15 - 17 May 2024, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Vincent Yzerbyt, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium
Marco Brambilla, University of Milano Bicocca, Italy
Alex Koch, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, USA
Naomi Ellemers, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

More than half a century of research in psychology reveals that the same two dimensions, the so-called Big Two, underlie most judgments of the self, other people, groups, and even cultures. Although definitions vary, the first, horizontal, dimension refers to sociability and morality while the second, vertical, dimension denotes characteristics such as ability and assertiveness. Clearly, various strands of work both in social psychology (social comparison, stereotypes, self-concept, social neuropsychology, etc.) and in neighboring fields such as personality psychology, organizational psychology, decision-making, anthropology, sociology, and even linguistics are increasingly turning their attention to the antecedents, processes, and consequences associated with these dimensions. A recent adversarial collaboration (see Abele et al., 2021) identified a series of key controversies and important challenges for future work while emphasizing the role of two facets underlying each dimension. In addition, several independent efforts opened fascinating new research avenues. A small group meeting stimulating multi-lab collaboration and research as well as theoretical debate and integration about this important topic was thus both timely and needed.

The small group meeting took place in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, home to the main campus of the Catholic University of Louvain, the largest French-speaking university of Belgium. The meeting brought together a total of 42 junior and senior participants, of whom 20 EASP full members, 8 EASP postgraduate members and 14 non-members. The program included no less than 21 formal presentations. Next to the scientific program, the group also joined together for two official dinners. The facilities were nothing short of excellent, with a very comfortable and high-level hotel located right on campus. The three days of the meeting provided a unique setting for a very intense set of discussions and a great many opportunities to exchange views and research orientations about social evaluation models in general and the facet approach of the Big Two in particular. One of the most exciting outcomes of such an event is to learn that several researchers who did not work together before they met during the meeting decided to initiate collaborations. The organizers also took the opportunity to meet one additional day to deepen their collaboration and plan new research.

Because we think that there is nothing more telling than what participants say themselves, we collected their impressions at the end of the meeting. Next to notes of gratitude for the organizers, the messages read as follows: “My main takeaway was that the field is thriving: it's more integrated, more vibrant, and more methodologically diverse and innovative than ever.”; “This meeting upgraded my understanding of the theoretical background and multifarious methodological approaches employed in this area which will enrich and refine my work moving forward.”; “My main take-away was that collaboration and mutual respect, even in the context of different theoretical perspectives, can really make a difference and allow a development of knowledge that is not narcissistic but at the service of society.”; “I learned a lot about different work happening in the area, which was useful. But the main thing I got was that during the talks I had some ideas for further research I would like to do.”; “Receiving input on the various models and methodologies currently proliferating in the literature has been relevant for me. It has allowed me to stay updated on the latest developments and identify numerous points of contact that could facilitate our collaboration in advancing theoretical work.”; “My main conclusion was that regardless of the labels we are using, we are talking about similar constructs, ways of evaluating people and evaluating oneself. That it is important to examine the different traits to see what we are studying, but that collaboration between theoretical models is essential to unravel how people see the world and their social reality.”

The attached picture shows almost all participants. Special thanks for the local organizing team led by Julien Barbedor and comprising Marine Rougier, Antoine Vanbeneden, Pascaline Van Oost, Fatma Chaabouni and Martin Rouard. Obviously, we thank the EC for the support and for allowing us to organize the meeting under the auspices of the EASP.