The Experimental Psychology Bulletin

from Division 3 of the American Psychological Association

Vol. 5, No. 1

January 2001


Table of Contents


A Biography of the President-Elect of APA Division 3

Morton Ann Gernsbacher

Morton Ann Gernsbacher received her Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1983, under the supervision of Donald J. Foss. From Texas she traveled westward, to her first faculty job at the University of Oregon. Gernsbacher thoroughly enjoyed her colleagues in cognitive psychology (Mike Posner, Steve Keele, Doug Hintzman, and Jennifer Freyd) as well as her colleagues in linguistics (Tom Givon) at the University of Oregon, and she assumed that after being promoted to associate professor in 1988 and full professor in 1990 that she would rest in peace at the pioneer cemetery on campus. However, in 1992 she was wooed away to the faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, by Donna Shalala, who was then Chancellor.

Gernsbacher is beginning her ninth year at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she is the Sir Frederic C. Bartlett Professor of Psychology. She is a fellow of Division 1 and Division 3, a fellow of the American Psychological Society, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She has received a NIH Research Career Development Award, a Fulbright Research Scholar Award, a James McKeen Cattell Foundation Fellowship, and a Professional Opportunities for Women Award from the National Science Foundation. She was a 2000 APA Distinguished Scientist Lecturer, served for six years as the President of the International Society for Text and Discourse, and was co-organizer of CogSci98. She has served as Member-at-Large on the executive committees of Division 1 and Division 3 and chaired each of their fellows committee two or three times. She is currently a member of the Governing Board of the Psychonomic Society, and chair of APA's Board of Scientific Affairs.

Gernsbacher is an award winning teacher, and in 1998 received the University of Wisconsin's highest award bestowed by its own faculty, the Hilldale Award for Distinguished Professional Accomplishment. magernsb@facstaff.wisc.eduLanguage Comprehension as Structure Building (Erlbaum, 1990); she edited The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Academic Press, 1994); she co-edited Coherence in Spontaneous Text (Benjamins, 1995); she has three books in press, and has published over 90 journal articles and invited chapters. She is also the proud mother of a fabulous four-year old son. Her research investigates the general cognitive processes and mechanisms underlying language comprehension.

Morton's address is Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, phone: 608-262-6989, FAX: 608-262-4029, E-mail:

Table of Contents

Call for Nominations

Nominations are needed ASAP for the following offices in Division 3:

President-Elect (1) Member At-Large of Executive Committee (2), Representative to APA Council (1)

The deadline is January 30,2001. Please see the ballot for details.

Editor's Note-Division 3 does not use butterfly ballots, so you can rest assured that your vote will be accurately tallied!

Trivia question-what is a chiasmus?

Table of Contents

2000 Young Investigator Award Winners

The Division 3 Awards Committee annually selects Young Investigator Award winners from nominations received from the editors of the Journals of Experimental Psychology. The 2000 award winners were invited to submit descriptions about themselves and their research. We are pleased to include descriptions from each winner in this issue.

Jonathon D. Crystal
University of Georgia

Crystal, J. D. (1999). Systematic nonlinearities in the perception of temporal intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 3-17.

I joined the faculty at the University of Georgia in 1999. Before arriving at UGA, I was on the faculty at the College of William & Mary for two years. I received my PhD from Brown University in 1997, working with Russ Church. The work honored by Division 3 was completed at Brown.

My research program focuses on understanding the representation of time. Historically, the relation between psychological time and physical time has been thought to be linear. However, earlier work on this problem examined too few and too widely spaced intervals to detect a nonlinear pattern. In the paper honored by Division 3, rats judged time intervals in a time-discrimination task. I adjusted the value of a long stimulus to maintain accuracy at a constant level. A new titration of the long duration was conducted for many, closely spaced short durations ranging from 100 milliseconds to 50 seconds. Sensitivity to time, as measured by signal detection theory, was roughly constant. However, there were systematic departures. I have argued that these nonlinearities in the perception of time intervals provide evidence that timing is accomplished by multiple oscillators; in other work using time production procedures, I observed nonlinearities consistent with this proposal. To test the multiple-oscillator hypothesis, I recently examined timing of intervals near 24 hours to assess the effect of the well-established food-entrainable circadian oscillator on sensitivity to time. In that work, I demonstrated that 24 hours is timed with greater sensitivity than intervals above or below 24 hours. This suggests that a function of an endogenous oscillator is to provide precise estimates of intervals near the oscillator's period. Observing a local maximum in sensitivity to intervals near a circadian oscillator provides support for the idea that nonlinearities in the second range are based on multiple oscillators. In my current research, I am continuing to pursue the mechanisms of nonlinear time perception. I am also investigating the role of cannabinoids on time estimation. The current work is funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at

Table of Contents

Pamela J. Hinds
Stanford University

Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205-221.

I am on the faculty in the Department of Management Science and Engineering and a member of the Center on Work, Technology, and Organization at Stanford University. Most of my research focuses on knowledge sharing across boundaries - cognitive, organizational, and geographic.

Prior to getting my Ph.D., I worked as a manager in a software development organization and was frustrated as I watched talented software developers continuously produce software applications that the users could not use. I wanted to find out why these dedicated employees were having so much difficulty being successful. This problem motivated my work for the article that appeared in JEP: Applied last year. In this research, I discovered that when estimating novice performance, experts use an anchoring and adjustment heuristic. They appear to anchor on their own recent performance of the task and have difficulty remembering back to the time when they were novices. Therefore, they underestimate the time and difficulty that novices will face in approaching a new task. Intermediate performers were less subject to this bias and were therefore better at estimating novice performance. These studies also revealed that it was difficult to reduce experts' bias either by asking them to recall their own novice performance or by providing them a list of problems experienced by novices.

I am currently extending this research in two ways. First, I am working (with Jeff Pfeffer and Mike Patterson) to understand how experts convey their knowledge to novices, how experts instruct novices, and the effect that expert as compared with novice instruction has on novice performance. Second, I am working with Mike Patterson to understand the extent to which experts make negative attributions about novices who perform at a level lower than estimated by the expert. We also are testing several techniques that we believe will debias experts' estimates of novice performance.

In addition to the experimental work described above, I am working with colleagues on two field studies focused on knowledge sharing in organizations. I am working with Jeff Pfeffer and Paul Moore to understand some of the motivational reasons why people in organizations may not share information (or knowledge) with others outside of their work group. We are collecting data via a web-based survey of over 800 employees in a consumer products organization. In a second field study, Mark Mortensen and I are collecting data from approximately 30 collocated and distributed product development teams. We are investigating the effect of geographic distance on group identity, conflict, and information sharing. I would enjoy talking with others about these and related research topics.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at

Table of Contents

Delphine Dahan
University of Rochester

Dahan, D., & Brent, M. R. (1999). On the discovery of novel worklike units from utterances: An artificial-language study with implications for native-language acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 165-185.

Children typically learn their first words at about 10 or 12 months of age. In acquiring each new word, a child must identify the word's sound pattern, associate this form with its meaning, and, eventually, determine its syntactic function. The first step, the identification of the sound form, is not a trivial task in itself because speech does not appear to contain any reliable acoustic marking of word boundaries. The speech children hear is better described as sequences of unsegmented utterances than as sequences of words. Thus, the sound patterns of individual words must be discovered.

The work that I conducted in collaboration with M. R. Brent, published in JEP: General, focused on processes by which children might identify word-like units to use as candidate sound patterns for association with meaning. It was motivated by the INCDROP (INCremental Distributional Regularity Optimization) model of speech segmentation and word discovery (Brent, 1997) which stipulates that the process of segmenting utterances and inferring word-like units is driven by the recognition of familiar units within an utterance. This model predicts that familiar units tend to be extracted from utterances and that the remaining contiguous stretches are inferred as novel units. As a special case of this general principle, utterances containing no familiar units are treated as a single novel unit and stored in memory. Thus, no special "bootstrapping" or initialization mechanism is necessary to start the process of discovering new units. It is also assumed that these segmentation and word-discovery mechanisms are available throughout life. As a first step in assessing the psychological plausibility of this model, we conducted a series of experiments in which adults listened to miniature artificial languages.

Adults were first familiarized with utterances from an artificial language for about 15 to 20 minutes. Short utterances (e.g., "koshe") occurred both in isolation and as part of longer utterances (e.g., "koshedifenu"). After familiarization, participants' recognition memory for fragments of the long utterance was tested. Recognition was greater for the remainder of the longer utterance after extraction of the short utterance than for longer or shorter subsequences. For example, after familiarization with the utterances "koshe" and "koshedifenu", participants recognized sequences like "difenu" more often than they recognized sequences like "fenu", even though both had been heard in the exact same context, the exact same number of times. Sequence length was counterbalanced across subjects and items. This demonstrated greater familiarity and stronger memory traces for sequences corresponding to the inferred new units, suggesting that new units can be isolated by recognizing familiar units (the short utterances heard in isolation) and segmenting them out of the longer context in which they are embedded.

Although experiments with young children are required to prove that the same conclusions apply to children in particular, our results suggest that segmentation and word discovery during native-language acquisition may be driven by general cognitive principles from the start, with no need for transient bootstrapping mechanisms. These cognitive principles are captured by the INCDROP model of speech segmentation and word discovery.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at

Reference: Brent, M. R. (1997). Toward a unified model of lexical acquisition and lexical access. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 363-375.

Table of Contents

Catherine L. Harris
Boston University

Harris, C. L., & Morris, A. (1999) A sublexical locus for repetition blindness: Evidence from illusory words, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 160-175.

My research uses the phenomenon of repetition blindness (RB) to investigate the nature of the abstract categories which mediate letter and word recognition. RB is a deficit in reporting the second of two words (or other visual objects), when the two are presented in a series of rapidly and sequentially displayed items, and when observers are required to report (or at least process) all items. RB is robust across changes of case and generally occurs when two stimuli are similar along some dimension that is relevant to reporting the viewed items.

Recent work with Alison Morris (Harris & Morris, in press a) rebuts the claims of Chialant and Caramazza (1997) that the repetition deficit between non-identical words results from lexical competition and is thus not a "true" RB effect. My experiments have demonstrated reliable RB for words sharing as few as two letters at the beginning (group grand) or ends of words (match teach) and for words sharing letters in non-identical positions (career area) (Harris & Morris, 2000).

Researchers have long speculated that the sublexical units which mediate word recognition span several letters or are otherwise marked for their position in a word (so that the same letters in different arrangement will activate different lexical items). Experiments using the illusory words paradigm (Harris & Morris, in press b), show that letter digrams are marked for whether they are at the beginning or end of words. It has been harder to use the RB paradigm to show that the sublexical units involved in word recognition are units larger than letters or that they are the units which mediate spelling-sound mappings. Only slightly more RB is found for words with three consecutive letters (finally seminar) than for words with three alternating letters (medical seminar) (Harris, in press). Similar amounts of RB are found for words sharing three non-consecutive letters (yard grad) as for words sharing just two consecutive letters (head grad). This suggests that the word recognition system includes single letters as units, rather than (only) consecutive letters clusters.

With Ayse AyViVegi, I have extended the RB paradigm to the question of the representation of sub-letter features. In particular, I have shown that letters containing diacritics marks, such as the cedilla (V) and umlaut in Turkish, are represented as separate, dissociable components. The diacritic marks can migrate to neighboring words, and there is more RB for letters differing by a diacritic than for two non-diacritic letters. Findings using RB have been confirmed with the same/different letter paradigm pioneered by Posner and by the same/different word paradigm used by Besner and colleagues.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at

References: AyViVegi, A. & Harris, C.L. (in press). How are letters containing diacritics represented? Repetition blindness for Turkish words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.

Harris, C.L. (in press) Are alternating or consecutive letters the unit affected by repetition blindness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition.

Harris, C.L., & Morris, A.L. (2000) Orthographic repetition blindness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1039-1060.

Harris, C.L. & Morris, A.L. (in press a). Identity and similarity in repetition blindness: No cross-over interaction. Cognition.

Harris, C.L., & Morris, A.L. (in press b). Illusory words created by repetition blindness: A technique for probing sublexical representations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

Morris, A.L., & Harris, C.L. (1999) A sublexical locus for repetition blindness: Evidence from illusory words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1060-1075.

Table of Contents

Michael Wenger
University of Notre Dame

Wenger, M. (1999). On the whats and hows of retrieval in the acquisition of a simple skill, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1137-1160.

My research focuses on the dynamic interactions of memory and perceptual processes, facial perception and memory, cognitive and memory skill, latency-accuracy relations in cognitive processes, and human-technology interactions. Central to each of these research endeavors is a commitment to developing and testing formal (mathematical and computational) models of the hypotheses and phenomena under consideration.

The 1999 paper applied a set of tools that have collectively come to be called systems factorial technology. Major contributors to the development of systems factorial technology include (alphabetically) E. Dzhafarov, D. Fisher, R. Schweickert, and J. Townsend (see, for example, Schweickert & Townsend, 1989; Townsend & Nozawa, 1995). These tools allow questions about processing architectures, stopping rules, and capacity to be tested in rather strong and general ways. The 1999 paper considered (among other questions) whether retrieval, in the context of a simple cognitive skill, might be able to operate concurrently with other processes, and whether multiple retrievals might be possible simultaneously. Results indicated a positive answer to the first question, with additional work required to address the second. Work that has followed on to this initial effort has explored similar questions in the context of relating measures of response latency and response accuracy (Wenger, 2000a, under revision) and has focused explicitly on measures of capacity (Wenger, 2000b, in preparation).

The context for the 1999 paper was performance under conditions in which an observer is experienced or skilled with a particular class of stimuli. Such conditions often involve stimuli that, to novices, are generally meaningless or unpatterned, but that to experienced or skilled performers, are highly patterned and meaningful. In this sense, the research on cognitive skill intersects with a general question that runs across the other areas of research. This question concerns the informational and process characteristics that support effects that we would commonly refer to as gestalt, configural, or holistic. Human faces are particularly good examples of stimuli that seem to produce these types of effects, in both perception and memory. Current work uses the tools of stochastic linear dynamic systems (e.g., Ashby, 2000; Smith, 2000), stochastic process theory, and multidimensional models of psychological (perceptual and memory) spaces (e.g., Ashby & Townsend, 1986) to (a) characterize hypotheses regarding the possible sources of gestalt or configural effects and (b) guide the design of experiments that test those hypotheses, using faces and other well-configured stimuli (such as objects and words). Work done in collaboration with J. T. Townsend (Indiana University) suggests that the perception of faces can be discussed in terms of independent parallel processing, something that seems inconsistent with the intuitive notion of the face as a visual gestalt (Wenger & Townsend, 2000, in press). Work in recognition memory for faces (and other visual objects), done in collaboration with Erin Ingvalson, also challenges the intuitive notion that the face is a unitary "object" in perception and memory, by showing that a number of the empirical effects interpreted in terms of holistic processing may have a decisional, rather than a perceptual or encoding, basis (Wenger & Ingvalson, 2000, under review).

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at

References: Ashby, F. G. (2000). A stochastic version of general recognition theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 310-329.

Ashby, F. G. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154-179.

Schweickert, R., & Townsend, J. T. (1989). A trichotomy method: Interactions of factors prolonging sequential and concurrent mental processes in stochastic PERT networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 328-347.

Smith, P. L. (2000). Stochastic dynamic models of response time and accuracy: A foundational primer. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 408-463.

Townsend, J. T., & Nozawa, G. (1995). On the spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321-359.

Wenger, M. J. (2000a). Models for the time-course of retrieval in the acquisition and expression of a cognitive skill. Manuscript under revision.

Wenger, M. J. (2000b). A three-point fix on the process characteristics of retrieval. Manuscript in preparation.

Wenger, M. J., & Ingvalson, E. M. (2000, under review). A decisional component of holistic encoding.

Wenger, M. J., & Townsend, J. T. (2000, in press). Faces as gestalt stimuli: Process characteristics. In M. J. Wenger & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Table of Contents


Answer to trivia question--A chiasmus is a reversal in the words of two otherwise parallel phrases. A famous chiasmus is J.F.K's ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

For more about chiasmi, click here.


Anarchy vs. a Forum for Experimental Psychology
Words of Wisdom from the President
Douglas Nelson

As President of Division 3 I have been called upon to write a few words of wisdom to the members. I am uniquely unqualified because wise people normally avoid issues related to the sociology of their field that could prove controversial. Like most experimental psychologists I proudly count myself among the group of entrepreneurial anarchists who tend to eschew meetings and organizations of any kind unless they involve discussions of research. I love being a part of this elite group and I love what I do for a living. I sincerely believe that we are very good at what we do and have every reason to be extremely proud of how we train our students and what we have accomplished. Our journals are filled with outstanding work, federal support for our research is better than ever, and I am continually impressed by the quality of what I see being produced by the newest members of our group. But, despite this success, I sense some problems in our field that continued anarchy is unlikely to solve.

Although we count our numbers in the thousands, no single forum exists that allows experimental psychologists to express their concerns about potential problems in the field or for sharing ideas that could make our field stronger and more attractive to prospective students. This is not to say that no one promotes our interests for it is correct to say that many outstanding individuals take this burden upon themselves. Many organizations also contribute to the good of the order (e.g., Division 3 and other divisions, the Board of Scientific Affairs, COGDOP, the Federation, Psychonomics, APS). The difficulty is that such representation is often concerned with specific problems having few implications for the field as a whole. What is more, recommendations and decisions made by these individuals and groups are often disconnected from the membership. Reliable lines of communication to and from leaders and organizations in the field have not been clearly established. In our present state of organization, when one of our members serves on a national committee or makes a decision on the local curriculum, there are no means for accessing opinions and ideas from experimental psychologists other than a few friends, nor are there well established means for communicating back to the people who might be affected by such decisions. With anarchy as our principle of organization, we are left to rely on authoritarian rather than on democratic forms of governance. In this new electronic age, leaving communication to chance seems shortsighted.

I am beginning to believe that some benefits might flow from creating a means of addressing more general issues that experimental psychologists see in the field. I do not pretend to know what issues might be, but I have questions. A few concern what our field could do to attract larger numbers of the best and brightest graduate students. In these days of enrollment driven universities, the consequences of too few students in our graduate programs are unpleasant to contemplate. Once we recruit students, what can we do to better prepare them for work in the profession, to reduce the time it takes to take them to the Ph.D., and to broaden their opportunities? On the publication process, articles in our major journals are better than ever, but why does it take so long for an author to learn about decisions on a manuscript? In the electronic age processing should move faster, but it is now substantially slower than it was 30 years ago. Would reducing the number of reviewers speed processing? What are the consequences of our reviewing policies for research productivity, federal support, and competitiveness with other fields? How are our policies affecting young researchers in their drive to attain tenure?
(continued on top of next page)

As an old anarchist I am unused to asking others for help but I have suffered enough meetings over the years to believe that others often have really good ideas. Do we need a new forum for communicating the concerns of experimental psychologists? I would like to know your ideas.

Douglas Nelson

Table of Contents

Division 3 APA 2001 Program:
A Preview

Barbara Basden and David Basden
Program Co-Chairs

The 2001 APA annual convention will be held in beautiful San Francisco on August 24-28. Programming for Division 3 and for other science-oriented divisions as well as for APA's Focus on Science program will occur on the weekend, August 24-26. To kick off the Focus on Science Program, APA is sponsoring a Science Social Hour on Friday, August 24th from 5-7 PM that will run in conjunction with a poster session.

The program for Division 3 will include symposia on various topics including memory distortion (chaired by Maria Zaragoza), social influences on memory (chaired by John Kihlstrom), and memory for position (chaired by Mark McDaniel). Invited speakers will include Mike Anderson, Charles Brainerd, John Gardiner, and others.

Details about these symposia and the rest of the program will be published in the June newsletter.

Members of Division 3 who have suggestions for the program should contact the program chairs prior to Jan. 20th at Barbara_Basden@CSUFresno.EDU

Thinking ahead-Do you plan to attend the convention in San Francisco?

Division 3 encourages participation at the annual convention, so mark your calendar now!

In addition to marking the dates, why not mark a REGISTER FOR APA date in early April? Such a reminder is useful because APA does not send out registration packets for the convention. Instead, information will appear in spring issues of the American Psychologist.

Division 3 and the other science divisions will schedule their programs on Science Weekend (Friday-Sunday), August 24, 25, and 26. All the science divisions are usually housed in a single hotel!

Back to Table of Contents

Can We Give Our Science Away?
Nancy K. Dess

Senior Scientist, American Psychological Association

Eminent members of our scientific community -- Bob Bjork, Gregory Kimble, and others -- have written eloquently about the importance of "giving psychology away." Et voila! The Decade of Behavior initiative to promote public understanding is underway. The American Psychological Society has inaugurated a journal devoted to Psychology in the Public Interest and has formed a partnership with Scientific American. APA recently sponsored a public lecture series on intelligence with the Smithsonian Institution. These are just a few of many wonderful examples of how we share and advocate for what we do. But it isn't enough. Not even close. We need to do much more to meet the challenges we and other behavioral and social scientists face in the public arena, such as:
Challenges from Without
· Governmental ambivalence: In 1995, the House Budget Committee recommended the elimination of NSF funding for behavioral and social sciences, including psychology. In 1999, Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) of the Senate Appropriations Committee spearheaded a similar attempt:

"The Committee encourages NSF to review its SBE research activities and to focus its funding toward activities more directly related to NSF's core mission of promoting an understanding of the physical sciences." [emphasis added]

Heroics by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and disciplinary associations stymied this latest effort. There is no reason to believe this will be the last such attempt.

· Public skepticism: The perception of behavioral and social sciences as "soft," "bogus," and self-serving persists. As described in the Chronicle of Higher Education (11/22/2000):
"Dan Seligman, a regular contributor to [Forbes], isn't sure that the world needs more social scientists. He believes that fields like anthropology, psychology, and sociology are 'in desperate shape,' but says that 'a powerful instinct for self-preservation will see them through to another century…' As for the field of psychology, Mr. Seligman … mentions a recent American Psychological Association study centering on a large corporation where, according to the report, 60 percent of employee absences were due to psychological problems. 'Like, one assumes, the angst associated with getting out of bed in the morning,' writes Mr. Seligman."
· K-12 science orthodoxy: The number of psychology courses offered in high school has surged this decade and APA recently published standards for its teaching. However, psychology is rarely, if ever, taught for science credit in K-12 education. It usually is an elective offered in the junior or senior year, well after the "what is science" sensitive period -- i. e., after students have imprinted on science as biology, chemistry, and physics.

Challenges from Within
· Inattention: A small number of psychological researchers are heavily involved in advocacy, but too few devote time and energy to educating the people outside of their area of expertise or of our discipline about what it is and why it is important.
· Incentives (not): The rewards for such advocacy are generally scanty and uncertain -- just one manifestation of the poor-stepchild status of "service" in faculty evaluation. Occasionally, popularizers of the field are subjected to derision or disdain.*
· Overspecialization: In the quest for technical pristineness and fineness of analysis, equally legitimate concern for impact, accessibility, and importance often seems to lose out. This is "the word" on grant proposals and journal articles in many areas of experimental psychology. It should be possible to strike a better balance.

Let's Give It Away -- A Little at a Time
Some of these challenges suggest their own solutions. It is easy to generate good ideas about advocacy. The key to large-scale change, though, is mobilizing our community on a large scale. A few more people doing a whole lot would be nice but, in an absolute sense, that still will not result in much more being given away. Now, a large number of people doing a little bit…

In that vein, the APA Science Directorate is inviting broad participation in Behavior Awareness Week, slated for launch next October (contact me or see the Jan/Feb Psychological Science Agenda for more information): Just one, 45-minute visit to a Grade 8-10 classroom to talk about psychological science is all it takes. If our community pitches in on a large scale, tens of thousands of students would be reached, hopefully in perpetuity. This model -- a little given by many -- can be applied to a range of activities. Let's
give it away, in a big way.

If you have questions or comments, please contact me at

*I'm grateful that so many colleagues have been very supportive and complimentary of my own advocacy efforts while at APA. Here, I refer to the occasional exception, to the usual role of
advocacy in formal evaluations, and to less-positive experiences others have had.

Table of Contents

Division 3, Experimental Psychology

If you're reading this, it's likely that you're a member of Division 3, but if not, you might want to know a bit more about us. This is from our web site,, which also contains an application. Hint, hint!

"The Division of Experimental Psychology of the American Psychological Association was formed many years ago to represent the interests and concerns of psychologists whose principal area of study or research lies within the field of general experimental psychology. Several specific goals of the Division have been established, including the promotion of basic experimental research, the transmission of this research and its theoretical bases to students, the facilitation of information exchange among the division members, the enhancement of interdisciplinary relationships, and the support and development of the scientific core of psychology. "
If you're not a member, why not join today?--VJD


New Division 3 Fellows

New fellows selected in 2000:
Michael Birnbaum
Richard Carlson
Gordon Logan
Steven Luck
Cynthia Owsley
Lynn Robertson


The following Fellows in other divisions were

selected for Fellow status in Division 3:
Mahzarin Banaji
Darryl Bruce
Arthur Fisk
Sylvan Kornblum
Richard McCarty

Congratulations to all!!!


Table of Contents

Changes and Opportunities at the National Science Foundation
Joseph L. Young
Program Director for Human Cognition and Perception, NSF

The Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS) has been undergoing changes in the last few months in personnel and in increased opportunities for research support. In October, the Division's new Director, Philip Rubin, reported for work and has quickly put his stamp on the Division. Rubin is Vice President of Haskins Laboratories in New Haven, a faculty member at Yale University, and a noted psychologist and speech researcher. Other recent personnel changes include Rodney Cocking's moving from Human Cognition and Perception to Child Learning and Development and my being brought from the brink of retirement to return to the Human Cognition and Perception Program.

The main source of the increased opportunities for research support is the unprecedented 14% budgetary increase for the National Science Foundation, an increase found in one of the appropriations bills that has already been passed by the Congress and signed by the President. While the 14% increase is less than the 17% request in the President's original FY 2001 budget request, it is the largest percentage and dollar increase in NSF's budget in history.

BCS was slated in the original FY 2001 budget request for a greater than average increase, due to the inclusion of a specific provision increasing support for cognitive neuroscience research by $10M. While the increase may be slightly less than the request (final allocations to Divisions, Programs, etc., have yet to be made), we still expect a very large increase, and we are hard at work fashioning ways in which those funds can be used to enhance theoretically-oriented cognitive neuroscience research. We have asked John Jonides of the University of Michigan and Guinevere Eden of Georgetown University to help us fashion a plan, and we are on the brink of releasing a "Dear Colleague" letter related to this Cognitive Neuroscience emphasis (watch for it on the BCS web page at outlining the various opportunities available. Clearly, one thing this does mean is that researchers in cognitive neuroscience should not be deterred from applying for the January 16 target date by the large size of their budgets, as we will have a mechanism for dealing with such budgets. In addition, investigators needing more time should be in touch with their Program Officer to see if it is possible to get an extension past the target date.

In a conference report accompanying the appropriations bill containing NSF's budget, the Congress directed us to mount a Children's Research Initiative with $5M this fiscal year. We will be administering this research through the Child Learning and Development Program, and details will be posted on the BCS web page as soon as they are available.

Finally, there are opportunities for visiting appointments as Program Directors in the Division. These appointments can last from one to three years and are ideal for people who have a reason to be in the Washington area for a while, who want to see how the funding process works from the "other side," who want to be a part of the exciting activities planned for the next few years, or who just want to do their part for the field. The first is in the Linguistics Program, which includes psychological research on language. The second is a new position in Cognitive Neuroscience. These two positions are available immediately, with the desire being to have people in them starting as soon as possible. The third position is in the Human Cognition and Perception Program. As I said above, I was plucked from the brink of retirement to return to this Program, and I won't be putting off retirement indefinitely. We would like to begin interviewing candidates for this position as soon as possible so that we can end up with a roster of acceptable candidates that we can draw from in the future. Individuals interested in these positions should contact Philip Rubin, Division Director of BCS, at

Table of Contents

Early vs. Late Selection--Could this be the Critical Experiment?

Make a Contribution to Science-Participate in an experiment designed to test once and for all J whether the semantic content of unattended information can affect behavior.

warning: This activity has not been approved by an IRB, so participate at your own risk. J

Experimental condition (that's you)
: Look at the box below for 5 seconds. Focus on the rows of Xs; do not attend in any way to the writing between the lines of Xs.

send a comment to the editor
send a comment to the editor

Control condition (this is you too, but you in the past)--No need to do anything. I have two years of baseline data with a to-be-attended message presented in the text begging for input from you, the reader. That message counts as attended because I am sure that each of you reads the newsletter with full attention to everything!

Predictions: Only 1 person in two years has responded to the attended messge. I will compare that to the number of responses to the unattended request. The way that I see it, if early selection theories of attention are correct, there should be no reliable increase in the level of responses. But, if late selection theories are correct, there will be an increase in responses as readers find themselves sending comments to I'll let you know the results in the June newsletter.

Comments/Questions? Of course, I would welcome comments on the design! J I would also welcome comments about the ethics of this study. J In fact, I guess that you might say I would welcome comments. VJD

Letters to the Editor

Oops, there are none.

(Just submit the darn thing!)

Table of Contents

A chiasmus for Division 3

A magician pulls rabbits out of hats.
An experimental psychologist pulls habits out of rats.


submitted by Robert (Bob) Perloff
(Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Business Administration and Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh) from page iv of Mardy Grothe's book "Never Let a Fool Kiss You or a Kiss Fool You" (Viking, 1999. $17.95)

Another chiasmus for Division 3

Harry Harlow was introduced once after an exquisite dinner of many gourmet courses as the "youngest full professor in the history of the University of Wisconsin". He replied thus, "I don't know if I'm the youngest full professor, but I know that I am the fullest young professor".

Robert Perloff received this in the mail and submitted it for our enjoyment

Back to Table of Contents

Division 3 of APA, Executive Committee Meeting

Washington, DC
Meeting Room 4, Renaissance Washington Hotel, Meeting Room 4
August 4, 2000

Present were Roddy Roediger, President; Douglas Nelson, President-Elect; Frank Bellezza, Secretary-Treasurer; Members at large of the Executive Committee, Dave Balota, Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Tom Zentall; Representatives to APA Council, Neal Johnson, Manny Donchin; Bruce Overmier, APA Board of Directors; Darlene Howard and Jim Howard, Co-chairs of the Program Committee

President Roediger called the meeting to order at 6:15 PM.

The minutes of the November, 1999, Executive Committee meeting were approved as circulated.

President Roediger reported on the election results
President-Elect- Morton Ann Gernsbacher
Executive Committee Members-at-Large- Randall Engle, Edward Wasserman
Representative to APA Council: Harry Bahrick

The new Chair of the Membership Committee will be David Payne. He will work with Betty Capaldi, Mahzarin Banaji, and Doug Hermann to recruit members belonging to other science-oriented divisions in APA.

The Report of the Fellowship Committee prepared by Chair Reed Hunt was read by President Roediger. The following members of Division 3 were recommended to the Council of Representatives for Fellowship status: Gordon Logan, Steven Luck, Michael Birnbaum, Richard Carlson, Lynn Robertson, Cynthia Owsley. Fellows from other divisions nominated for the same status in Division 3 were Mahzarin Banaji, Darryl Bruce, Arthur Fisk, Sylvan Kornblum, Richard McCarty.

Jim Howard presented the Program Committee report. Division 3, in cooperation with Divisions 6 and 20, presented 9 symposia. In addition to symposia on Mind, Brain, and Behavior, there was also symposium on establishing and maintaining IRBs, as well as three invited addresses and a poster session with 25 posters.

Frank Bellezza reported that our financial status was good, although most of our expenses will occur later in the year as a result of the August meeting. There appears to be no reason to raise the Division dues at this time. Statistics obtained from the APA membership office indicate that our membership has declined by 114 in the past year, but only 24 of these can be accounted for. Even if the decline in membership is not as great as these statistics indicate, 370 of our members are dues exempt. It is important to recruit new members.

David Balota reported for the Awards Committee and the written report provided by Chair Peter Urcuioli was distributed. The New Investigator Awards winners were:

Jonathan Crystal from the University of Georgia for the paper "Systematic nonlinearities in the perception of temporal intervals" published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.

Catherine Harris and Alison Morris from Boston University for the paper " A sublexical locus for repetition blindness: Evidence from illusory words" published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

Delphine Dahan from the University of Rochester for the paper "On the discovery of novel wordlike units from utterances: An artificial-language study with implications for native-language acquisition" published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Pamela Hinds from Stanford University for the paper "The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance" published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Michael Wenger from the University of Notre Dame for the paper "On the whats and hows of retrieval in the acquisition of a simple skill" published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

There followed a discussion of what the eligibility requirements should be for the New Investigator Awards. It was decided that candidates should be pre-tenure or within 7 years of earning their PhD. However, the journal editors and the Awards Committee may exercise some judgment when using these criteria, and exceptions may occur. Also, it was suggested that these awards should not be given at the Division 3 Business Meeting but at the APA Awards Meeting. [Following the Business meeting, Tom Zentall suggested that the President be given his/her plaque before he/she speaks. Then at the very end of the speech, but before the question period and before the audience has left, the President announce the winners of the new-investigator awards.]

The report on The Experimental Psychology Bulletin prepared by Veronica Dark was read by Frank Bellezza. The Committee expressed the hope that Veronica would serve as editor for two more years, for a total of five years. All agreed that the style of the Bulletin was fine. The suggestion was made that the Bulletin be published in May and in October. The May issue would contain the Division 3 APA program and encourage members to make plans to attend the August meeting. The October issue would contain the nomination ballot for Division 3 officers as well as encouragement to vote in the APA survey allocating seats in the Council of Representatives. Another suggestion was that the Bulletin be placed on the Division 3 web site or be sent to members via email. Richard McCarty promised to help us get Division 3 member's email addresses in a useable form from the APA master list. He suggested that we contact Jerry McLauglin, director of MIS.

Neal Johnson and Manny Donchin reported on the activities of the Council of Representatives. They drew the attention of the Division to the activities of the Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure in Psychology that was created by the Council in its February 2000 meeting. The Commission is chaired by APA President Norine Johnson and has issued a report based on its activities during the past year. While the Commission is focused on Clinical Psychology, its recommendation will affect any psychologist who is seeking licensure, including I/O and Experimental Psychologists. The Commission's recommendations will also affect departments of psychology who train clinical psychologists. The main thrust of the Commission is to eliminate the requirement of a postdoctoral year of supervised practice as a condition for licensure. The thrust of the Commission's recommendations is that the pre-doctoral practicum experience, and one year of pre-doctoral internship, constitute adequate preparation for Licensure. Johnson and Donchin emphasized that the Commission is now soliciting comments on its initial report, and it is important for Division 3 members, and department chairs to consider and comment on the report. It will be a mistake, they said, to consider this Commission as irrelevant to our concerns. It is also the case that the Commission is genuinely seeking input. The final report of the Commission will be presented to the Council, and it is important, therefore, for members to communicate their concerns to the Council representatives. Another issue is that state representatives are asking that every state be represented in Council. This could weaken the influence of divisions, such as Division 3. This proposal, however, does not appear to have much backing. The Council approved (at a session held following the Executive Committee's meeting) two agenda items. Funding was made available on an annual basis to the Public Education Campaign managed by the Practice Directorate which, inter alia, provide news media messages that will make the practice of psychology better known to the general public. The Council also approved $350K on an annual basis for the Academic Enhancement Campaign developed by the Science Directorate. This campaign ranges from activities like the neuroimaging workshop held in June 2000, through the Academic Career Workshops.

Richard McCarty, Merry Bullock, Patricia Kobor, and Virginia Holt from the Science Directorate made a presentation. McCarty outlined some of the programs the Directorate is involved in. There is the possibility that APA will prepare press releases that will accompany the publication of important journal articles in the APA journals. This program will result in psychological research being covered more widely in the news media. Also, as part of the program for the Decade of Behavior, The McDonnell Foundation will provide founds for a series of 5 lectures a year for 5 years at various professional meetings (APA, APS, Psychonomic Society, etc). There was also some discussion of ethics training becoming mandatory for research investigators working under federal grants. Morton Ann Gernsbacher discussed the ethics-training module available as a PowerPoint file through NIH. Modifications of this program to fit particular research programs seem to be easily made.

Under New Business, it was decided to ask Ruth Maki to continue to maintain the Division 3 web site. Also, the term "animal behavior processes" was added to the 100-word description that defines the interest areas of members of Division 3.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Francis S. Bellezza, Secretary-Treasurer

Table of Contents


Division 3 on the Web

The Division 3 Web Site is accessible from the APA homepage. It contains an application for membership, the bylaws, and officers' names and addresses. As it develops, it will likely include program information and the newsletter. (In fact, it might even contain the newsletter at this very moment-why not check it out?)

The address is

Ruth Maki,, is maintaining the site.

BOOK ALERT--APA is publishing a new book in February 2001 that is likely to be of interest to members of Division 3. The book is edited by Roediger, Nairne, Neath, and Surprenant and is entitled "The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder". See the APA Books web site for details:

Table of Contents

Award Winners of the Society for General Psychology for Year 2001

The Society for General Psychology, Division One of the American Psychological Association, announces its Year 2001 award winners who have been recognized for outstanding achievements in General Psychology. This year the winner of the William James Book Award is Michael Tomasello for his book The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, which was published in 1999 by Harvard University Press. This award is for a recent book that serves to integrate material across psychological subfields or to provide coherence to the diverse subject matter of psychology

The Year-2001 winner of the Ernest R. Hilgard Award for a Career Contribution to General Psychology is Murray Sidman. And the winners of the George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology are Jack Martin and Jeff Sugarman of Simon Fraser University for their article "Psychology's Reality Debate: A 'Levels of Reality' Approach'" which appeared in the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology in 1999 (pp. 177-194). In each case the awardees receive a certificate and a cash prize: $500 for the Hilgard and Miller awards, and $1000 for the William James Book Award. The winner of the competition to deliver the Year-2001 Arthur W. Staats Lecture for Unifying Psychology who will receive an award of $1000 will be determined and announced later.

Call for Nominations
Division 1 Awards, Year 2002

For all of these awards, the focus is on the quality of the contribution and the linkages made between the diverse fields of psychological theory and research. The Society for General Psychology encourages the integration of knowledge across the subfields of psychology and the incorporation of contributions from other disciplines. The Society is looking for creative synthesis, the building of novel conceptual approaches, and a reach for new, integrated wholes. A match between the goals of the Society and the nominated work or person will be an important evaluation criterion. The Staats Award has a unification theme, recognizing significant contributions of any kind that go beyond mere efforts at coherence and serve to develop psychology as a unified science. The Staats Lecture will deal with how the awardee's work serves to unify psychology.

There are no restrictions on nominees, and self-nominations as well as nominations by others are encouraged for these awards. For the Hilgard Award and the Staats Award, nominators are asked to submit the candidate's name and vitae along with a detailed statement indicating why the nominee is a worthy candidate for the award and supporting letters from others who endorse the nomination.

For the Miller Award, nominations should include: vitae of the author(s), four copies of the article being considered (which can be of any length but must be in print and have a post-1995 publication date), and a statement detailing the strength of the candidate article as an outstanding contribution to General Psychology.

Nominations for the William James Award should include three copies of the book (dated post-1995 and available in print); the vitae of the author(s) and a one-page statement that explains the strengths of the submission as an integrative work and how it meets criteria established by the Society. Text books, analytic reviews, biographies, and examples of applications are generally discouraged.

Winners will be announced at the Fall convention of the American Psychological Association the year of submission. Winners will be expected to give an invited address at the subsequent APA convention and also to provide a copy of the award address for inclusion in the newsletter of the Society.

All nominations and supporting materials for each award must be received on or before April 15, 2001. Nominations and materials for all awards and requests for further information should be directed to General Psychology Awards, c/o C. Alan Boneau, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030. Phone: 301-320-3695; Fax: 301-320-2845; E-mail:

Table of Contents


Committee on Women in Psychology (CWP) Leadership Awards, 2001

The APA Committee on Women in Psychology (CWP) invites nominations for its seventeenth annual Leadership Awards. These awards serve to actively demonstrate CWP's commitment to ensure that women receive equity both within psychology and as consumers of psychological services, and that issues pertaining to women are kept at the forefront of psychological research, education, training, and practice.

Nominees will be identified as "emerging" or "distinguished" leaders in one or more areas of influence: service provision, scholarship, public interest, and service in psychology. Emerging leaders are psychologists who have received their doctorate within the past 15 years, have made a substantial contribution to women in psychology and show promise of an extensive, influential career. Distinguished leaders are psychologists who have worked for 15 years or more after receiving their doctorate. They should have a longstanding influence on women's issues and status and should be recognized leaders in their area of expertise. Successful candidates will have made significant contributions in one or more of the following areas:

Service Provision
Recognizes individuals who have demonstrated outstanding delivery of psychological services to women. Such leadership includes working directly with women, directing and/or supervising psychological services for women, and/or development of innovative psychological services for women.
Recognizes innovative, high-quality research accomplishments that impact women's lives or improve their status. Such leadership includes but is not limited to: a) increasing our general knowledge and understanding of women's experiences and development; b) developing theory and research relevant to decreasing societal biases (e.g., sexism, racism, heterosexism, abelism, ageism, etc.) that impede the advancement of women. Relevant activities include publication, teaching and mentoring.

Public Interest
Recognizes individuals whose efforts have furthered the welfare of women. Such leadership includes but is not limited to: a) promoting legislation which improves the welfare of women; b) increasing the representation of women in psychology and society; c) advocating for the rights of women; d) advancing the utilization of psychology to enhance women's lives; e) challenging the discrimination and harassment of all women; and f) improving the welfare of under represented subpopulations of women in psychology and society.
Service in Psychology
Recognizes individuals who have demonstrated outstanding leadership in their service to psychology. Such leadership includes serving in multiple leadership positions in the governance of psychology oriented groups, having a sustaining impact and influence on women's issues in policy and procedures in professional organizations, and/or tackling important and significant issues for women as part of their leadership activities.
Procedures for Making Nominations
All nominations must include a brief statement of support for the nominee (500-word maximum), a current vita (6 copies), and three letters of reference (6 copies of each letter). Reference letters should indicate whether the candidate is being nominated as an emerging or a distinguished leader, as well as the categories in which the candidate has made contributions (service recognition, scholarship, public interest, and/or service in psychology); additionally, letters should address the nominees' leadership activities, contributions, and scope of influence that advance knowledge for and about women, foster understanding of women's lives, and improve the status of women and underrepresented populations of women in psychology and society.

Current CWP members, members of APA's Board of Directors, individuals who have announced candidacy for APA President, and APA staff are not eligible. CWP members cannot make nominations. Award recipients, selected by CWP in March, will be announced at the APA Convention in San Francisco, California, in August 2001.

Nominations and supporting materials must be postmarked by Thursday, February 1, 2001. Incomplete nominations, and materials sent after the deadline, will not be reviewed. Send nominations materials to: Leslie Cameron, Women's Programs Office, American Psychological Association, 750 First St., N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4242.

(HEY! If you know a Division 3 Member deserving of this recognition, why not nominate her?--VJD)

Table of Contents

BSA Master Lecture Series

The Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is seeking nominations for speakers in the Master Lecture Series for the 2002 convention in Chicago (Aug 23-27). The series highlights the best in psychological science. BSA has identified 10 core areas in psychology and each year there are lectures in five areas. The areas for 2002 are developmental psychology; learning, behavior and action; methodology; psychopathology and treatment; and social and cultural psychology. Speakers are supported with travel expenses and an honorarium.

A nomination should indicate the category of the nomination and should describe the nominee's research area and speaking ability and should indicate why the work highlights the best. Nominations are due March 1,2001. Mail to Sophia Birdas (, APA Science Directorate, 750 First Street, Washington, DC 20002.

Table of Contents

Division of Experimental Psychology, Division 3, APA
Call for Nominations, 2000-2001

President-Elect 1. ____________________________________________
(will be president 2001-2002)
(List two names in rank order) 2.)_______________________________________

Representative to APA Council 1.)_______________________________________
3-year term
(List two names in rank order) 2.)_______________________________________

Member-at-Large 1.)_______________________________________
Division 3 Executive Committee
3-year terms 2.)_______________________________________
2 positions
(List five names in rank order)


Officers must be Fellows in Division 3, but if you do not know whether someone is a Fellow, nominate him/her anyway. We'll do the checking.

Current and Recent Presidents: Morton Ann Gernsbacher (2001-2002), Douglas Nelson (2000-01), Henry L. Roediger III (1999-00), Harry Bahrick (1998-99), Vincent LoLordo(1997-98), Geoffrey Keppel (1996-97), Neal F. Johnson (1995-96). Terms are August to August.

Current and Recent APA Council Representatives: Harry Bahrick (2001-2003), Emanuel Donchin (1998-01), Neal F. Johnson (1998-00), Bruce Overmier (Board of Directors), Geoffrey Keppel. Terms are January to January. Representatives may serve two consecutive terms, so Emanuel Donchin is eligible for reelection.

Current and Recent Members-at-Large: Randall Engle (2000-2003), Edward Wasserman (2000-2003), Henry L. Roediger III (1996-99), Donald J. Foss (1997-00), Gregory Lockhead (1997-00), Morton Ann Gernsbacher (1998-01), Thomas Zentall (1999-02), David A. Balota (1999-02), David Riccio, Lewis P. Lipsett, Vincent M. LoLordo, Howard Egeth. Terms are August to August. Members-at-Large may not be elected to consecutive terms.
Please submit nominations to: Francis S. Bellezza Phone: (740) 593-1084
Department of Psychology FAX: (740) 593-0579
Nominations must be Ohio University
received by Jan. 31, 2001 Athens, OH 45701

Back to Table of Contents

Division 3 E-mail Network Address

Subscribe to the Division 3 E-mail network to keep informed about Division 3, APA activities and critical things that occur in Congress. This is a monitored network so you should not get a flood of E-mail.
To subscribe, send an E?mail message to "" Leave the "Subject" line blank. In the body of the message type "subscribe div3" and then send the message.
If you have subscribed and want to send a message to the network, address your message to: Send questions about the network and suggestions as to how it might be operated most effectively to Neal Johnson at:

While you're registering for the e-mail network, why not check out the new web site at ?

Table of Contents


Webpage Last Updated June 02, 2004

This page maintained by:  Mark Faust (