Susan Fiske

Susan Tufts Fiske (born August 19, 1952) is Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs at the Princeton University Department of Psychology.^[1] She is a social psychologist known for her work on social cognition, stereotypes, and prejudice.^[2] Fiske leads the Fiske Lab at Princeton University and is examining emotional prejudices on the neural, interpersonal and cultural planes.^[3] Fiske's research has resulted in significant theories in the field of social psychology, particularly, the development of the stereotype content model, ambivalent sexism theory and the continuum model of impression formation. Her most influential work explains the thought processes behind and development of prejudice and stereotyping.

Early years and personal life

Fiske comes from a family of psychologists and civil activists. Her father, Donald W. Fiske, was a University of Chicago psychologist; he wrote an article in Psychological Bulletin that was the journal's most cited publication as of 2003.^[4] Her mother, Barbara Page Fiske, assisted local city residents in accessing the local government as a civic leader.^[5] Alan Page Fiske, the older brother of Susan Fiske, is a researcher in the field of cultural psychology. Fiske's grandmother and great grandmother were Suffragette members.^[5] Growing up in Hyde Park, Chicago, Fiske became inspired by the city's social justice norms.^[6] During the late 1960s and 1970s, Fiske felt a desire to help and research human interaction and perception. In 1973, she enrolled at Radcliffe College for her undergraduate degree in social relations, and then enrolled at Harvard University where she graduated magna cum laude.^[7] With knowledge regarding the importance of combining social interaction research with multidisciplinary skills,^[5] Fiske stayed at Harvard University for her graduate degree studies and continued her research with the inspiring professors there. Fiske received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1978.^[5] Fiske has also received an honorary degree from the Universiteit Leiden in the Netherlands in 2009 in addition to the Honorary Degree she received from the Université Catholique de Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium in 1995 ^[7] She now resides in Princeton, New Jersey with her husband Douglas Massey, a Princeton sociologist.^[5]

Evolution of career

Shelley Taylor, an assistant professor at Harvard, became Fiske's role model. The last semester of Fiske's senior year, the two worked together studying social cognition, particularly, the effect attention has in social situations.^[5] Fiske continued at Harvard until receiving her Ph.D. in 1978 and its centennial medal in 2004.^[8] After graduation, Fiske continued in the field of social cognition. At the time, and even today, there was conflict between the fields of social psychology and cognitive psychology. Researchers in social psychology and those in cognitive psychology wanted to keep these two fields separate. However, researchers like Fiske understood the significant impact and knowledge that could be attained by combining the fields. Fiske's experience with this conflict and her interest in the field of social cognition sparked the inspiration of the first edition of Fiske's and Taylor's book Social Cognition. This book provides an overview of the developing theories and concepts emerging in the field of social cognition, while explaining the use of our thought processes to understand social situations, ourselves and others.^[5] Intertwining the fields proved to be beneficial. Fiske's involvement in the field of social cognition led to the first dual process model of social cognition being developed. Alongside researcher Steven Neuberg, the continuum model was created. This model explains how impressions of individuals can serve as a source of information as well as motivation.^[5] Fiske expanded this research, studying initial impressions of individuals and creating the stereotype content model along with her colleagues.

Fiske impacted the field of law by testifying in gender discrimination cases. With her knowledge of stereotyping and cognitive processes, Fiske discussed how cognitive categorization can be the underlying cause of discrimination.^[5] The landmark case, "Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse" which was eventually heard by the Supreme Court of the United States,^[9] was the first case involving social science testimony,^[5] making Susan Fiske the first social psychologist to testify in a gender discrimination case. This testimony led to a continuing interest in the use of psychological science in legal contexts.^[10]

After this case, Fiske became intrigued with gender research. Fiske found that gender prejudices were unique when compared to the other prejudices found in society. Working with Peter Glick, Fiske analyzed the dependence of male-female interactions leading to the development of ambivalent sexism theory. This theory identified and explained the relation between two types of sexism, benevolent and hostile, and how they are evident in different societies. This theory has been widely validated, as it has been studied in many countries around the world.^[5]

Along with co-authors, Fiske's feministic intrigue also led her to examine the gender difference regarding social psychologists' publication rates and citations within the influential psychology journal, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Fiske and colleagues found a gender gap in the journal exhibited by the acceptance rates of articles submitted by males vs females, and in the articles actually published. Although male authors had higher acceptance rates and thus published more articles, women's impact remains strong as measured through the number of citations. Therefore, these results suggest a subtle gender bias.^[11]

Volunteering to complete the prejudice chapter in the Handbook of Social Psychology Fourth Edition, Fiske realized that most research on prejudice focused on the relationship between African American and Caucasian individuals. With the lack of research on the diversity of the 20th century population's race, Fiske worked with Peter Glick and Amy Cuddy to develop the Stereotype Content Model.^[5] This model explains that warmth and competence may be the first traits by which an individual is automatically evaluated. The use of this model helps broaden the understanding of prejudice, and can be directly applied to the prejudices between African Americans and Caucasians, in addition to other groups.

Recently, Fiske has been involved in the field of social cognitive neuroscience.^[5] This emerging field examines how neural systems are involved in social processes, such as person perception.^[12] Fiske's own work has examined neural systems involved in stereotyping.^[13]

In addition to contributions in research and the justice system, Fiske is very involved in the field of psychology as a whole. Fiske is a past president of the Association for Psychological Science, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, and the Foundation for the Advancement of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. She was also elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and to the American Academy of Political and Social Science. She has authored over 300 publications and has written several books, including her 2010 work Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology^[14] and Social Cognition, a graduate level text that defined the now-popular subfield of social cognition. She also has edited the Annual Review of Psychology (with Daniel Schacter and Shelley Taylor) and the Handbook of Social Psychology (with Daniel Gilbert and the late Gardner Lindzey). One recent book is Envy Up, Scorn Down: How Status Divides Us,^[15] which describes how people constantly compare themselves to others, with toxic effects on their relationships at home, at work, in school, and in the world.^[16] Another recent book is The Human Brand: How We Relate to People, Products, and Companies.^[17]

Research

Her four most well-known contributions to the field of social cognition are the stereotype content model,^[18][19] ambivalent sexism theory,^[20] the continuum model of impression formation,^[21] and the power-as-control theory.^[22] She is also known for the term cognitive miser, coined with her graduate adviser Shelley Taylor, referring to individuals' tendencies to use cognitive shortcuts and heuristics.^[23][24]

Stereotyping

Fiske has done much research on stereotyping. Along with Hilary Bergsieker, Lisa Leslie, and Vanessa Constantine, Fiske examined positive and negative stereotyping when it comes to describing individuals. They developed the stereotyping-by-omission hypothesis, which says that individuals selectively leave out negative and promote positive dimensions when it comes to out-group stereotypes. Their research shows that most people omit negativity due to self-presentation concerns. They found that due to a need to be accepted by others, people tend to speak more positively when describing a group. Because people are concerned with self-presentation, there is a tendency to suppress different forms of prejudice.^[25]

Fiske and her graduate adviser Shelley Taylor coined the term cognitive miser. This is the idea that as humans we look for any opportunity to bypass effortful thoughts. These thoughts include our mental processing resources, which are highly valued. In an attempt to preserve our mental processing, we find ways to save time and effort when it comes to understanding the social world. To save time and effort, we use mental shortcuts called heuristics which reduce complex judgements.^[26] The cognitive miser model has been used to explain stereotyping. Categorizing people into groups is a simple cognitive shortcut that causes people to focus on stereotype-consistent aspects of a person's behavior.^[27]

Her most notable contributions to stereotype research have been the stereotype content model (SCM), ambivalent sexism theory, and the power-as-control theory.

Stereotype content model

The stereotype content model (SCM) is a psychological theory that suggest that stereotypes are formed by the perception of two different dimensions: warmth and competence.^[28] SCM was originally developed to understand the social classification of groups within the population of the U.S. However, the SCM has turned out to also be helpful analyzing social classes and structures across countries and history.^[29]

The SCM attempts to explain how the concepts of warmth and competence contribute to the development of stereotypes. Warmth and competence are the two fundamental aspects of the stereotype content model. These qualities of an individual are the dimensions used to locate social groups relative to one another. The warmth dimension includes traits such as good-natured, trustworthy, tolerant friendly, and sincere. The competence dimension can be described using traits such as capable, skillful, intelligent, and confident.^[30][31] The results from studies based on the SCM support the hypothesis that the warmth of an individual can be predicted based on how social that individuals is, while the social status of an individual can be used to predict the perceived competence.^[5]

The SCM's predictions are reversible. That is, perceptions of warmth and competence can predict emotional and behavioral responses toward social classes or groups, and inversely, these behaviors and emotions can be analyzed to predict the perceptions of warmth and competence held for these groups. Therefore, the SCM deepens the understanding of how stereotypes are formed and maintained in society as well as explains how specific groups of individuals have been deemed the "out-groups." ^[5]

In-groups, such as the middle class in the U.S, are perceived to be both warm and competent. Therefore, people perceive an individual who is categorized as belonging to the population of the middle class as being high on both warmth and competence. No further knowledge of the individual is needed for one to form this opinion of them. Societal classes which represent the extremes of the SCM, which are individuals perceived as highly warm and highly competent compared to individuals perceived as cold and incompetent, receive either positive or negative reactions as supported by prejudice research.^[32]

For instance, homeless individuals receive negative reactions based on the judgement of them being located low on both the warmth and competence dimensions. These judgements relate to the emotions expressed by the perceivers towards the groups as well. Fiske found that the perception of a social group's level of competence and warmth elicit certain specific emotional reactions. People tend to pity the elderly, who are seen as warm but not competent, and exhibit feelings of envy toward the rich, who are competent but not warm, while feeling disgust toward groups perceived as neither competent nor warm, such as the homeless. The SCM explains how the combination of the stereotypes surrounding social classes causes the perception of warmth and competence, which leads to the emotional prejudices directed towards the social group.^[5]

In a global sample study conducted by Fiske, the question of "Why do people think that high status people are more capable than low status people?" arose. Fiske was intrigued by people assuming that individuals were of low status because of personal traits, such as being unintelligent. The individuals in this global sample disregarded the fact that a person of low status may be in such a position because of situational circumstances. The global study therefore concluded that contempt and pity were the most frequently used emotions towards those of low status.

A study conducted by Fiske, which used the concepts of the SCM, portrayed a hypothetical scenario regarding sacrificing and saving individuals. Participants were asked who would they save and who would they sacrifice in hypothetical life threatening situations. Sixty-nine percent of participants found it acceptable to sacrifice the low status individuals and save the high status individuals, revealing that the relative value of other people's lives is largely based on their social status.^[32] In Fiske's book, Envy Up, Scorn Down:How Status Divides Us, she describes how the personal experiences of envy and scorn resulting from the SCM, also contribute to prejudices and emotional biases found in society.^[32]

Ambivalent sexism theory

Fiske and colleagues first conceived of this theory when analyzing the structure of men and women's relationship in society. It is common for a society to be dominated by males, yet it is also evident that there is a male-female interdependence.^[5]

Fiske and Peter Glick developed the ambivalent sexism theory (AST) which aids in understanding the development of gender-based prejudice.^[20] AST includes two sub-components: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism includes male hostility towards women, and also the exploitation of women as sexual objects. It supports traditional gender roles, and infers that males should have power over women. Benevolent sexism, in contrast, is the idea that men believe that they need to protect women and that women should idealized and placed upon a pedestal. Women are still viewed as inferior, but benevolent sexism explains how because men are still dependent on women they can show affection in a protective manner.^[33] AST argues that both hostile and benevolent sexism are negative because they promote masculine dominance and gender role stereotypes.^[20]

AST holds that punishment is the consequence of non-traditional behavior by women. If a woman acts in a manner that does not represent the societal expectations placed on her, then she may be frowned upon or slandered. On the other hand, if a woman behaves in a traditional way, fulfilling the gender role description placed on females, then she is more likely to be rewarded and accepted by the male population. Thus benefits that women incur through benevolent sexism (such as chivalrous behavior) can be construed as a reward for women's traditional behavior and costs they incur through hostile sexism can be construed as a punishment for behavior that does not conform to traditional gender roles. This theory has been validated around the world and is used to predict many forms of gender prejudice from domestic abuse to workplace discrimination.^[5] It is important to keep in mind that the expectations put on women and the female gender roles, vary in different cultures. For instance, a female in one country may be rewarded for becoming involved in politics, yet slandered for the same action in a country where sexism is more prevalent. AST implies that benevolent and hostile sexism are evident through the world yet the extent to which they impact the relationships between the genders varies. Despite the fact that hostile sexism is more negative then benevolent sexism, they tend to be highly correlated within cultures, such that in countries where hostile sexism is prevalent, benevolent sexism is also prevalent.^[34]

Heterosexual relationships, the workplace, and gender roles are the domains of encounters of the genders. Although benevolent sexism can be viewed as chivalrous in some respects, it was found to undermine women, decreasing their performance on tasks.^[29] Coinciding with AST, women face challenges in the workplace because of the traditional roles that are emphasized by benevolent sexism. A professional woman may experience difficulty seeking employment, maintaining employment and being promoted because of the chances or occurrence of pregnancy and motherhood. Men on the other hand do not have to deal with such penalties for beginning a family.^[35]

Power-as-control theory

Fiske also completed research on the impact of power on stereotyping. She argued that there is a strong relationship between stereotyping and controlling others. She proposed the idea that stereotyping and control can include two subcategories: descriptive and prescriptive beliefs. Descriptive stereotyping explains how people in a group supposedly feel, think, and behave. Prescriptive beliefs stereotype certain groups by how society thinks they should feel, think, and behave. Thus these prescriptive stereotypes not only describe group members, but also provide guidelines for how they should behave, and those who violate these prescriptive stereotypes will be viewed negatively by others. For example, women are stereotyped as being submissive in both the descriptive sense (people generally believe that women are submissive) and the prescriptive sense (people generally believe that women should be submissive).^[36] Fiske's research included how power holders use stereotypes and power to control the outcome of others. Individuals then focus more attention on those in powerful positions in an attempt to influence their own outcomes. This also suggests that individuals are interdependent, and pay more attention when they need each other to achieve their goals. Fiske states that attention in a central idea behind stereotyping, and that attention follows power.^[37]

Fiske and colleagues developed the power-as-control theory (PAC) in order to explain how power can motivate individuals to either pay attention or ignore others. They found that individuals tend to associate with those who have power in an attempt to control their own outcomes. Their research found that those in power positions often use demeaning stereotypes in order to legitimize their positions. PAC is dependent upon the situation and determined by whether or not power is used for good or bad.^[38] Fiske and Stephanie Goodwin introduced the idea that those in positions of power either engage in stereotyping by default or by design. Stereotyping by default includes negligence to stereotype-inconsistent information, while stereotyping by design can be described as attention to stereotype-consistent information.^[39]

Continuum model of impression formation

Steven Neuberg and Susan Fiske also developed the continuum model of impression formation. This model describes the process by which we form impressions of others. The continuum model of impression formation is dependent on two factors: The available information and the perceiver's motivation.^[40] The continuum model highlights the difference between the processes of getting to know an individual, and the amount of effort put forth to form an impression.^[41] Humans tend to categorize other people. Most of these categories are formed by individuals impressions of others, which are in turn often formed by stereotypes. One of the central motives of the continuum model of impression formation is interdependence, the level to which people need each other to reach their goals. These interdependent people are more motivated to put more effort towards discovering detailed information about other individuals.^[41] The amount of effort put forth in finding information depends on an individual's motivation and cognitive ability. If an individual is uninterested in obtaining more information, they are likely to engage in category-based impression processes. When an individual strives to make an accurate impression, they are engaging in individuation and will thus avoid stereotyping by default.^[42] There are three motivational factors behind the continuum model of impression formation: short term task-oriented outcome, self-presentation to a third party, and personal values. Short term task-oriented outcome is the act of a perceiver predicting the behavior of another individual and merging it with their own behavior in order to reach a desired outcome. This motivational factor promotes individuating impression formation. Self-presentation to a third party is a motivational factor that is based on the desire to form accurate impressions due to the fear of being negatively criticized by peers or authorities. The motivational factor personal values describes how perceivers want to live up to their internalized values.^[43]

The continuum model of impression is broken down into eight stages. The model starts out in the initial categorization stage. This is a rapid process that occurs immediately upon encountering an individual. The information taken from this initial encounter can include physical features, social class, job titles, mood, age, sex, ethnicity, or any details that are easily accessible. The second stage is the degree of personal relevance. This is the stage in which an individual makes a decision to either stop the categorization, or continue based on their interest in the individual. If they decide to continue, they will begin to obtain more information in order to form a more in depth impression than the initial encounter. Allocating attention to additional target attributes is the third stage on the continuum model of impression. This stage is important because it allows the perceiver to make impressions based on specific attributes of the individual. The fourth stage is confirmatory categorization. This stage focuses on re-evaluating your initial categorization, and depending on whether or not the categorization was successful determines what stage you move to on the continuum model of impression. If your categorization is unsuccessful, you would move onto stage five. Stage five includes re-categorization. This occurs when your initial categorization was incorrect, and includes the process of determining a new category for the individual. If the perceiver is still unable to re-categorize the individual, then they move on to stage six. Piecemeal integration takes place in stage six. This is the process of re-evaluating the individual by every attribute once again in order to reach a final categorization. The seventh stage is the public expression of internal responses. This is described as a public display of stereotyping or discrimination once the categorization has taken place. The last stage is whether or not further assessment of an individual is required.^[43]

The categorization is divided into two processes including category-based processes and attribute-based processes. Category-based processes is the label a perceiver uses to organize the attributes an individual obtains. This label is usually a social grouping such as a job title, role, or demographic.^[43]

Awards and achievements

Fiske became an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2013. In 2012, Fiske received the Leadership in Diversity Science Award, from the University of California at Los Angeles.^[7] In 2008 she was named President of the Foundation for the Advancement of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, and then once again in 2012.^[7] In 2011, Fiske was elected into the Fellowship of the British Academy. During that year Fiske was also named honorary president of the Canadian Psychological Association.^[7] In 2010, she was awarded the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award.^[7] She received numerous awards in 2009, including a Guggenheim Fellowship, the Association for Psychological Science William James Fellow Award, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Donald Campbell Award, and Princeton University Graduate School Mentoring Award.^[6][7][8] In 2008, Fiske received the Staats Award for Unifying Psychology, from the American Psychological Association. In 2003 she was awarded the Thomas Ostrom Award from the International Social Cognition Network. Fiske also received the Award for Distinguished Service, Society for Personality and Social Psychology in 2006. She was awarded honorary degrees from the University of Leiden in 2009 and the Université catholique de Louvain in 1995.^[1]

Not only has Fiske received numerous awards for her work, she was also named President of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Division 8 of the American Psychological Association and affiliated with the American Psychological Society in 1994. She was once again named President of the American Psychological Society in 2002.

She popularized the phrase "thinking is for doing" (paraphrased from William James, "My thinking is first and last and always for my doing").^[44][45][46]

Books

• Fiske, Susan T.; Schacter, Daniel L.; Zahn-Waxler, Carolyn (2004). Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews. ISBN 9780824302559. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Schacter, Daniel L.; Zahn-Waxler, Carolyn (2008). Annual review of psychology (volume 59). Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews. ISBN 9780824302597. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Taylor, Shelley E. (2008). Social cognition: from brains to culture. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 9780073405520. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Schacter, Daniel L.; Zahn-Waxler, Carolyn (2009). Annual review of psychology (volume 60). Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews. ISBN 9780824302603. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (2010). Social beings : a core motives approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN 9780470129111. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Gilbert, Daniel T.; Lindzey, Gardner (2010). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. ISBN 9780470137482. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Schacter, Daniel L.; Sternberg, Robert J. (2010). Annual review of psychology (volume 61). Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews. ISBN 9780824302610. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Schacter, Daniel L.; Taylor, Shelley E. (2011). Annual review of psychology (volume 62). Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews. ISBN 9780824302627. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Schacter, Daniel L.; Taylor, Shelley E. (2012). Annual review of psychology (volume 63). Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews. ISBN 9780824302634. 

Journal articles

• Fiske, Susan T. (February 1993). "Social cognition and social perceptions". Annual Review of Psychology (Annual Reviews) 44 (1): 155–194. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001103. PMID 8434891. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J.C.; Glick, Peter; Xu, Jun (June 2002). "A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (American Psychological Association PsycNET) 82 (6): 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878. PMID 12051578. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Borgida, Eugene (August 2008). "Providing expert knowledge in an adversarial context: social cognitive science in employment discrimination cases". Annual Review of Law and Social Science (Annual Reviews) 4 (1): 123–148. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350. 
• Cikara, Mina; Eberhardt, Jennifer L.; Fiske, Susan T. (December 2010). "From agents to objects: sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (MIT Press Journals) 23 (3): 540–551. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21497. PMID 20350187. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (March 2012). "Journey to the edges: social structures and neural maps of inter-group processes". British Journal of Social Psychology (Wiley Online) 51 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02092.x. PMID 22435843. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (1998 =.). "Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination". Handbook of social psychology (4 ed.) (New York:McGraw-Hill) 2 (1): 357–411.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Fiske, Susan T.; Glick, P. (1996). "The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (70): 491–512. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Taylor, S. E. (1978). "Salience, attention, and attribution: Top-of-the-head phenomena.". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (New York: Academic Press) 11: 249–288. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (1993). "Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping". American Psychologist (48): 621–628. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (1980). "Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (38): 889–906. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Taylor, S. E.; Etcoff, N. L.; Ruderman, A. J. (1978). "Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (36): 778–793. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Pavelchak, M.A. (1986). "Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect". Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (New York:Guilford Press): 167–203. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Abelson, R.P.; Kinder, D.R.; Peters, M.D. (1982). "Affective and semantic components in political person perception". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (42): 619–630. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (1993). "Social cognition and social perception". Annual Review of Psychology (44): 155–194. 
• Fiske, Susan T.; Glick, P. (2001). "An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality". American Psychologist (56): 109–118. 
• Fiske, Susan T. (2004, 2008, 2013). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: Wiley Online.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

References

Notes

Bibliography

• Brannigan, G G & Merrens, M R (1994). The Social Psychologists: Research Adventures. McGraw-Hill.

External links

• Fiske's Page at Princeton
• Social Psychology Network Professional Profile