1
Seminar in Social Cognition – Psychology 762
(Spring, 2009)
Prof. Linda M. Isbell
Office: 630 Tobin Hall
Phone: 545-5960
Email: lisbell@psych.umass.edu
Office hours by appointment
Class Time: Tuesday, 11:00 – 1:30
Class Location: To be announced
Course Description
This seminar provides a critical overview of theory and research in social cognition.
Topics to be studied include automatic versus controlled processing, attention and encoding,
memory, the self, attribution, heuristic, attitudes and persuasion, stereotyping and prejudice,
affect and cognition, and behavior and cognition.
In this course we will read chapters from Fiske & Taylor’s (2008) Social cognition: From
Brains to Culture (McGraw Hill) as well as original research articles and/or key chapters for
each of the topics covered. Fiske and Taylor’s book provides an excellent overview of the
various topics and provides a context for the assigned articles. For this reason, you should
read the assigned chapters in the book before reading the articles.
Course Requirements
1. This course will be conducted in discussion format. For this reason, it is essential that
everyone do all of the reading before class. When doing the reading, you should think
carefully and critically about the issues raised, and you should integrate the readings
throughout the course. To facilitate this and to promote class discussion, each student is
required to generate four discussion questions for each class based on the assigned
readings.

Discussion questions are due by 4 p.m. on each Monday before class. When
writing questions, focus on critical issues and applications of the research.
Discussion questions should be sent via email to me and to the discussion leader(s).
o

Worth 15% of your final grade (based on the quality and thoughtfulness of
your questions).
Class Discussion Leader  Students will be responsible for organizing and
leading the discussions for each class. When you are the discussion leader, you
should first provide a brief overview of the readings. The leader is also responsible
2
for organizing the discussion questions according to themes. The leader should
bring handouts containing the discussion questions to class for distribution
o Worth 20% of your grade

Class Participation. Class participation is a critical part of this course and is
required of each student in every class.
o Worth 10% of your final grade
2. Research Proposal. Throughout the course, you will develop a research proposal on a
topic of interest to you in social cognition. You will be expected to work on this project
throughout the semester and to revise and continually improve upon your work based on
the feedback that you receive. At the end of the semester, you should have a very sound
research project that you could actually pursue. The proposal will be completed in
numerous stages, as follows.

Topic. You may choose any topic that you like, but you must examine it from a
social cognitive perspective. You may not propose a study that is currently being
conducted or planned in your research lab  you must propose something new.
Before beginning serious work on your research project, you will need to submit your
topic to me for approval. You should write a short description (no more than one
typed page) about the project and provide a list of at least 6 empirical research
articles from the social cognition literature that you may use in your paper. Be sure
to look through the course syllabus and the Fiske & Taylor book for topics that we
haven’t covered at the time the topic description is due.
o Due by February 24th

Introduction and Hypotheses. Use at least 6 related social cognition articles and
make an argument about a phenomenon of interest to you. Be sure to do this from
an explicitly social cognitive perspective and be sure to develop concrete
hypotheses concerning the phenomenon you are examining.
o Due March 24th
o Worth 15% of your final grade

Method and Expected Results. Revise the first paper as needed. Then take the
hypotheses you discussed and develop a more specific set of predictions.
Operationalize the independent and dependent variables in an experimental (or
quasi-experimental) design. Describe the design, the scenario, the manipulations,
3
and the measures in as much detail as a standard methods section. Include
planned statistical analyses and expected results in a Results section.
o Due by April 21st
o Worth 15% of your final grade

Discussion Section. Revise the paper based on comments you received. Then, in
a Discussion section, criticize your own design and discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of the choices you made. Also be sure to describe how this research
will contribute to and extend existing knowledge.
o Due by May 12th
o Worth 15% of your final grade

Student Presentations. Each student should plan a 15-minute class presentation
describing their research project. This presentation should be very carefully planned
and should take the form of a conference presentation. As you probably know,
conference presentations are typically very short. It is difficult to learn how to
present your ideas concisely and clearly, so this will give you an opportunity to get
some practice. We’ll allow more time for questions and answers, etc., as time
permits.
o May 5th and May 12th
o Worth 10% of your final grade
Academic Honesty
All students are expected to adhere scrupulously to the University policy concerning academic
honesty. For more information on the University’s academic honesty policy, check this web
site: www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/acadhonesty
4
Course Topics and Schedule
Please note: The schedule and readings are subject to change
(Especially if I read something particularly interesting in a new issue of a journal!)
January 27th (Tuesday)
COURSE LOGISTICS, INTRODUCTION, AND
OVERVIEW
January 29th (Thursday)
INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, & METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUES
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 1 (p. 1-22)
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know. Verbal reports on mental
processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
Mook, D.G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379- 387.
DISCUSSION LEADER: LINDA (lisbell@psych.umass.edu)
February 3rd (Tuesday)
DUAL MODES IN SOCIAL COGNITION
(WITH FOCUS ON IMPRESSION FORMATION)
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 2 (p. 25-50).
Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg (1999). The Continuum Model: Ten years later. In Chaiken, S. & Trope,
Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology. The Guilford Press, NY, p. 231-254.
Macrae, C.N., Alnwick, K.A., Milne, A.B., Schloerscheidt, A.M. (2002). Person perception
across the menstrual cycle: Hormonal influences on social cognitive functioning.
Psychological Science, 13, 532-536.
DISCUSSION LEADER: COURTNEY (cnbaker@psych.umass.edu)
February 5th (Thursday)
NO CLASS – SPSP CONFERENCE
5
February 10th
ATTENTION AND ENCODING
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 3 (p. 51-74)
Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., & Milne, A.B. (1995). The dissection of selection in person
perception: Inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 397-407.
Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Kuschel, S. (2008). The effect of global versus local processing
styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 579-599.
Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees:
Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(4), 578-596.
Stapel, D. A., & Semin, G. R. (2007). The magic spell of language: Linguistics categories and
their perceptual consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 23-33
DISCUSSION LEADERS: HECTOR (hflores@som.umass.edu)
MINDI (mrock@psych.umass.edu)
February 17th
MEMORY: REPRESENTATION AND PROCESSES
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 4 (p. 75-102).
Hollingshead, A.B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659-671.
Smith, S.M., & Moynan, S.C. (2008). Forgetting and recovering the unforgettable.
Psychological Science, 19, 462-468.
Loftus, E.F. (2004). Memories of things unseen. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
13, 145-147.
Niedenthal, P.M., Barsalou, L.W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005).
Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 184-211.
Meier, B.P., Hauser, D.J., Robinson, M.D., Friesen, C.K., Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What’s “up”
with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 699-710.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: STEVE (sjperrea@som.umass.edu)
6
February 24th
THE SELF
** RESEARCH PROPOSAL TOPIC DUE **
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 5 (p. 105-133).
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., & Tice, D.M., et al.
(2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a
metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325-336.
Pelham, B.W., Mirenberg, M.C., & Jones, J.T. (2002). Why Susie sells seashells by the
seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 469-487.
Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from self. Psychological Review, 97, 90-113.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A.Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships:
Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10,
321-326.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: ARI (abaruch@psych.umass.edu)
MIKE (mtparker@psych.umass.edu)
7
March 3rd
ATTRIBUTION
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 6 (p. 134-163)
Gilbert, D.T., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, D.S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person
perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733740.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A.N., Goren, A., Hall, C.C. (2005). Inferences of competence from
faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626.
HEURISTICS, SHORTCUTS, AND BIASES
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 7 (p. 164-195).
Medvec, V. H., Madley, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual
thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 69, 603-610.
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E.U., Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect
of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534-539.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: HECTOR (hflores@some.umass.edu)
8
March 10th
MORE HEURISTICS AND FLUENCY
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., Simons, A. (1991).
Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202.
Alter, A.L., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and
mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle).
Psychological Science, 19, 161-167.
Williams, L.E., & Bargh, J.A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance
cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19, 302-308.
ACCURACY AND EFFICIENCY IN SOCIAL INFERENCING
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 8 (p. 196-212)
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M.W., Nordgren, L.F., & vanBarren, R.B. (2006). On making the right
choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect, Science, 311, 1005-1007.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference
development and decision making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586-598.
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (2001). Clinical vs. actuarial judgment. In T. Gilovich,
D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment
(pp. 716-729). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: LINDA (lisbell@psych.umass.edu)
COURTNEY (cnbaker@psych.umass.edu)
March 17th (Tuesday)
SPRING BREAK!
9
March 24th
ATTITUDES
** INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES DUE FOR RESEARCH PROJECT **
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 9 (p. 213-235) and Chapter 10 (236-256).
Schwarz, N. (2008). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. In R.H. Fazio & R.E.
Petty (Eds.) Key readings in social psychology.
Henderson, M.D., de Liver, Y., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2008). The effects of an implemental mindset on attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 396-411.
Petty, R.E., & Brinol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to metacognitive
processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137-147.
Barden, J. & Petty, R.E. (2008). The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty:
Exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 489509.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: JANE (jgstout@psych.umass.edu)
STEVE (sjperrea@som.umass.edu)
March 31st
STEREOTYPES
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 11 (p. 257-283)
Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotyping perpetuation through language. In
M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 79-121.
MacCrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in
sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808-817.
Monteith, M. J., Sherman, J. W., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Suppression as a stereotype control
strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 63-82.
Burns, K.C., Isbell, L.M., & Tyler, J.M. (2008). Suppressing emotions toward stereotyped
targets: The impact on willingness to engage in contact. Social Cognition, 26, 276-287.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: JANE (jgstout@psych.umass.edu)
ARI (abaruch@psych.umass.edu)
10
April 7th
PREJUDICE
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 12 (p. 284-309).
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and
interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68.
Kaiser, C.R., & Pratt-Hyatt, J.S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do white direct their
prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96, 432-445.
Salvatore, J. & Shelton, J.N. (2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice.
Psychological Science, 18, 810-815.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
Nelson, T.D. (2008). The young science of prejudice against older adults: Established answers
and open questions about ageism (pp. 45-61). In E. Borgida & S.T. Fiske (Eds.) Beyond
Common Sense: Psychological science in the courtroom.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: KUMAR (kumar@psych.umass.edu)
MIKE (mtparker@psych.umass.edu)
April 14th
AFFECT AND COGNITION
Fiske & Taylor (2008), Chapter 13 (p. 310-340) and Chapter 14 (p. 341-360)
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thoughts.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 393-399.
Parker, M.T., & Isbell, L.M. Affect and voting: Is feeling scared better than feeling mad?
Clore, G.L., & Huntsinger, J.R. (in press). How the object of affect guides its impact. Emotion
Review.
Hunsinger, M., Isbell, L.M., & Clore, G.C. (under review). Tipping the scale: Affect and
reliance on global versus local information in impression formation.
Fishbach, A., & Labroo, A.A. (2007). Be better or be merry: How mood affects selfcontrol. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 158-173.
DISCUSSION LEADER: LINDA (lisbell@psych.umass.edu)
11
NO CLASS – MONDAY SCHEDULE
April 21st
** METHOD AND RESULTS DUE FOR RESEARCH PROJECT **
April 28th
BEHAVIOR AND COGNITION
Fiske & Taylor, Chapter 15, (p. 361-396)
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of
trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 230-244.
Cesario, J., Plaks, J.E., & Higgins, E.T. (2006). Automatic social behavior as motivated
preparation to interact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 893-910.
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE
Nicholson, C. (2006). Thinking it over: fMRI and psychological science. Observer, 19, 20-25.
Wade, C. (2006). Some cautions about jumping on the brain-scan bandwagon. Observer, 19, 2324.
Wager, T. D. (2006). Do we need to study the brain to understand the mind? Observer, 19, 25-27.
Cacioppo, J.T. et al. (2007). Social neuroscience: Progress and implications for mental health.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 99-123.
Todorov, A., Harris, L.T., Fiske, S.T., (2006). Toward socially inspired social neuroscience. Brain
Research, 1079, 76-85.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: KUMAR (kumar@psych.umass.edu)
MINDI (mrock@psych.umass.edu)
May 5th (Tuesday)
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS
May 12th (Tuesday)
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS
AND WRAP-UP DISCUSSION
** FINAL RESEARCH PROJECT DUE **