Social evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing theories and evidence. Five models engage in adversarial collaboration, to identify common conceptual ground, ongoing controversies, and continuing agendas: Dual Perspective Model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007); Behavioral Regulation Model (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007); Dimensional Compensation Model (Yzerbyt et al., 2005); Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002); and Agency-Beliefs-Communion Model (Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016). Each has distinctive focus, theoretical roots, premises, and evidence. Controversies dispute dimensions: number, organization, definition, and labeling; their relative priority; and their relationship. Our first integration suggests 2 fundamental dimensions: Vertical (agency, competence, "getting ahead") and Horizontal (communion, warmth, "getting along"), with respective facets of ability and assertiveness (Vertical) and friendliness and morality (Horizontal). Depending on context, a third dimension is conservative versus progressive Beliefs. Second, different criteria for priority favor different dimensions: processing speed and subjective weight (Horizontal); pragmatic diagnosticity (Vertical); moderators include number and type of target, target-perceiver relationship, context. Finally, the relation between dimensions has similar operational moderators. As an integrative framework, the dimensions' dynamics also depend on perceiver goals (comprehension, efficiency, harmony, compatibility), each balancing top-down and bottom-up processes, for epistemic or hedonic functions. One emerging insight is that the nature and number of targets each of these models typically examines alters perceivers' evaluative goal and how bottom-up information or top-down inferences interact. This framework benefits theoretical parsimony and new research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

在社交世界中导航：迈向评估自我、个人和团体的综合框架。

社会评价发生在个人、人际、群体和群体间的层面，具有相互竞争的理论和证据。五个模型参与对抗性合作，以确定共同的概念基础、持续的争议和持续的议程：双重视角模型 (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007)；行为调节模型（Leach、Ellemers 和 Barreto，2007 年）；维度补偿模型（Yzerbyt 等人，2005 年）；陈规定型内容模型（Fiske、Cuddy、Glick 和 Xu，2002 年）；和机构-信念-交流模型（Koch、Imhoff、Dotsch、Unkelbach 和 Alves，2016 年）。每个都有独特的重点、理论根源、前提和证据。争议争议维度：数量、组织、定义和标签；他们的相对优先级；和他们的关系。我们的第一次整合提出了两个基本维度：纵向（能动性、能力、“领先”）和横向（交流、温暖、“相处”），具有各自的能力和自信（纵向）和友善和道德（横向）。根据上下文，第三个维度是保守信仰与进步信仰。其次，不同的优先级标准有利于不同的维度：处理速度和主观权重（Horizo​​ntal）；语用诊断（垂直）；调节器包括目标的数量和类型、目标-感知者的关系、上下文。最后，维度之间的关系具有相似的操作调节器。作为一个综合框架，维度的动态还取决于感知目标（理解、效率、和谐、兼容性），每个目标都平衡自上而下和自下而上的过程，用于认知或享乐功能。一个新兴的见解是，这些模型中的每一个通常检查的目标的性质和数量会改变感知者的评估目标以及自下而上的信息或自上而下的推理如何相互作用。该框架有益于理论简约和新研究。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。