The Experimental Psychology Bulletin

from Division 3 of the American Psychological Association

Vol. 5, No. 2

June 2001

Table of Contents


Division 3

2001 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 2001 award winners are noted below.  Look for descriptions of the award-winning work in the January newsletter.


Journal of Experimental Psychology:  Animal Behavior Processes 

Co-Winner: Justin A. Harris, “Contextual control over conditioned responding in an extinction paradigm.” (co-authored with Megan L. Jones, Glynis K. Bailey, & R. Frederick Westbrook), Vol. 26, 174-185.  School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia.

CO-Winner: Jeffrey S. Katz “Stimulus repetition effects on texture-based visual search by pigeons.” (Co-authored with Robert G. Cook), Vol 26, 220-236.  Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, TX, 77225,


Journal of Experimental Psychology:  Applied

Winner: C. W. Lejuez, “Preference between onset predictable and unpredictable administrations of 20% carbon-dioxide-enriched air: Implications for better understanding the etiology and treatment of panic disorder” (co-authored with Georg. H. Eifert, Michael J. Zvolensky, & Jerry B. Richards), Vol 6, 349-358.  Department of Psychology, Brown University School of Medicine, Butler Hospital, Providence, RI 02906,


Journal of Experimental Psychology:  General

CO-Winner: Daniel T. Levin, “Race as a visual feature: Using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit”, Vol 129, 559-574.  Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242,

CO-Winner: Kevin N. Ochsner, “Are affective events richly recollected or simply familiar? The experience and process of recognizing feelings past”, Vol 129, 242-261.  Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138,


Journal of Experimental Psychology:  Human Perception and Performance

Winner: Derek M. Houston, "The role of talker-specific information in word segmentation by infants” (co-authored with Peter W. Jusczyk), Vol 26, 1570-1582.  Department of Otolaryngology, DeVault Otologic Research Laboratory, Indiana University Medical School, Indianapolis, IN 46202,

Honorable mention:  Tracy L. Taylor, “Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return”, (co-authored with Raymond M. Klein), Vol 26, 1639-1656.  Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1,


Journal of Experimental Psychology:  Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Winner: Todd A. Kahan, “Negative priming from masked words: Retrospective prime clarification or center-surround inhibition?”, Vol 26, 1392-1410.  Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406,


Congratulations to all for excellence in research!!!

Back to the Table of Contents

Investing in Psychological Science

Richard McCarty

APA Science Directorate

Column for Division 3 Newsletter

A little over 3 years ago, I was preparing to take an extended leave from the University of Virginia and beginning my involvement in the Science Directorate at APA.  From the very first day that I worked at APA, I believed that psychological scientists were well served by the efforts of Science Directorate staff.  However, from the outset, my colleagues and I discussed how we might do even better.  In this column, I’d like to bring you up to date on some new programs that are in place and that we are very excited about.

1.     Science Watch:  Science Watch was added as a new feature to the Monitor when it switched to a magazine format in January 2000.  In each issue, Siri Carpenter of the Monitor staff prepares a feature article based upon a paper published that same month in one of the core experimental journals at APA.  Quite a few of these over the past 12 months have been taken from JEP.  I might add that Siri is well equipped to take on this assignment as she recently completed her PhD in Psychology at Yale University under the direction of Board of Scientific Affairs member Mahzarin Banaji.  Our APA Office of Public Communications, under the direction of Rhea Farberman, also prepares a press release based upon the journal article.  To date, many of these exciting studies have appeared in major newspapers such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Dallas Morning News and others.  This effort will be expanded in 2001 with the addition of a staff member in Public Communications who will increase our ability to showcase the best of psychological science to the general public.

2.     Advanced Training Institutes (ATI):  With oversight from the Board of Scientific Affairs, the Science Directorate developed an exciting new program that had its debut in June 2000.  Our first ATI in brain imaging was held at the Massachusetts General Hospital under the direction of Robert Savoy.  Thanks to support from the National Institute of Mental Health, we were able to bring 40 graduate students, postdocs and junior and senior faculty together to learn the basic of brain imaging at one of the leading research centers in the world.  The registration fee was kept to a bare minimum and we were able to offer some limited travel support.  I have heard back from a number attendees and they were very enthusiastic about the ATI arrangement.  We return to Mass General in June 2001 and we plan to offer the same fMRI workshop over the next several years.  We are also adding a second ATI on advanced quantitative methods at the University of Virginia in 2001.  Jack McArdle will serve as course director.

3.     Summer Science Institute (SSI):  Simply put, SSI is a big hit.  It started in 1996 when we brought two groups of first and second year undergraduates to the University of Maryland for a week-long series of lectures and laboratory experiences.  Since then, we have held SSI sessions at The Johns Hopkins University in 1997 and 1998 and at the University of California at Berkeley in 1999 and 2000.  To date, more than 180 of the most talented undergraduates in the nation have participated in this program and our hope is that this early exposure to psychological science will provide a stimulus for some of them to continue on into graduate programs in psychology.  In 2001, we will move SSI to the University of Colorado at Boulder and we are very excited about the students we will work with this coming summer.  How about encouraging your most talented first or second year undergraduate to apply for 2002.  Applications are available on the Science Directorate web site.

I have highlighted three of the many programs that have direct benefit to Division 3 members.  There are many others, including our talented group of Science Policy Office advocates who work on your behalf for increases in research funding.  Each of these programs is supported in part by member dues.  I trust you are pleased with the way in which your investment in APA in being managed.  Please contact me at if you have any comments or suggestions relating to any of our programs.  And have a great summer!    

Back to the Table of Contents


NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research:
Recent Research Agenda Activities

Ronald P. Abeles, Ph. D.
Special Assistant to the Director
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
National Institutes of Health

   The U.S. Congress established the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) in the Office of the Director, NIH, in recognition of the key role that behavioral and social factors often play in illness and health. The OBSSR mission is to stimulate behavioral and social sciences research throughout NIH and to integrate these areas of research more fully into others of the NIH health research enterprise, thereby improving our understanding, treatment, and prevention of disease.


   In order to fulfill its mission, the Office engages in a variety of activities. (See for a full description of the Office and its activities.) Among these are:


·         Developing funding initiatives for research and training

·         Setting priorities for behavioral and social sciences research

·         Providing opportunities for training and career development for behavioral and scientists

·         Linking minority students with mentors

·         Organizing conferences, workshops, and lectures

·         Briefing key NIH staff on behavioral and social sciences research

   OBSSR and NIH Institutes are paying particular attention to two recent OBSSR-initiated activities. The first is a conference entitled Toward Higher Levels of Analysis: Progress and Promise in Research on Social and Cultural Dimensions of Health, held on June 27-28, 2000. The Conference highlighted the contributions of social and cultural factors to health and illness in order to achieve a better understanding of the interdependence of social, behavioral, and biological levels of analysis in health research. Among the topics addressed were:

·         Socio-cultural constructs such as race, ethnicity, SES, and gender

·         Socio-cultural linkages between demographic factors and health

·         Socio-cultural factors in prevention, treatment, and health services

·         Interpersonal, neighborhood, and community influences on health

·         Health justice and ethical issues

·         Global perspectives on health


   Building on the conference themes, invited experts met subsequently to recommend NIH research agenda. The organizing committee is now finalizing the conference report, Progress and Promise in Research on the Social and Cultural Dimensions of Health, and will post the resulting document on the OBSSR HomePage ( 


   The second agenda-building activity is a major study conducted for the NIH by the National Research Council. OBSSR commissioned the NRC Committee on Future Directions for Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the NIH to develop a research plan to guide NIH in supporting areas of high priority in the behavioral and social sciences. This report identifies a broad domain of questions at the interface of social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, whose resolution could lead to major improvements in the health of the U.S. population. In creating a vision of future directions, the committee emphasized research priorities that cut across institute boundaries at the NIH, thereby underscoring the broad significance of behavioral and social science research for multiple disease outcomes as well as for health promotion. The background criteria guiding the development of priorities were that they should represent areas of great scientific opportunity and address pressing health problems, including health concerns of the general public. A leitmotif of the corpus of opportunities identified in this report is that they cannot be addressed successfully by either the biomedical sciences or the behavioral and social sciences acting alone. Greater integration of health research and practice across these broad domains is essential to implement the committee’s recommendations.  (For ordering information and the executive summary, visit the OBSSR HomePage at 

   The report, New Horizons in Health: An Integrative Approach, is now available from the National Academy Press and calls for new and expanded research, training, and methodological initiatives addressing:

·         Pre-disease Pathways

·         Positive Health

·         Environmentally Induced Gene Expression

·         Personal Ties

·         Collective Properties and Healthy Communities

·         The Influence of Inequality on Health Outcomes

·         Population Perspectives

·         Interventions

·         Methodological Priorities

·         Research Infrastructure


   OBSSR is working with NIH Institutes to evaluate and implement these recommendations. Together the reports emphasize the centrality of behavioral and social research to fulfilling the NIH’s mission and the need for multidisciplinary approaches to health. In addition, the reports highlight the need for basic research involving a variety of methods, including experimental and observational approaches, employing both humans and animals.


Back to the Table of Contents




OCTOBER 15-19, 2001



In association with the Decade of Behavior initiative, APA is launching a national effort to bring the excitement of psychological science to students in Grades 8-10. You and your colleagues -- faculty, graduate students, advanced undergraduates -- can be a part of Exploring Behavior Week by making one, 45-minute classroom visit. We're making it easy with a 'tips' booklet and modifiable presentation template.  Preview the presentation and learn more at

Your science needs you to advocate for it with the public and to help nurture tomorrow's psychological scientists.  Pledge NOW to get involved in the fall.  The more, the merrier. Make it a department tradition!

Nancy K. Dess, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
American Psychological Association
750 First Street NE
Washington DC  20002-4242

Back to the Table of Contents


I asked the members of the Executive Board for tips about things to do and places to eat in San Francisco. 

Here are the suggestions from Ed Wasserman, U of Iowa.

A great restaurant:   Des Alpes.  Family style basque cuisine  
Places to go:  the Exploratorium,
the aquarium, museum, and planetarium,

Featured Article:

Making the Best of a Bad Thing

By Chris Koch

(Note:  The title is Editor Veronica Dark's.  The politics reflected are those of the Editor and do NOT necessarily reflect those of the author or the Division 3 leadership!)

   Current events often serve as useful tools for psychologists.  Legal cases, for instance, can highlight the importance of psychological research in regard to eyewitness testimony, repressed memories, jury selection, etc.  However, current events also serve as an excellent tool for the classroom.  For example, due to the length of the O.J. Simpson trial, I was able to use that event for a full year when discussing Type I and Type II errors.  If a Type I error is stating that there is an experimental effect when there really is not one, then a Type I error is like finding someone to be guilty when they are really innocent.  Similarly, stating that there is no effect when there really is one (Type II) is like finding a guilty person innocent.  After making these comparisons I asked students which error we should be most concerned about.  With a few exceptions, every student stated that we should be most concerned with Type I errors.  This then provided an easy transition into alpha levels and inferential statistics.

   Our recent presidential election was another example-rich event.  Baron, Roediger, and Anderson (2000), for instance, used the election process in Florida to discuss the value of applied psychology.  Specifically, he dealt with the difficulties with the butterfly ballots and noted that someone, like a psychologist, could have been involved in designing a ballot that would have eliminated voting errors.  Similarly, Clay (2001) refers to several researchers who discuss the ballot design flaws.  Both Baron, Roediger, and Anderson (2000) and Clay (2001) emphasize how psychology can be applied to solve everyday problems.  Although it is important to show the utility of psychology in these situations, there are also a number of fundamental issues related to statistics and research design that we adhere to as research psychologists but have been seemingly ignored (or at least underrepresented) in the media.  These issues, I believe, can also help show the relevance of psychology, and science in general, to everyday events.

  Apart from providing numerous jokes which served as excellent icebreakers at the beginning of class, the election and ensuing political maneuvers highlighted a number of errors we try to avoid as researchers.  The following list of errors was largely generated in class by asking my research methods students to assume that the election was a psychological study and to point out any research problems they could find.

Representative versus Bias Sampling.  One of the requests Gore had during the litigation phase of the election was to recount the number of votes in democratic precincts.  He also did not want the military votes recounted.  The reason was extremely obvious.  Gore needed additional votes and he was most likely to get them by recounting votes in areas most likely to vote for him while not counting ballets in areas where the votes were more likely to be for President Bush.  This is an excellent example of biased sampling.

Operational Definition and Experimenter Bias.  What counts as a vote?  Must the entire circle be punched out?  Do hanging chads count?  How much of an indentation counts as a vote?  The idea of an operational definition is what Supreme Court Justice Sandra O’Connor was getting at when she asked why the votes could not be counted according to the instructions on the ballots.  It is also the question the counties had when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of votes without indicating what should count as a vote.  Without a clear definition of what counted as a vote (or what is being measured), the task was not only difficult but also open for public scrutiny and speculation.  It is relatively easy for a democrat vote counter to disagree with a republican vote counter over the same ballet due to lack of clarity surrounding what constitutes a vote and the vested interests of both parties in the outcome of the election.  Therefore, the presidential election also served as an excellent example of the importance of operational definitions and how experimenter bias can influence the results.

Research Protocol.  One of the ways we teach to avoid experimenter error is to follow a research protocol.  Research protocols are used to help standardize the experiment across participants.  The different types of ballots used in the election show that the voting experience was different for different groups of people.  Baron, Roediger, and Anderson (2000) and Clay’s (2001) comments regarding ballot design are particularly relevant to this point.  The current congressional investigation into voting procedures will hopefully help address this point as well (Election Reform Act).

Validity.  Does the experiment measure what it was intended to measure, or in the case of the election, does the election reflect the “will of the voters?”  This is a key question when addressing the validity of a study.  One source of invalidity is instrumentation (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).  This emphasizes that fact that we need to not only be concerned about what dependent variable we choose to examine but also how we measure it.  An inadequate or inappropriate measure will serve as a source of invalidity thereby calling into question the findings of the study.

Probabilistic Assertions.  The assertions we make about our research are based on probabilities. The projections the television networks make are also based on probabilities.  Just as the networks were wrong (several times) in their projections the night of the election, we could be wrong in making certain conclusions based on our research. This is why we generally use words such as “shows” or “suggests” instead of “proves” when discussing our findings.

Research Ethics.  By focusing on these potential sources of error and eliminating them as much as possible, we demonstrate that psychologists have higher ethical standards then politicians.  Perhaps this is not the best proof of who has higher ethical standards but my students found it humorous.  Nevertheless, the election did provide another opportunity to discuss research ethics in a way that students could easily relate to.

Current events can be used to emphasize a variety of points related to psychology, however, the fundamentals of research that make psychology a science should not be overlooked, both in the classroom and in the public media.  Instead, as suggested by Myers (1993), many of the problems society faces could be eliminated if proper scientific reasoning and methods were utilized.


Baron, J., Roediger, H. L., III, & Anderson, M. C. (2000). Human factors and the Palm Beach ballot. APS Observer, 13(10), 5,7.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Clay, R. A. (2001). It was bad design, not dumb voters. Monitor on Psychology, 32(3), 30-31.

Myers, D. (1993). Social psychology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chris Koch, Ph.D., Psi Chi Vice-President
Associate Professor of Psychology
George Fox University
414 N. Meridian St.
Newberg, OR  97132
(503) 554-2744

Back to the Table of Contents




(well, a little exaggeration is the editor's prerogative)


 Fifth  Edition of the

American Psychological Association Publication Manual.

It came out in July,2001 and is available in softcover, hardcover, and spiral bound.  On the web at 


Norman E. "Skip" Spear

Warren Medal Winner

   The Society of Experimental Psychologists has conferred the Warren Medal for outstanding achievement in Experimental Psychology to Norman E. Spear. "Skip" Spear was trained as an experimental psychologist at Northwestern University under the supervision of Win Hill, Ben Underwood and Steve Glickman.  His early work focused on effects of the parameters of reward on learning and performance, work characterized by an exceptionally high level of productivity and creativity. Skip then initiated studies of animal memory focused on memory retrieval failure and its alleviation, with a continuing emphasis on learning and memory in early development and its potential mediation of alcohol abuse. Skip assessed the effects of drugs and neurophysiological maturation on learning and retention, utilizing innovative experimental designs coordinated with contemporary theories of human memory. He expertly measured, controlled and manipulated tastes, odors, temperature, and ultrasounds, as well as visual and auditory stimuli, in his search for the roots of memory. Skip Spear has emerged as one of the leading experts on the ontogeny of learning and memory.

Submitted by Peter Killeen for

The Society of Experimental Psychologists

Chair: Byron Campbell,

Secretary-Treasurer: Peter Killeen,

Historian: Robert M. Boynton

Division 3 Congratulates Skip!!

Back to the Table of Contents

The National Academy of Sciences is

reviewing the scientific evidence for

polygraphs.  Interested?  Check the

website at 

Search under “current projects”.

Early vs. Late Selection: Still NO Critical Experiment

a report from the editor

   In the last newsletter, I asked people to voluntarily participate in a non-IRB approved study designed to test once and for all (well, not really, I did put in a smiley face) whether the semantic content of unattended information can affect behavior.

   Volunteers were instructed to "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

  The prior two years of baseline data in response to a to-be-attended message presented in the text of the newsletter explicitly begging for input from readers served as the control.


   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 responding to the unattended message.


   Control:  Only 1 person in two years responded to the attended message. 

   Experimental:  Two people sent email comments, but each asked me NOT to print his/her comment!

    Although the mean was twice as large in the experimental group as in the control group, there was insufficient power to establish a reliable difference.  Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and early selection theory is supported.  (Whew!  I was worried there for a moment. J )


  Division 3 members show no evidence of being responsive to requests from the editor!  In fact, they appear to be an unresponsive bunch in general.  (At least they aren't surly).  It is likely that this behavior contributes to the level of gray hair experienced by recent editors.

Back to the Table of Contents

APA 2001 Convention, Division 3 Program Information

Barbara Basden and David Basden

Program Co-Chairs


Division 3 and the other science divisions schedule their programs on Science Weekend (Friday-Sunday), August 24, 25, and 26. 

The Full Division 3 Program is available on the Web.

[The Division 3 Program is pretty darned good, in the editor's humble opinion. Many thanks to Barbara and David for a job well done!--VJD. See the extra-convention recommendations earlier in this newsletter.]

Division 3 Business Meetings

Friday, Aug 24, 8:00 am, Executive Committee Meeting, San Francisco Marriott Hotel

Sierra Conference Suite F

Friday, Aug 24, 5:00-5:50 pm, Business Meeting

Moscone Center-South Building, Room 274

ALL members of Division 3 are encouraged to attend.  The winners of the Young Investigator Awards will be recognized .

Back to the Table of Contents

In addition to its program, Division 3 co-sponsors a number of programs.  The co-sponsored programs of interest to Division 3 members include the following:

Co-Sponsored Events

The events below are co-sponsored by Division 3.

FRIDAY, August 24, 2001

9:00 Division 6 Symposium, Animal Cognition and Emergents

Division 1 Hilgard Lifetime Achievement Award Lecture by Murray Sidman

Division 7 Symposium, Autobiographical Memory:  Developmental and Cultural Perspectives


Division 1, Michael Tomasllo, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition


Division 7, Daniel Povinelli, Chimpanzees, children, and the evolution of the human capacity for explanation

Division 26, Cheryl Logan, White Rats as Carriers of Generality:  The Boojum Was


Division 12, Gerald Davidson, The Scientist-Practioner Gap and What We Can Do About It

Division 6, Meredith West, Mozart's Starling and Other Lessons about Learning from Animal Behavior

Division 7, Arnold Sameroff, G. Stanley Hall Award for Distinguished Contribution to Developmental Psychology


Division 6, Marcel Kinsbourne and Jon Horvitz, Dopamine and Attention Deficit Disorder


Division 12, Mark D'Esposito, Isolating the Neural Mechanisms of Age-related Changes

Divisions 5, 7, and APA, Town Meeting, Date Sharing--Who Needs It?


Division 12, Thomas Borkovec,  Practice Research Networks:  Collaborative Research Among Clinicians and Scientists

Division 1, Symposium, Literature and Psychology:  Theories of Memory in Autobiography


SATURDAY, August 25, 2001


Division 6, Symposium, Modern Learning Theory Perspectives on the Etiology of Panic Disorder


Division 20, Shari Waldstein, Health and Cognition: The Example of Hypertension


Division 1, Symposium, Reactive Insight Effect in Research Participants

Division 1, Richard Ivry, Timing, Temporal Coupling, and Response Selection

SATURDAY, August 25, 2001--continued


Division 15, John McDermott, Hast Any Philosophy in Thee?  Philosophical Perspectives on Psychological Research

Division 20, Symposium, Aging and Affect in Decision Making and Judgment Processes


Division 6, Michael Fanselow, Fear


 Division 6 Presidential Address, Herbert Roitblat, Dolphin Bisonar and Models of Object Recognition

Division 7 Presidential Address, Judy DeLoache, How Children Become Symbol Minded


Division 1 Presidential Address, Lyle Bourne


SUNDAY, August 26, 2001


Division 20, Symposium, Aging and Memory in a Social Context


Division 20, Gerald McClearn, Nature, Nurture, and Time


Division 20, Symposium, Aging and Self-Regulated Cognition


Division 15, Thorndike Award Address by John Bransford


Division 6, Nicola Clayton, What Food-Storing Birds Remember about Past Events

Division 20 Presidential Address, Roger Dixon


The times and dates for the following events were unknown at time of the newsletter publication.  Check the program.

Division 5
Symposium, Methodological Training for PhD Psychologists:  Current Status, Needs, Potential Mechanisms

Division 21
Symposium, Older Adults and New Technologies:

  Psychological Research Initiatives

Symposium, Situation Awareness

Symposium, Shared Visualization Tools for

  Decision Making

Division 25

Kastak, Schusterman, and Kastak, Acquisition  and Equivalence Classes in California

 Sea Lions

Division 26

Michael A. Sokal, Wallace A. Russell Memorial

 Lecture: James McKeen Cattell in 1917

Paper Session, Philosophies of Psychology, Science

 and History

Division 40

Symposium, Brain Imaging and Clinical  


Back to the Table of Contents

The 2001 APA Convention


Focus on Science sponsors and participants include the Board of Scientific Affairs, and APA Divisions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 21, 25, and 28.  This year's plenary session is Saturday, August 25, 11:00-11:50.  The speaker is Frans de Waal, who will speak on The Inevitability of Evolutionary Psychology and the Limitations of Adaptationism: Lessons From the Other Primates


FOS Master Lectures


Friday, August 24, 2001

11:00 - 11:50, Elliot Aronson, How the Columbine Massacre Could Have Been Avoided


2:00 - 2:50, Karen A. Matthews, Behavior, Socioeconomic Context, and Cardiovascular Disease: A Lifespan Approach


Saturday, August 25, 2001

3:00 - 3:50, Michela Gallagher, The Aging Brain and Cognition


Sunday, August 26, 2001

1:00 - 1:50, Larry L. Jacoby, Aging, Subjective Experience and Cognitive Control: Effects of Accessibility Bias


2:00 - 2:50, Laura L. Carstensen, The Centrality of Emotion in Human Aging

FOS Distinguished Scientific Contribution Awards

Friday, August 24, 2001

3:00 - 3:50, Michael Merzenich, Cortical Plasticity Contributing to Human Performance Variability: Implications for Neurorehabilitation

1:00 - 1:50, Irving Gottesman, Psychopathology Through a Lifespan-Genetic Prism


Sunday, August 26, 2001

10:00 - 10:50,  David Lykken, Licensing Parents

 11:00 - 11:50, Alan Baddeley, Is Working Memory Still Working?

The Annual Neal Miller Lecture

Saturday, August 25, 2001

10:00 - 10:50, Steven Maier, Bi-Directional Communication Between the Immune System and the Brain: Implications for Understanding Stress and Depression

NOTE:  By the time that you get this newsletter, the APA Science Directorate Web site at will have  dates, times, and locations for these and all other Focus on Science programming at the convention.

Registration Reminder

Does all this make you interested in attending the convention?  Are you wondering why you have not received your registration packet?  APA does not send out registration packets for the convention.  The registration information is provided online at

The 23rd Annual APA 5K Race and Walk--
2001: A Race Odyssey

      The annual race and walk for the 2001 San Francisco Convention of APA will be held on Sunday morning, August 26th, at 7AM. The expected site for the event is the Embarcadero, though some approvals are pending. An official announcement will be made later. Trophies will be awarded to the overall men's and women's winners and to the top three in each 5-year age group, from under 20 to over 74. Additionally, the top three finishers who are current Psi Chi members will be receive awards, as will the top three current or past National Council members.

In order to encourage as many early registrations as possible, we are discounting preregistration. Preregistration will run until August 13th - which means that the entry form and fee must be received by that date. Please give us all the requested information including age and gender so that the race numbers can be labeled appropriately and save us time in determining your category for the results. THE ENTRY FEE FOR PREREGISTERED RUNNERS IS $20.00, which includes a long sleeved, commemorative shirt and a finishers medal. PAST AUGUST 13TH, CONVENTION AND DAY-OF-RACE REGISTRATION FEE IS $25.00. Preregistration for students is $10.00 and convention/day-of-race student registration is $14.00.  PLEASE preregister to help us avoid too many convention and day-of-race registrations. Make your check payable to: Running Psychologists.

        The 4th Annual Pre-Race Pasta Dinner will be held on Saturday evening, August 25th, at 6:00 - 8:00 PM. The tentative location is the Gordon Biersch Brewing Company, on the Embarcadero. Confirmation of the site will be given later. Please mark your entry form to reserve a place at the party.

You can register and/or pick up your race number and T-shirt at the business meeting of Running Psychologists on Saturday morning (please check for time and place in your convention program – it is a Division 47 event) or at the APA Division Services booth in the Convention Center, beginning Friday.

For an entry form, contact:  Frank Webbe, School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne FL 32901-6988.  Tel: (321) 674-8104; Fax (321) 674-7105; Email:

Back to the Table of Contents

Letters to the editor


In the January issue, I published some chiasmi from Robert (Bob) Perloff.  Remember about chiasmi? A chiasmus is a reversal in the words of two otherwise parallel phrases.  That brought the following response: 

“Invention is the mother of necessity”  (Who craved a TV set before it was invented?)

“Girls are diamonds’ best friend.”  (Without women yearning for diamonds, they’d be used chiefly for cutting hard objects.)

“Time wounds all heels.”  (Not in the Achilles sense, but low-down, double-crossing cads.)  This involves using a homophone.

There must be many more of these out there.  I hope you get a good response to the chiasmus feature in the January 2001 newsletter.

Signed:Julian C. Stanley, Fellow of Division 3

Johns Hopkins University


[Editor's note:  Because this letter was clearly in response to the attended text in the January newsletter, it was not counted as an unattended response in the early versus late "study".J]

The following submission is in response to a plea to members of the executive board.  I hope that you enjoy it!!  VJD

Dear Veronica:


In March 2000, Gus Craik, Endel Tulving, Dan Schacter and I were sharing out woes on being consulted by e-mail.  There are undergraduates writing term papers, high school students doing science fair projects and others consider us their research assistants to get advice on (say) the definition of episodic memory (in Tulving’s case).  We were talking about strategies to combat this problem by e-mail.  Gus Craik wrote “Hi folks….well my technique is to send a short, polite note back three weeks after receiving the request…I usually don’t get a second request!”  At that moment and as I was thinking about what I would talk at an upcoming conference in honor of Professor Craik at the University of Toronto, a hypothetical undergraduate wandered into my office.  (I planned to talk about the current state of levels of processing theory and research.)  The undergraduate commandeered my computer and wrote Professor Craik the following note asking for help with a paper he had to write.  The e-mail note is attached.


Signed: Roddy Roediger


On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Roddy Roediger wrote:

Dear Perfesser Craik:

I am writing a term paper for my undergraduate course in Human Memory here at Washington University and my teacher, Perfesser Roediger, was kind enough to let me use his e-mail account. I just walked into his office asked him this question, which turned into two, and he did not know the answers, so he said "why not go right to the horse's mouth?" and he meant you (meaning no disrespect, you understand, but that is what he said to me). Actually, I got a couple of questions, if you have the time.

First, I read in my textbook about an experiment you did with Perfesser Tuvling (what a funny name!), which you published in a General psychology journal in 1975. It was just amazing how, when you had those poor students say if the words were in upper or lower case, that they couldn't recognize those suckers later on. They were nearly at chance. But when you had them say whether the words fit into a category, then later they could recognize them real good, near perfect in fact. Wow! Neat! I thought to myself.

My textbook told all about your levels of processing theory, how things can get processed to different levels (three of them, right?) and if it only gets processed to the bottom level (or is it the top level? because deep is good, so I guess perception is the top level, but that confuses me because I learned about bottom-up processing, which is perceptual, in another course, so perception ought to be at the bottom, right?) that it's not remembered good. If it's the middle level then memory is better and if it's the deep (bottom?) level with meaning, then memory is pretty darned good. I guess you know all this, cause it's your theory after all. Anyway, that was how my book explained your 1975 results, as showing how levels of processing was right. I was amazed at your results with Tuvling, and so I asked my local Perfesser here (Roediger, remember?) whether anyone else had gotten the same results. He said YES and that I should go read your 1975 paper. So I did. The first thing I noticed was that it was real long and I thought it would take me nearly a whole evening to read. But it went faster than I first thought because almost all your experiments were just the same experiment done over and over and over. Nine times!!! Didn't you and Perfesser Tuvling believe your own results? Anyway, I certainly believed it by the time I got to the end! And Roediger said other people got those results too and in fact, by the time you two did the experiment, some guy named Jenkins had already done it a bunch of times, and others did it before him, but not quite the same way. Oh well... you got the credit and that's what counts.

But I haven't got to the amazing part yet, which led me to my questions for you. (I hope you are still with me. This is getting longer and harder to follow, even for me, and I'm writing it). The amazing part is that you and Perfesser Tuvling said in your 1975 paper that the levels of processing theory, the one with shallow being bad and deep being good, is ALL WRONG. You said it over and over, and started talking about spread of things and congruity of things and what not. I couldn't really follow it all, just a lot of names.

So here's my first question: If you and Tuvling said the theory was wrong in 1975 (and Perfesser R. tells me lots of other people agreed with you real strong! but I guess it's good to have people agree with you in science)*, then QUESTION ONE is why is it that my book still tells me about levels of processing theory when describing those pretty results that you got over and over in 1975? After all, you said yourself the theory was flat-out wrong a quarter century ago, before I was born, but my book still talks about the theory as if it were right. Did the guy who wrote it just not know? Or didn't he have a good theory instead to write about, so he fell back on the old one? Which leads ME to:

QUESTION TWO: "Why does manipulating those tasks (case, rhyme, category) like you two did over and over in 1975 affect recall and recognition so strong-like?" My book told me about your 1972 theory as the answer, but like I said, when I read your paper I saw my book was wrong.

I asked Pefesser Roediger Question Two and he said "no one knows." Well, he's just my local perfesser, so I guess I couldn't expect him to know much. That's why I wanted to ask an expert by e-mail. e-mail's just great for that. I got to get my own account soon.

Roediger said he was going to meet in Toronto with a bunch of other psychologists in May, and he was actually going to talk about this kind of question and how we don't know much about the answers. Said you'd be there, too. It was all for you or something. Poor guy doesn't have anything new-like to talk about, I guess, that's why he has to teach undergraduates. Anyhow, maybe you will tell him the answer then, I'm sure you know, but I got a term paper to do on all this before then so I got to think of something so I'd like it if you could help me. [Hey, I just thought that Roediger will grade it and he already said he doesn't know, so I guess it doesn't matter too much what I say in the paper].

So, please tell me the answers to those questions if you know them, because my local guy is clueless. I'm sorry he's going to waste time at your conference on this stuff, but at least it's better than hearing about those stupid lists like SLEEP and experiment over more times than you and Tuvling did that one in 1975. I guess it's hard to think up new psychology experiments. Maybe all the good ones have been done.

Thank you for your time, and please have a nice day.

Alan Badly

* I guess if you have the theory in 1972 and say it's wrong in 1975, then anyone who's got an opinion about it has to agree with you one way or the other, right? That was smart of you to say both those things, that the theory was right and wrong.

 Back to the 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:

Division 3 on the Web

The Division 3 Web Site is accessible from the APA homepage.

The address is

Ruth Maki,, is maintaining the site.

Back to the Table of Contents


Webpage Last Updated June 02, 2004

This page maintained by Mark Faust (