Meta-Analysis: Call for Unpublished Data on the Fundamental Dimensions of Social Cognition

Dear colleagues,

We are currently conducting a meta-analysis of three fundamental dimensions of social cognition: sociability, morality, and competence (or  agency). We have already identified a number of published studies on this topic and we are now looking for unpublished data.

If your study used a multi-item measure that pertained to sociability (exemplary items: likable, warm, friendly), morality (exemplary items: honest, sincere, trustworthy) or competence-agency (exemplary items: competent, intelligent, skilled) we would be very grateful if you could share with us your unpublished or soon to be published data (including manuscripts and theses). We will only use the data for the purpose of the meta-analysis and your data will be deleted after the meta-analysis is completed.

You can reply to this call with the anonymized raw data (or clean data, if you applied any transformations), preferably in .csv or .sav format, along with a codebook or any other information required to determine variable coding (in English).

Alternatively, if you do not wish to share your data, we could send you a google sheet where you could input the required information concerning measurement, sample, study design, and statistics.

If you have data that match the content of this call please email me by March 29th, 2019 at

Thank you for your time and for considering our request.

Kind Regards,

Natalia Szostak
Postdoctoral researcher at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities

& Bogdan Wojciszke (SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Sopot), Susanne Bruckmüller (Fiedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg), Michał Parzuchowski (SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Sopot), Magdalena Formanowicz (University of Surrey)

PDF version (Call for unpublished data_social cognition_SWPS)

New project got funding


This project aims at empirical verification of a new, broad theory of social psychology – the Agent-Recipient Model (ARM). ARM starts with a simple observation that each social interaction involves at least two separate perspectives – a point of view of a person performing an action (the agent perspective) and a point of view of person at whom the action is directed and who experiences it outcomes. The two perspectives are complementary and define each other – there cannot be an agent without a recipient (aggression requires both a perpetrator and a victim, similarly helping requires both a person who gives help and a person who receives the help). Therefore, a parallel emergence of both these perspectives is a defining feature of social interaction and the capacity to assume each the perspectives is a defining feature of human mind. Research on mind perception in a variety of entities shows two separate dimensions of the perceived human mind Instead of one). The first is agency understood as an ability to act, to plan and to self –control. The second is experience or the ability to feel and experience (Gray et al., 2007). Similarly, research on dehumanization shows it may take two forms – denying others, especially out-groups, the ability to act in a thoughtful and civilized way (animalization – treating people as animals) or denying them the capacity to experience in a typically human way (robotization – treating people like machines) (Haslam et al., 2008).

The perspectives fluctuate – the same interactants can take each position interchangeably, like speaker and listeners do during a conversation. Still, the perspective leads to differences in psychological processes and behavior because the objective situation and goals of agents and recipients differ. Whereas the agent position means the capacity to act and involves the focus on goalattainment, the recipient position means being subjected to others’ actions and focus on understanding their reasons and social consequences. In effect, the agent experiences an increase in personal control and meaningfulness (accompanied by increases in affect and positive emotions) and becomes focused on monitoring the efficiency of his/her own actions which is indispensable for goal-attainment. On the other hand, the recipient experiences increased feelings of vulnerability (accompanied by decreases in affect and increases in negative emotions) and becomes focused on social consequences of the agents’
actions (whether they are good or bad for persons surrounding the agent). ARM assumes that these basic differences have far reaching consequences for cognitive, emotional, motivational, and social functioning of persons occupying the agent vs. recipient perspective.