social issues. Yes, I do believe I am a better social scientist (not to mention potentially a better person) if I am involved in the social issues I study, in some way, and to different degrees. Some might have heard of ‘social responsible science,’ science that responds to society’s challenges and contributes to addressing them. Some might think that psychologists cannot be but socially responsible as our mission is to understand and care for those who suffer. To achieve this you need to balance rigour and objectivity, with engagement and socially meaningful choices. You do not (legitimately) get to understand sexual violence merely by reading about it, you need to speak to those who have experienced it, listen to their stories, and perhaps also to those of others around them, or on whose support they (should be able to) rely. What truth am I missing by doing this? or am I, instead, gaining epistemic authority this way? And if you do so and do not want to use your research to document oppression and its effects, to research ways of supporting victims, or of reducing perpetration, then of what use are we as social scientists? Is the social science endeavour just a game?

And this takes me to the elephant in the room, which is whether social science societies should issue statements or do anything else about ongoing social issues. As former committee member at the EASP, I know only too well how hard it is to make everyone happy, to represent the members rather than our own personal positions. But I also think that not saying or doing anything is very much doing something. In fact, the choice we have is not whether we say or do something, the choice we have is what we communicate, because by doing nothing we are saying something already. What to say or do, however, depends on the issue itself. There are issues that we need to be inflexible about—no social scientific society should condone genocide, genital mutilation, or so-called honour killings. But of course we might have diverse opinions about what motivates a specific conflict, or what would be effective in improving attitudes. I strongly believe that hiding behind the idea of neutrality, or the idea that members do not agree on a particular issue, to let ourselves off the hook is not appropriate. EASP should not be a paperwork or bureaucratic society—one who purely serves to channel money from fees into grants and other events. We think about these issues the wholetime, we study them, we have the evidence, or the means to collect it. At the very least we can make broad statements about the value of human life and the importance of human rights, then ring fence funding and sessions in conferences or summer schools for activities that promote dialogue amongst academics about existing and required evidence, and facilitate reaching out to charities and policy makers to see what evidence is needed and understand better the problems we research. As a society that includes such a lot of experts on so many important social issues, I think EASP has a responsibility to signal to the world that is has the tools to engage and contribute, and at the very least invite members to propose activities. But I also think that members need to be (pro)active about this and not simply expect committee members to do it by themselves. This round table was a (baby) step, but I am sharing these thoughts precisely to encourage other members who might think like me (I know you are there--thank you for your emails!) to come up with concrete ideas and galvanize the community to do what motivated so many of us to be social scientists in the first place.

Like Manuela Baretto, I was invited to participate in EASP’s round table on social psychology and social issues. Here I respond to some points that Manuela raised in that discussion and subsequently in her piece for the Bulletin.

I find much to agree with in Manuela’s position. Along with her, I believe in epistemological and methodological pluralism; there are several valid ways of thinking about and doing social psychology. I also strongly agree that social psychologists should study important – and sometimes controversial – issues. Like many of my generation, I was much affected by the “crisis in social psychology” in the 1960s and 1970s. One aspect of that crisis was a rejection of the so-called “fun and games” research which seemed to pervade much mainstream (and especially North American) social psychology at the time in favour of a discipline that concerned itself with socially significant issues (Brown, 2022).

However, as emerged during our discussion and, even more clearly, in her short essay, I find myself at odds with Manuela on two matters: whether the pursuit of “truth” in our research is either feasible or desirable; and the wisdom (or otherwise) of scientific societies like EASP taking a public position on contemporary social issues.

Manuela finds it worrying if social scientists seek to uncover “the truth” because, she argues, “there is no one truth……everyone has their own”. Here I part company from her. First, while I can easily agree that it is impossible ever to discover the ultimate truth about whatever phenomena we study – all research conclusions are only ever approximations – it is quite another matter to assert that there are multiple truths, each as valid as the other. I believe this is to confuse people’s lived experiences which are, of course, always going to depend on their social position, group memberships and any number of other factors, with scientifically demonstrable associations between variables. Whether there is (or is not) a relationship between people’s membership of a stigmatised group and their health and well-being, to reference some of Manuela’s own important research, is a matter that we can come close to ascertaining using the scientific tools at our disposal; it does not – or should not - depend on our social position or any of the groups we may identify with or belong to.

Actually, Manuela seems to believe this too since she urges us to “seek rigour, transparency and high ethical standards” in our research. Why should we bother to do this if there is not some scientific value in making our research as objectively valid as possible? Otherwise, it seems to me, we are in the uncomfortable territory of Kellyanne Conway, one of Mr Trump’s spokespeople, asserting that there are “alternative facts” when she sought to dispute journalists’ estimates of the number of people attending the 2017 presidential inauguration.

I also have concerns over Manuela’s advocacy of scientific associations (like EASP) issuing position statements on political issues of the day. I completely agree with her that EASP should not be merely a bureaucratic entity. But this does not, in my view, mean that it should become a platform for making political statements. EASP has a proud history of training postgraduate and early career social psychologists and facilitating research endeavours on many topics, including social conflict, genocide and so on. But the goal of those activities has not been - and, in my view, should not be - political in nature. Rather, it is to support colleagues in their efforts to document and illuminate the causes and likely effects of the phenomena under study. This way, their findings are likely to have more credibility – and hence more utility – for the (progressive) political and activist groups whose goals we might, as private citizens, choose to support. As we know from much research on social influence and persuasion, when the source of information and argument is too obviously identifiable as partisan, it is much less likely to change the hearts and minds of its target audience.

Brown, R. (2022) My career in social psychology; More than fun and games. In, S. Kassin (Ed) Pillars of Social Psychology: Stories and Retrospectives (pp 341-349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diversity Report

This report provides an overview of regional and gender diversity among applicants to our grant and meeting funding schemes during the 2023–2024 period. It summarizes application and success rates across different regions and examines the gender distribution of applicants.

Grant applications: In 2023-2024, we processed a total of 33 grant applications across three rounds. The majority were for Seedcorn Grants, with 16 funded. Additionally, one Knowledge Exchange Grant and one Collaborative Grant were funded, as well as all three Pre-registered Research Grants.* The overall success rate was 64%

● Western European countries accounted for 25 applications, of which 14 were accepted (56% success rate within the region).
● Southern European countries submitted 4 applications, of which 3 were accepted (75% success rate within the region).
● Eastern European countries contributed 3 applications, all three of which were accepted (100% success rate within the region).
● Other regions (Australia) accounted for 1 application, which was successfully accepted (100% success rate within region).
● There were no applications from Northern European countries

● Those from Western European countries submitted 17 applications, of which 9 are accepted (53% success rate within the region).
● Those from Southern European countries accounted for 7 applications, of which 6 were accepted (86% success rate within the region).
● Those from Eastern European countries submitted 4 applications, 3 of which one was accepted (with 75% success rate within the region).
● Those from Northern European countries submitted 2 applications, with 0 accepted
● Those from other regions (Australia, the United States, and India) submitted 3 applications, all of which were accepted (with a 100% success rate within region)

Funded Meetings: We received 17 applications across the 2023 (2nd round) and 2024 (1st and 2nd rounds), of which 12 were accepted, resulting in a 71% success rate. The majority of applications were for EASP Small Group Meetings (11 were funded), with only 3 submitted for the SPSSI-EASP Meeting (1 was funded). Please note that these numbers exclude the Summer Schools and GM.

● Western European countries accounted for 12 applications, of which 8 were accepted (67% success rate within the region).
● Southern European countries accounted for 3 applications, 2 of which were accepted (67%)
● Eastern European countries accounted for 1 application, which was accepted (100%)
● Northern European countries accounted for 1 application, which was accepted (100%)

In terms of countries, the applications we receive are quite diverse, highlighting the broad and inclusive reach of our program. When looking at the regional distribution—however crude these categories may be—we receive significantly more applications from Western European countries. This aligns with the membership base of EASP, which has a higher concentration of members from Western Europe. Interestingly, the success rates for applicants from Southern, Eastern European, and other countries are higher than those from Western Europe, though it’s important to note the relatively small number of applications from these regions. This pattern underscores the importance of regularly monitoring diversity indicators. Maintaining consistent records will allow us to track trends over time and ensure that our program continues to attract and support a globally diverse community of scholars, while promoting excellence in research.

During the same period, we also analysed gender distribution. For grants, 22 applications were submitted by females, with 14 funded (64%), and 11 applications were submitted by males, with 7 funded (64%). For funded meetings, 11 applications were submitted by females, of which 8 were funded (73%), and 6 applications were submitted by males, of which 4 were funded (67%). Overall, the success rates were similar between males and females, though there were substantially more applications and thus more award winners by females.

*This grant is no longer offered since pre-registration has become the standard practice
**We acknowledge that the regions used here are a broad approximation and only a crude measure of diversity. They are included solely for ease of interpretation. The countries for each region, based on the applications, are as follows: Western Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, UK; Southern Europe: Greece, Italy, Turkey; Northern Europe: Denmark, Sweden; Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine; Other: Australia, Canada, India, US

Other Announcements

Call for Submissions of Book Proposals - European Studies in Social Psychology

The European Studies (formerly European Monographs) series is a major, internationally renowned forum for research developments in European social psychology. Interested scholars are invited to read about this series, edited by Stefano Pagliaro and Manuela Barreto, here, and submit their proposals. The series editors are open to edited and single authored books on a wide range of topics, but particularly keen to support books covering work on timely and less well represented topics or approaches. Two volumes are currently in production, one co-edited by Fabio Fasoli and Andrea Carnaghi, currently titled “Exploring Identity, Diversity and Stigma in LGBTQ+ Lives: Social Psychological Perspectives”, and the other single authored by Laura Smith, currently titled “The Social Psychology of Online Mobilization: Collective Action and Intergroup Behaviour.” Other volumes are currently under discussion. There is no limit on how many can be in production at the same time. We very much look forward to supporting you on developing a book proposal. Any questions, please feel free to contact us at s.pagliaro@unich.it or m.barreto@exeter.ac.uk.

Junior scholars – you are kindly invited to contact Wendy, the Executive Officer, or any of the EC members, and ask us to act as a broker in arranging a colloquium invitation to the lab of a researcher you always wanted to get feedback from. It is sort of a picking your dream audience. PhD students, Postdocs and junior untenured staff are welcome to read more about this opportunity here: https://www.easp.eu/events/meet-ups/? and reach out to us.

Grants Awarded

Seedcorn Grants:

Maria Mirucka (University of Warsaw), Francesca Di Napoli (University of Milano-Bicocca), Ahmed Faruk Sağlamöz (Durham University) and Giovanni Telesca (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia), “Public Attitudes Towards Activists: The Cases of Farmers and Environmental Activists”.

Ashay Ashish Deshpande (University of Groningen), Agnieszka Kuhny (Jagiellonian University), Céline Castellino (University of Geneva and University of Lausanne), Noa Cohen-Eick (University of Groningen and Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Patricia Ciordas (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University), “Fortune favors the brave: The role of group moral courage in sustaining collective action”.

Beatriz Alba (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia), Francesca Valeria Frisari (Sapienza Università di Roma), and Ayushi Jolly (Jawaharlal Nehru University), “From Discrepancy to Mobilization: How Positional Misalignment Drives Collective Action”.

Marylisa Alemi (Royal Holloway, University of London), Lisa Luis (Università degli Studi di Trieste), and Sofía Moreno Gata (Universidad de La Laguna), “Do you want to date a veg*an man? The role of Precarious Manhood Beliefs”.

Patrick Kotzur (Durham University), Fran Cavanagh (Durham University), and Mark Rubin (Durham University), “Testing the effect of right-wing populism and simulated intergroup and intragroup contact on attitudes towards immigrants”.

Matilde Tumino (Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna), “E-Contact and Ideological Asymmetries: Can Online Interactions Reduce Prejudice?”.

Chiara Pecini (University of Genoa), “Objects Do Not Feel: Exploring the Link Between Self-Objectification and Alexithymia”.

Collaborative Grants:

Francesca Prati (University of Bologna), Ana Urbiola (University of Granada), Xenia Poslon (Slovak Academy of Science), and Jasper Van Assche ((Université Libre de Bruxelles), “Unpacking the relation between multiculturalism and support for collective action among different minorities and the majority group”.

Tijana Karić (Philipps University Marburg), Iris Žeželj (University of Belgrade), and Edward Clarke (Philipps University Marburg), “Transformative effects of prefigurative politics in the context of the anti-corruption protests in Serbia”.

SISPP 2025

Five postgraduate members of our association have been selected to attend the Summer Institute for Social and Personality Psychology (SISPP), which will be held this July at Northwestern University.

• Laura Blanco (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia)
• Éva Gáti (Eötvös Loránd University)
• Ann-Christin Schroder (University of Technology Chemnitz)
• Yuchao Wang (KU Leuven)
• Tony Holman (KU Leuven)

Grant Reports

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

Seedcorn Grant
Acknowledgement of Ingroup Crimes and Outgroup Suffering Affects Intergroup Reconciliation and Behavioral Intentions: The Role of Moral Emotions
Mirjana Rupar
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=2007

Seedcorn Grant
Stereotypes, Emotions and Social Categorization Based on Voices and Faces
Matteo Masi, Fabio Fasoli, and Marco Brambilla
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=2028

Pre-registered Grant
Moral Disagreements: Unearthing Pathways to Constructive and Destructive Behavioural Responses
Bhakti Khati, Maja Kutlaca, Jonathon McPhetres and Stefania Paolini
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=2023

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 Membership

Lea Lorenz (University of Kaiserslautern-Landau)
Franziska Ehrke, Melanie Steffens

Dearbhla Moroney (University of Limerick)
Aisling O’Donnell, Ann-Christin Posten

Larissa Damp (University of Kaiserslautern and Landau)
Selma Rudert, Rainer Greifeneder

Sophie Katharina Doege (Paris Lodron University Salzburg)
Jochim Hansen, Janine Stollberg

Liora Morhayim (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
Lusine Grigoryan, Nevin Solak

Teresa Schenk (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
Mario Gollwitzer, Mathias Twardawski

Martin Rouard (UCLouvain - Université Catholique de Louvain)
Stephanie Demoulin, Karl-Andrew Woltin

Sofia Eriksen (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology)
Cátia Pinto Teixeira, Katharina Addington-Lefringhausen

Khatijatusshalihah (The Australian National University)
Michelle K. Ryan, Tegan Cruwys

Sofía Ardaya Velarde (Université Libre de Bruxelles)
Laurent Licata, Olivier Klein

Anne Charlotte Forstmann (Technische Universität Braunschweig)
Mario Gollwitzer, Mathias Twardawski

Julia Katharina Schäfer (University of Zurich)
Veronika Brandstätter, Johannes Ullrich

Marlene Voit (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
Mario Gollwitzer, Mathias Twardawski

Claire-Thaïs Fantin (Catholic University of Louvain)
Karl-Andrew Woltin, Cátia Teixeira

Asrin Yenihayat (Catholic University of Milan)
Mete Sefa Uysal, Yasemin Gülsüm Acar

Patrick Rothermund (Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg)
Roland Deutsch, Anand Krishna

Monika Gołąb (Jagiellonian University)
Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Małgorzata Kossowska

Christiana Nika (Jagiellonian University)
Małgorzata Kossowska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos

Mats Böttrich (University of Granada)
Rosa Rodríguez Bailón, Jesús L. Megías

Hanna Aly Ibrahim Eldarwish (University of Sussex)
Vlad Costin, Vivian L Vignoles

Madhulika Shastry (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Richard E. Petty, Jim Everett

Antonio Daniel Martín Ruiz (University of Granada)
Jim Everett, Kathryn Francis

Silvestre Ariza Ríos (University of Granada)
Rosa Rodriguez-Bailón, Miguel Moya

Rinschke Johanna (Jorien) de Keijzer (University of Groningen)
Namkje Koudenburg, Russell Spears

Luis Mundi López (University of Granada)
Guillermo B. Willis, Rosa Rodríguez Bailón

Alba M. Oviedo Castillejo Gutiérrez (University of Granada)
Jesús López Megías, Rosa Rodríguez Bailón

Philipp Agostini (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
Mario Gollwitzer, Fabio Fasoli

Carlos García-Díaz (University of Granada)
Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, Jesús L. Megías

Zuzanna Farny (University of Silesia in Katowice)
Bertram Gawronski, Katarzyna Cantarero

Charlotte Elisabeth Vaassen (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Namkje Koudenburg, Bianca Beersma

Maciej Siemiątkowski (University of Warsaw)
Michał Bilewicz, Theofilos Gkinopoulos

Yagmur Ekin Demirtas (Eötvös Loránd University)
Monika Kovács, Nóra Anna Lantos

Muhammed Refik Tekeli (Middle East Technical University)
Nevin Solak, Reşit Kışlıoğlu

Sunniva Davies-Rommetveit (University of St Andrews)
Nicole Tausch, Anna Stefaniak

Özgün Özakay (Middle East Technical University)
Reşit Kışlıoğlu, Nevin Solak

Eva-Madeleine Schmidt (Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Technical University Berlin)
Jim Everett, Kathryn Francis

Annalena Schroeder (University of Applied Sciences Jena & University of
Kaiserslautern-Landau)
Nicole Harth, Sarah Martiny

Aysenur Didem Yilmaz (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia)
Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi

Serena Celeste Romanelli (University of Southampton)
Paul Conway, Pascal Burgmer

Theresa Zagers (ISCTE-University Institute Lisbon & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
Karen Phalet, Sven Waldzus

Chaewon Yun (Max Planck Institute for Human Development)
Kathryn Francis, Jim Everett

Ruşen Ali Sayat (Middle East Technical University)
Reşit Kışlıoğlu, Nevin Solak

Rhia Perks (University of Southampton)
Constantine Sedikides, Nicholas J. Kelley

Jolanda Bababebole (UiT The Arctic University of Norway)
Sarah E. Martiny, Maria Ingrid Teresa Olsson

Mari Bergsjordet (UiT The Arctic University of Norway)
Maria Ingrid Teresa Olsson, Sarah E. Martiny

Pierre-Yves Carpentier (Université Côte d'Azur)
Jennifer Bastart, Labarre Helene

Karolina Bonarska (Jagiellonian University)
Małgorzata Kossowska, Ewa Szumowska

Ömer Ergün (Utrecht University)
Naomi Ellemers, Félice van Nunspeet

Janique Schep (Utrecht University)
Borja Martinović, Tobias Stark

Benedikt Erich Kratzer (Goethe University Frankfurt)
Alexander Haslam, Rolf van Dick

Carla Grosche (Friedrich Schiller University of Jena)
Tobias Rothmund, Eva Walther

Yunus Emre Muslumogullari (University of Verona)
Marco Salvati, Elena Trifiletti

Anne Vogel (Philipps-Universität Marburg)
Mete Sefa Uysal, Yasemin Gülsüm Acar

Yağmur Güleç (University of Wuppertal)
Lusine Grigoryan, Vassilis Pavlopoulos

Jennifer Hochstein (FernUniversität in Hagen)
Laura Froehlich, Maria-Therese Friehs

Chiara Silvestri (University of Trento)
Maria Paola Paladino, Maria Giuseppina Pacilli

Attilio Di Crescenzo (University of Chieti – Pescara)
Stefano Pagliaro, Theofilos Gkinopoulos

Stéphane Gaillard (Université Clermont-Auvergne)
Alice Normand, Jean-Claude Croizet

Ranran Li (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security, and Law)
Janis Zickfeld, Daniel Balliet

Arthur Dejean de la Bâtie (Université Paris Cité)
Virginie Bonnot, Cristina Aelenei

Verena Heidrich (Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz)
Roland Imhoff, Felicitas Flade

Juan Arroyave (Nottingham Trent University)
Juliet Wakefield, Alexandra Vázquez Botana

Abhishek Kumar (Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay)
Alexandra Vázquez Botana, Karen Douglas

Rukiye Uyanik Bakir (Mersin University)
Hüseyin Çakal, Alexandra Vázquez Botana

Beyzanur Arican Dinc (University of California)
Alexandra Vázquez Botana, Karen Douglas

Joshua Wenger (The Pennsylvania State University)
Lasana Harris, Alexandra Vázquez Botana

Julia Oberschulte (New York University)
Peter M. Gollwitzer, Alexandra Vázquez Botana

Lalou Rostrup Holdt (University of Copenhagen)
Alexandra Vázquez Botana, Karen Douglas

Antonella Giordano Furchi (Torcuato di Tella University)
Alexandra Vázquez Botana, Karen Douglas

Lou Dörr (RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau)
Melanie Steffens, Claudia Niedlich

Full Membership

Davide Melita (Jagiellonian University)
Guillermo B. Willis, Małgorzata Kossowska

Karolina Dyduch-Hazar (Julius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg)
Mario Gollwitzer, Anand Krishna

Iryna Hubeladze (Institute for Social and Political Psychology at the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine)
Beate Seibt, Halyna Tsyhanenko

Laura Villanueva Moya (University of Jaén)
Francisca Expósito, María del Carmen Herrera

Raluca Diana Szekely-Copîndean (Romanian Academy; Babeș-Bolyai University)
Konrad Bocian, Paul Conway

María Dolores Sánchez Hernández (University of Granada)
Francisca Expósito, María del Carmen Herrera

Pascaline Van Oost (Université catholique de Louvain)
Marine Rougier, Vincent Yzerbyt

Johannes Klackl (Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg)
Janine Stollberg, Eva Jonas

Hirotaka Imada (Royal Holloway, University of London)
Michał Bilewicz, Fanny Lalot

Andrea Correa Chica (University of Santiago de Compostela)
Martijn van Zomeren, Magdalena Bobowik

Silvana D'Ottone (Royal Holloway University of London)
Giovanni Travaglino, Mario Sainz

Matilde Tassinari (University of Helsinki)
Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Katarina Pettersson

Alessia Valmori (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart)
Luciana Carraro, Claudia Manzi

Petr Houdek (Prague University of Economics and Business)
Katarzyna Cantarero, Janis Zickfeld

Zeynep Ecem Piyale (Istanbul Bilgi University)
Sabahat Çiğdem Bağcı, Zafer Özkan

Zoe Rahwan (Max Planck Institute for Human Development)
Dorothee Mischkowski, Janis Zickfeld

Irmak Olcaysoy Okten (Florida State University)
Leonel Garcia-Marques, Peter Gollwitzer

Katherine Starzyk (University of Manitoba)
Martijn van Zomeren, Johanna Ray Vollhardt

Juan Carlos Marulanda Hernández (Universität Bremen)
Nadira Faber, Carsten De Dreu

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