The Experimental Psychology Bulletin

from Division 3 of the American Psychological Association

Vol. 6, No. 1

January 2002

 

Table of Contents

 

A Biography of the President-Elect of APA Division 3

David (Dave) Balota

Dave Balota was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. He did his undergraduate work at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, where he worked with Ed Howe on the perception and memory of Garner dot patterns. It was there where he met his wife, Division 3 member, Janet Duchek (the rumor is that they met behind a t-scope). He then went south to the University of South Carolina where he was fortunate to work with Randy Engle on echoic memory studies and Jim Neely on issues related to recall and recognition memory performance. His dissertation addressed threshold semantic priming effects. After his graduate work, he spent two years on a postdoc at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he developed an interest in models of word recognition and reading through the excellent guidance of Jim Chumbley and Keith Rayner.

He spent his first two faculty years at the University of Kentucky at Lexington and at Iowa State University, and eventually returned home to St. Louis, when he accepted a position at Washington University. He also was an invited fellow for one year at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study and was an Erskine fellow for two months at the University of Canterberry. Balota is beginning his 16th year at Washington University. He is a fellow of Division 3 and of the American Psychological Society. He has published over 80 articles and chapters, given over 40 invited lectures, and co-edited a book in collaboration with Keith Rayner and Giovanni Flores D'Arcais, entitled Comprehension Processes in Reading. He has served on the editorial boards of Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, Journal of Memory and Language, Journal of Gerontology, and Neuropsychology. He served as an Associate Editor at the Journal of Memory and Language and is currently editor-elect at the Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. Balota is currently on the governing board of the Psychonomics Society. This past year he won a Master Mentor award at Washington University, and in the spring will be given an award for distinguished psychology graduate alumni from the University of South Carolina.

Balota's research program focuses on aspects of mental chronometry (e.g., reaction time distribution analyses, general slowing functions, force measures), and changes in attentional control systems across healthy young and older adults and in individuals with early stage Alzheimer's disease. His work has been continuously funded through NIH for the past 16 years. One general feature of this work is the use of converging operations across different experimental approaches (e.g., between group comparisons, individual case studies, neuroimaging, computational modeling) to provide constraints on cognitive models. Although Balota works in the area of mental chronometry and aging, he is probably best described as a card-carrying word nerd. This is evidenced by his recent multi-center NSF grant that will accumulate 10 million naming and lexical decision latencies for nearly 40,000 words, which will be available, via the web.

When they aren't working, Balota and Duchek enjoy attempting to nurture their children, Angela, 19, and Joseph, 13, who insure there will be little atrophy of either limbic or frontal systems due to lack of stimulation. Dave's address is Department of Psychology, Washington University, Campus Box 1125, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, phone: 314-935-6549, Fax: 314-935-7588, and E-mail: dbalota@ artsci.wustl.edu.

 

New 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 were invited to submit descriptions about themselves and their research. We are pleased to include descriptions from 5 winners in this issue.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Co-Winners:

Justin A. Harris, University of Sydney

Harris, J. A., Jones, M. L, Bailey, G. K, & Westbrook, F. R (2000). Contextual control over conditioned responding in an extinction paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 174-185.

An aspect of conditioning that has intrigued contemporary researchers of animal behaviour is that responding to a stimulus can become conditionalised to other cues or contexts. For example, animals can learn that, in one physical context a tone stimulus signals the availability of food and a light signals nothing, whereas in a different context the light signals food and the tone nothing. Moreover, such conditional control over responding can emerge spontaneously. Consider the following example. An animal first learns that a stimulus serves as a signal for reinforcement, then, in a second context, it learns that the stimulus no longer signals reinforcement. If the stimulus is presented in the second context, the animal will respond little, but responding recovers if the stimulus is presented in a third "neutral" context. This difference is observed even though both contexts have equal histories of reinforcement (or absence of reinforcement).

These findings have led to proposals that responding reflects differential retrieval of associative memories depending on contextual information (e.g., Bouton, 1993). However, different details have been offered to explain how these memories become conditionalised. For example, according to one account, "inhibitory" memories (that a stimulus signals nothing) are automatically conditionalised, whereas retrieval of "excitatory" memories (that a stimulus signals a reinforcer) is independent of context. Alternatively, it has been suggested that memories about the associative value of a stimulus are conditionalised if the animal has previously learned a different associative value for the same stimulus. Both versions can account for experimental data such as those described above (ie, it was the second or inhibitory memory that was conditionalised to the second context). However, neither version predicts that an excitatory association can be conditionalised to the training context if that association is acquired first. But, this is exactly what we have found in the JEP: ABP paper - rats respond more to a stimulus in its original training context than in a different context, even if the two contexts have matched histories of reinforcement. However, this is only observed if the stimulus has undergone extinction, rats do not show such contextual control over responding to a stimulus that has only ever served as a signal for reinforcement.

Thus, it appears that responding can be conditionalised to a context irrespective of the nature of the association (excitatory or inhibitory) or the time at which the association was acquired. Nonetheless, such contextual control does depend on the stimulus having both excitatory and inhibitory value (i.e., that the stimulus is ambiguous, having served as both a signal of reinforcement and a signal of nothing). Such findings help to uncover the hierarchical structure of associative learning, in which "higher order" cues such as contexts can regulate responding to (or remembering the significance of) other stimuli with a mixed history of reinforcement. This contemporary understanding of associative learning lends itself to "cognitive" explanatory models, and thus differs greatly from classic descriptions of conditioning as simple "reflexive" responses developed as a consequence of the direct association between events that occur close together.

Reference

Bouton, M. E. (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80-99.

(Editor's note: Justin had not yet arrived at U of Sydney at the time of publication, so his email address was unavailable. His mailing address is Dept of Psychology, University of Sydney, Syndey, NSW 2006, Australia.)


 

Jeffrey S. Katz, Auburn University

Katz, J. S., & Cook, R. G. (2000). Stimulus repetition effects on texture-based visual search by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 220-236.

I joined the faculty in the Department of Psychology at Auburn University in 2000. Before coming to Auburn I spent two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, working with Tony Wright. I earned my Ph.D. from Tufts University, working with Bob Cook. The paper honored by Division 3 was part of my doctoral dissertation. My research program focuses on the comparative mechanism of learning, cognition, and perception. Current research involves avian visual search, concept learning, and the processes and conditions by which pigeons learn matching to sample and same/different discriminations. My interests also include the neural and behavioral mechanisms of auditory and visual list memory in human and nonhuman primates, which examines how the underlying memory processes change with retention interval and is influenced by proactive and retroactive interference.

One of the central themes of animal learning and cognition has been determining how animals solve problems. Two categories of strategies or rules can be used to describe an animal's recurrent pattern of behavior to solve problems. These categories are item-specific and relational. Item-specific strategies involve rote memorization of specific stimuli and the outcomes associated to a particular response in regard to the stimulus. Relational strategies (also known as abstract concepts) are not bound to the specific stimuli allowing them to be applied to novel stimuli and hence, generalize to novel problems.

In the paper honored by Division 3, Bob Cook and I were interested in the strategies used by pigeons when searching for visual items in an odd-item texture discrimination task (Katz & Cook 2000, 2002). In the task the pigeons searched for and pecked at an odd texture region randomly embedded in a distractor surround (e.g., Cook 2000). To address how pigeons solved the search task, items used to construct the texture stimuli were repeated from trial to trial. The effect of stimulus repetition was compared to a steady-state condition in which the identity of the target and distractor items was unknown from trial to trial. The summary finding was that pigeons used both item-specific and relational strategies to find the target. Item-specific strategies involved memorizing the identity of the target, distractor, or both items, as evidenced by improved search during each of these separate repetition conditions. Relational strategies were used when the identity of the items within the displays were unknown. Specifically, an odd-item strategy was used when the target popped out and a distractor-avoidance strategy was used when the target was conspicuous.

The current direction of this research is in further understanding when and why these strategies are utilized to solve different search problems. Factors for future research that are or may be important are experience, set size, frequency of repetitions (encounters), perceptual discriminability, and stimulus mapping to target and distractor sets. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at katzjef@auburn.edu

References

Cook, R. G. (2000). The comparative psychology of avian visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 83-89.

Katz, J. S., & Cook, R. G. (2000). Stimulus repetition effects on texture-based visual search by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 220-236.

Katz, J. S., & Cook, R. G. (2002). The multiplicity of visual search strategies in pigeons. In S. Soraci (Ed) Visual Information Processing and Intellectual Functioning, Volume 2.


Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Kevin N. Ochsner, Stanford University

Ochsner, K. N. (2001). Are affective events richly recollected or simply familiar? The experience and process of recognizing feelings past. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 242-261.

An enduring question about the influence of emotion upon memory concerns the way in which positive and negative events are recollected differently (Ochsner & Schacter, in press). Although older work asked whether positive events are recalled more accurately (Matlin & Stang, 1978), more recent research has focused on the question of whether memories for traumatic events are indelible or are subject to memory distortion (Conway, 1997). By focusing solely on issues of accuracy, however, these studies have ignored the experiential aspect of recollection, which might be subject to strong influence by emotion.

Tulving (1985) distinguished between two forms of experience that can accompany recollection for an event: "Remembering," which is characterized by a detailed re-experiencing of the prior occurrence, and "Knowing," which is characterized by a non-specific sense of familiarity. Remembering increases as a function of stimulus distinctiveness and the degree of elaboration at encoding. Given that emotional stimuli may have distinctive semantic and arousal properties, either of which might promote elaboration, I hypothesized that affective stimuli would be more likely to be Remembered. I also hypothesized that this effect would be more robust for negative than positive stimuli, which have been shown to have greater attention-grabbing power.

In a series of three experiments this is exactly what I found: regardless of the degree of elaboration at encoding both positive and negative stimuli were more likely to be richly Remembered than neutral stimuli. More strikingly, even though positive and negative stimuli were recognized with equal accuracy overall, they differed in the kinds of experience that accompanied correct recollection - whereas negative stimuli were Remembered more often than positive stimuli, positive stimuli were Known more often than the negative stimuli. In addition to examining the effect of emotion on recollective experience, these studies sought to clarify affective influences on underlying memory retrieval processes. Using the process dissociation framework of Yonelinas et al (1998), I found that emotion significantly influenced only effortful recollective processes that give rise to the sense of remembering, but not the automatic processes that give rise to the sense of knowing.

Taken as a whole, these studies support the notion that positive and negative events are experienced differently in memory because of differential effects of emotion on effortful retrieval processes. Importantly, these findings held true even though different positive and negative events were brought to mind with equal accuracy, which may help clarify reasons for some past failures to observe differences in memory accuracy as a function of valence (Bradley et al., 1992; Reisberg et al., 1988).

Follow-up work has been examining the roles of attention and emotion regulation in influencing the encoding of emotional events. The main direction of my current work, however, has been to develop a social cognitive neuroscience approach to studying self-regulatory processes (Liberman et al., 2000; Ochsner & Lieberman, 2001). In principle, this approach seeks to marry the theories and methods of social psychology and cognitive neuroscience. In practice, in involves using neuroscience methods to ask questions about the kinds of phenomena social psychologists care about. Current studies have been using fMRI to examine the neural substrates of emotion regulation (Ochsner et al., 2001), and to test hypotheses about the ways in which cognitive and affective processes interact to give rise to emotional responses (Ochsner & Feldmann Barrett, 2001).

References

Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M. C., & Lang, P. J. (1992). Remembering pictures: Pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 379-390.

Conway, M. A. (1997). Recovered and false memories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1993). Recognising and remembering. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 163-188). Hove, United Kingdom: Erlbaum.

Lieberman, M. D., Ochsner, K. N., Gilbert, D. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). Do amnesics exhibit cognitive dissonance reduction? The role of explicit memory and attention in attitude change. Psychological Science, 12, 135-140.

Matlin, M. W. & Stang, (1978). The Pollyanna Principle. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2001, April). Rethinking feelings: exploring the neurocognitive basses of emotion control. Paper presented at UCLA conference on social cognitive neuroscience. Los Angeles, CA.

Ochsner, K. N. & Feldman Barrett, L. (2001). A multiprocess perspective on the neuroscience of emotion. In T. J. Mayne and G. Bonnano (Eds.), Emotion: Current Issues and Future Directions (pp. 38-81). Guilford Press: New York.

Ochsner, K. N. & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56, 717-734.

Ochsner, K. N. & Schacter, D. L. (in press). Remembering emotional events: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. To appear in R.J. Davidson, H. Goldsmith, and K.R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of the Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press: New York.

Reisberg, D., Heuer, F., MacLean, J., & O'Shaughnessy, M. (1988). The quantity, not the quality, of affect predicts memory vividness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 100-103.

Tulving, E. (1985). Varieties of consciousness and levels of awareness in memory. In A. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness and control: A tribute to Donald Broadbent, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yonelinas, A. P., Kroll, N. E. A., Dobbins, I., Lazzara, M., & Knight, R. T. (1998). Recollection and familiarity deficits in amnesia: Convergence of remember-know, process dissociation, and receiver operating characteristic data. Neuropsychology, 12, 323-339.

 


Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Derek M. Houston, Indiana University School of Medicine

Houston, D. M., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2000). The role of talker-specific information in word segmentation by infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1570-1582.

My research focuses on the nature of infants' representations of spoken words. During my graduate training at Johns Hopkins University, my mentor, Peter Jusczyk, and I investigated infants' ability to recognize words that were spoken by different talkers. We hypothesized that if infants encode acoustic-phonetic details rather than just abstract linguistic properties in their word representations, then their ability to recognize the same word produced by two different talkers will depend on the acoustic-phonetic similarity of the talkers. To test this, we first familiarized 7.5-month-olds with two words (cup and dog or bike and feet) spoken by one talker and then presented them with four passages spoken by a different talker. Two of the passages contained the familiarized target words and the other two passages contained the other target words. We found that infants demonstrated recognition of the familiarized words in the passages only when the talker used during word familiarization and the talker used during the test phase were of the same sex. When a male-female talker pair (either order) was used, 7.5-month-olds were unable to recognize the familiarized words. However, a separate group of 10.5-month-olds were able to. Acoustic analyses revealed that the mean pitch (measured as F0) of the same-sex talkers was more similar than the opposite-sex talkers. We reported these findings in the article that appeared in JEP: HPP and argued that, rather than encoding only abstract linguistically relevant information into their lexicons, infants also encode detailed talker-specific properties of speech in their representations for spoken words.

That initial study raised several interesting questions. In follow-up studies, Peter Jusczyk and I investigated infants' memory for words and voices over a 1-day delay. We discovered that talker-specific speech information plays an even larger role in infants' long-term memory for spoken words. In my dissertation work, I investigated how talker variability affects infants' word representations. I familiarized several groups of 7.5-month-olds with two words produced by four different talkers and then tested them on passages produced by a fifth talker, whose voice was relatively dissimilar to the familiarization talkers. Infants failed to demonstrate recognition of the familiarized words in the passages when the familiarization talkers were relatively similar to each other, but they were able to recognize the words when the familiarization talkers were relatively dissimilar. These findings suggest that infants not only encode talker-specific information in their word representations but that talker variability plays a role in helping infants form more robust and generalizable lexical representations of spoken words.

Currently, I am an NIH Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. With my colleagues, I have begun to apply the procedures and techniques that have been developed for investigating the speech perception skills of healthy normal-hearing infants to prelingually deaf infants who have received cochlear implants. We are tracking their speech perception and language skills before and at regular intervals following cochlear implantation and comparing them to normal-hearing infants. This research will provide important new information to clinicians who must develop speech and language therapy programs. Furthermore, by investigating the speech perception and language development of infants who are born deaf and then begin receiving auditory information several months later, we will be able to address several theoretical issues surrounding the effects of early experience and the role of "critical periods" in language development and neural plasticity in a new and unique way. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at dmhousto@indiana.edu

Back to Table of Contents


Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Todd A. Kahan, University of Southern Mississippi

Kahan, T. A. (2000). Negative priming from masked words: Retrospective prime clarification or center-surround inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1392-1410.

People must attend to, perceive, and store into memory an enormous amount of visual input on a daily basis. However, the way in which these seemingly simple tasks are accomplished remains somewhat of a mystery. Part of this mystery arises because perception, attention, memory and language are so highly interconnected they are often hard to disentangle. My research focuses on the interplay between these cognitive functions.

Currently I am researching: scene/object recognition, attentional capture, the attentional blink phenomenon, repetition blindness, both semantic and repetition priming, negative priming, Stroop interference, and other visual paradigms which help to disentangle the roles these processes play. I believe that by using paradigms of this sort researchers will gain a better understanding of how these important cognitive functions work together to help us make sense of our complicated visual environment.

In the 2000 paper that was published in JEP:LMC, I investigated the role of an attentional mechanism purported to help individuals retrieve words from memory. This research used a "subliminal" priming technique. Priming is the finding that responses to a target word are faster and more accurate when preceded by a related word (semantic priming) or identical word (repetition priming) compared to when preceded by an unrelated word. In "subliminal" priming, the prime is preceded and followed by a visual noise mask (X#X) making it difficult to identify. Results indicate that when people expect the prime and target will be semantically related they are faster to respond to targets that are repeated ("dog" preceded by "X#X" "dog" "#X#") but are slower to respond to semantically related targets ("dog" preceded by "X#X" "cat" "#X#"), relative to an unrelated prime condition ("dog" preceded by "X#X" "pan" "#X#"). This result has previously been found and interpreted by Carr and Dagenbach (1990) as supporting a center-surround attentional mechanism that operates to help extract weakly activated codes from semantic memory. This attentional mechanism facilitates the sought after word's code (the center) while at the same time inhibiting surrounding related codes which may interfere with retrieval (the surround). However, in the series of experiments I conducted I manipulated participant expectations. I found that when people expected the prime and target would be repeated they were slower to respond to repeated targets but faster to respond to semantically related targets, relative to the unrelated control condition. This result is the opposite of Carr and Dagenbach's replicable findings and runs counter to the center-surround attentional mechanism.

To explain all of these results, I proposed a memory retrieval interpretation in which negative priming is caused by retrospective memory retrieval, not persisting inhibition from a center-surround attentional mechanism. Accordingly, people use the target and expectations regarding the prime-target relationship to clarify the masked prime word. The slowdown occurs as a result of an analytic comparison of the target and prime's weak memory.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at todd.kahan@usm.edu You may also visit my web site at this url: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~tkahan

Reference

Carr, T. H., & Dagenbach, D. (1990). Semantic priming and repetition priming from masked words: Evidence for a center-surround attentional mechanism in perceptual recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 341-350.


Back to Table of Contents

A Note from the President

Morton Ann Gernsbacher

Dear Colleagues,

Did you know that if you ordered one hard copy APA journal that for $99 more you can get access to ALL APA journals online (full-text articles) published from 1999 to current, and for $139 more you can get access to ALL APA journals online (full-text articles) published from 1985? $99 is $26 *cheaper* than subscribing to the paper copy of either JEP:HPP or JEP:LMC.

I know, however, that there's something to be said about having an archival volume. No, I've not been hired by APA publications to do advertising for them, but I was just honestly curious how many of my colleagues knew about this ($99 a year gets you electronic access to ALL APA journal's full-text articles from 1999 to current, and $139 a year gets you the same going back to 1985). The features are listed on the Member Journal Order Form as "PsycARTICLES Lite" (1999-current)" and "PsycARTICLES" (1985 to current) in the "Electronic Database Packages" box. Or contact: subscriptions@apa.org.

All the best - Morton

magernsb@facstaff.wisc.edu

Back to Table of Contents


 

Division 3 APA 2002 Program: A Preview

Wendy M. Williams, Program Chair

The 2002 APA annual convention will be held in Chicago on August 22-25. APA is experimenting with a shortened convention (Thursday through Sunday) with three types of programming: general APA programming, cluster programming, and divisional programming. There will be no other programming during the general APA slots. Clusters are comprised of groups of divisions. Cluster programming will be along themes crossing the divisions. No division programming will be scheduled during the Cluster times. The hope is that this will lead to larger audiences because there will be fewer conflicts. Division 3 is in Cluster A along with Divisions 1, 6, 7, 8, and 15. Cluster A will have 10 hours of programming revolving around the two themes of (a) change and constancy and (b) consciousness and unconsciousness. Division 3 will also have 10 hours of programming. Details about the Cluster A and Division 3 programs will be in the June newsletter. See you in Chicago, August 22-25. When marking the convention dates in your calendar, 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 typically are housed in a single hotel, so the hotel fills up quickly. By marking an early registration reminder date on your calendar, you will be more likely to get into the science hotel!


 

Back to Table of Contents

 

APA: The Association for Science and Scientists

Kurt Salzinger APA Executive Director for Science

Kurt Salzinger succeeded Richard McCarty as Executive Director for Science in August. Kurt is a member of several divisions and is a fellow of Division 3. Prior to joining the Science Directorate, he was a Professor at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. (Welcome to Division 3, Kurt, and thank you for submitting a column. Column-submitting behavior is rare among members and fellows of Division 3; it is my hope that your column will inspire high levels of imitative behavior. J --VJD)

By this time you have all learned that Robert Sternberg has been elected president-elect of the American Psychological Association. Once again, the APA has a series of outstanding scientists heading the largest psychological group in the world. In years past, when psychologists questioned why they should join the Association, or remain its members, I always answered that it is the largest association and therefore has the most resources to represent psychologists, including especially scientific psychologists. Now, we can boast sustained scientific leadership as well.

  • If, therefore, you are interested in influencing the legislative process, no matter how good others are at representing us before Congress, you should remember that the APA has the largest number of Science and Public Policy personnel working with government
  • If you are concerned about the amount of research support the various parts of government are making available, let us know because we are the ones who make it possible for scientist psychologists to obtain such support.
  • If you are concerned about what young people learn about psychology in high school, you must appreciate what we do for high school teachers and how we educate them, inspire them to teach science, and support them in their efforts (see TOPSS on the APA web site).
  • If you are concerned about how graduate students are supported for dissertation and travel money, you should know that it is the APA that supplies such funds.
  • If you are concerned about how well undergraduate students learn the science of psychology, you must encourage them to apply for our Science Student Institutes where they are exposed to science in all its glory.
  • If you are interested in setting up a scientific conference and do not have enough money to do that, you can apply to the APA Science Directorate to get financial support to hold the conference, and then publish a book based on the meeting.
  • If you wish to publish your research, it is still true that APA's journals provide the largest number, and the best, journals for that purpose.
  • If you are interested in doing a literature search on any subject in psychology, you can, for a very low price, go to PsycINFO and find the most relevant studies in existence.
  • If you are on sabbatical and are finding it hard to get to our large numbers of excellent journals because you are far from a library, you can successfully find the complete articles for the last 13 years on your computer at home through PsycArticles at APA. Look up the different ways in which you can obtain that service on our web site.
  • If you wish to find the address, including the email address, of some obscure psychologist or a famous one, you can find them both in the APA Directory. If all you wish is to find the email address, you can get it on the APA members' section of the web.
  • If you wish to write an op ed piece for a newspaper because you believe that the American public must be educated about psychological science, you can get help by going to our web site and by asking Rhea Farberman, our Executive Director of Public and Member Communications to review your piece and suggest to which newspaper you might submit it.
  • If you wish to influence practitioners of psychology, you will find them in the APA, and you will find that most are eager to interact with scientists because most are still scientist practitioners.
  • If you are looking for a job, or wish to find someone for a position, the employment market is still there in largest numbers in the Monitor on Psychology. You can also post your CV on the APA Career Resource Center at PsycCareers.com to find a job on the web.
  • And if you wish to influence the course that the APA takes, you can do it by being a member, a Council member, a Member of the Board, or President of the Association. We now have scientists in all of these positions!
  • And if you want to be a member of organizations other than the APA, such APS, SRCD or some 17 others, you can be a member of both the APA plus these other scientific organizations, and receive a reduction of 25% of your APA dues

. Now, all of this being true, I know why you are a member of the APA. But if you wish to increase your influence over what the APA does, why would you not try to influence other psychologists to join you by joining the APA? I have not discussed everything that membership in the APA provides simply because there is not enough space here but you can find much more on the web. I challenge you to go to www.apa.org/science and discover all of these advantages yourself. After you've done that, go out and become more active in the APA. Then make it your business to bring in more scientist members. We are on a roll.

Kurt Salzinger, Executive Director for Science

Phone: (202) 336-5938

E-mail: KSalzinger@apa.org

Fax: (202) 336-5953

Back to Table of Contents


Success at Giving Away Psychology

Ed Wasserman

University of Iowa

The Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association has been vigorously involved in bringing psychology to the public. One means that the APA has used in this quest to "give away" our science is to post weekly press releases for use by the media. How effective is this practice? Very effective, indeed, if the attention given to a recent paper that Jol Fagot, Mike Young, and I published on human and baboon cognition in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes is any indication.

In one frantic week, my colleagues and I were interviewed by the print and internet media, including: the Associated Press, United Press International, the Washington Post, and the London Daily Telegraph. The story ran in the United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Colombia. We were also interviewed on British Broadcasting World Radio and on an award-winning television show on the Canadian Discovery Channel. Brief television and radio segments aired on the Cable News Network, French National Television, and Radio France. Our work was even spoofed on the popular Comedy Central Daily Show! So, watch out what you wish for, APA. The public truly is interested in our giveaway product. Researchers should be alert to the prospects of their science finding its way into the public domain. If it does, then enjoy your "15 minutes" of fame; and, make the most out of its educational potential. It is an opportunity not to be squandered.

Edward A. Wasserman, Stuit Professor of Experimental Psychology, The University of Iowa

E-mail: ed-wasserman@uiowa.edu

http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/people/details.asp?id=28

 

Back to Table of Contents

New Division 3 Fellows

 

New fellows selected in 2001:
Robert G. Cook
Judith F. Kroll
Ken Paap
Mary A. Peterson
Peter J. Urcuioli
Rolf Zwaan


The following Fellows in other divisions were selected for Fellow status in Division 3:
Mahzarin Banaji
Douglas K. Candland
Leslie B. Cohen
James W. Grau
Arthur F. Kramer
Cathy McEvoy
Dennis Molfese
Jane Stewart
Roger Thompson
James Townsend

Congratulations to all!!!

 


 

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.

There is an application for membership on our website. 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

(DJ VU)? Are you experiencing dj vu?

Do you think that you've read the above paragraph before? Well, I'm impressed. That means last January's issue was actually read by someone and it had a lasting impact!

Heck, why not write a letter to the editor to complain about the republication of old material? I guarantee it'll get published and it might even mean that I come up with more new and less old material! J -- VJD)

Back to Table of Contents

Letters to the Editor

YES! (big smile, fist clenched with quick upthrust of the arm above the head--hey, even academics can have excessive display of emotion!)

I actually received letters that did not say please don't publish.

August 17, 2001

Dear Dr Dark:

In the last few newsletters, you have gently suggested that members of Division 3 send you some material. Would you be at all interested in looking at some History of Experimental Psychology limericks?

Here's a sample, "That old Harvard gadfly Fred Skinner said 'Theory books should be thinner! Learning's occurred when you teach a poor bird to peck 5000 times for its dinner'."

Enjoy the rest of your summer, Greg Burton Seton Hall University

Later


August 17, 2001

Veronica:

Thanks for the encouragement. I am indeed the author of that limerick and others I'll send you. Here are a few more I remember off the top of my head.

Have a nice weekend,

Greg

P. S. I know that Bishop Berkeley's Berkeley is not really pronounced like the city - that's poetic license.

"That sly ex-behaviorist Gibson, said 'Hey, let the world get its dibs in! Perception is solved 'cause the beast has evolved to perceive the damned world that it lives in!"

"Said old-school empiricist Locke (whom modern empiricists mocke): 'each animal has a nice tabula rasa' Garcia would come as a schocke!"

"That Anglican bishop named Berkeley used epistemology querkeley Empirically mystical, half-solipstistical, Man knows environment merkeley"

Did you enjoy these as much as I did?

Why not share your own psychology humor with colleagues?--VJD


 

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001

18:26:40 -0700

From: Jeffery Mio, CSU-Pomona Subject: early vs. late response

Dear Veronica,

I read your column on "Early vs. Late Selection: Still NO Critical Experiment" in the last newsletter. I was wondering if Division 3 members can be categorized as "Early vs. Late Responders." Perhaps your non-IRB approved study only resonates to late responders, so your study is still "in process" rather than being publishable. Just a thought,

Jeff

So, what do you think? Is Jeff on to something? I'd love to have your comments.--VJD

Here's a vowels only puzzle. Can you solve it?

_ O _ O U _ _ A _ _:

_ _ I _ E A _ E _ _ E _

_ O _ _ E E _ I _ O _

O _ A _ Y _ O _ I _

_ F _ O U _ _ _ O I _ E.


Back to Table of Contents

Because many Division 3 members teach courses involving undergraduate research, I thought the members might find the following information of interest. --VJD

For more information, please contact Mandy Morgan, Editor, at mpsedit@cecasun.utc.edu

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

Modern Psychological Studies Journal of Undergraduate Research Modern Psychological Studies is a biannual journal of Undergraduate Research. MPS is among very, very few research journals in the world completely written, edited, reviewed, designed and published by undergraduates. The Editorial Staff operates out of the Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga, but we accept manuscripts internationally for review and publication. MPS will consider manuscripts in any area of psychology. Although we are primarily interested in results from experimental research, we are also interested in theoretical papers, literature reviews and book reviews. We encourage submission of all exceptionally written undergraduate papers.

For MPS submission guidelines visit our website at www.utc.edu/mps or email us at mpsedit@cecasun.utc.edu.

If internet connection is unavailable, contact us by phone at (423)785-2238.

Submission deadlines are September and February. Notification of acceptance/rejection is during the next month. Publication of accepted papers is a couple of months later in the Fall/Winter or Spring/Summer issue.

Manuscripts should have an undergraduate as a primary or sole author. Works by graduates will be accepted if the work was completed as an undergraduate and no further work along the same lines has been completed at a graduate level. The work must be original work that has not been accepted for publication or has been published elsewhere.

For more information, please contact Mandy Morgan, Editor, at mpsedit@cecasun.utc.edu

 

Minutes Division 3 of APA,

Executive Committee Meeting

San Francisco, CA

Garden Terrace Restaurant (2nd Floor) in The San Francisco Marriott

7:30 - 9:30 AM August 24, 2001

Present were Douglas Nelson, President; Roddy Roediger, Past-President; Morton Ann Gernsbacher, President-Elect; Frank Bellezza, Secretary-Treasurer; Members at large of the Executive Committee, Ed Wasserman, Tom Zentall; Representatives to APA Council, Manny Donchin, Harry Bahrick; Barbara Basden and David Basden, Co-chairs of the Program Committee

Not Present were David Balota, Randall Engle, Veronica Dark, Bruce Overmier

President Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM.

The minutes of the November, 2000, Executive Committee meeting were approved as circulated.

President Nelson reported on the election results President-Elect: David Balota Executive Committee Members-at-Large: Alice Healy, Norman Spear

Representative to APA Council: Lewis Lipsitt

Barbara Basden presented the Program Committee report and reviewed the program as listed in the June, 2001 Experimental Psychology Bulletin. There were social hours on Friday (as part of the Division 3 paper session), Saturday, and Sunday. Some of these social hours were sponsored in conjunction with Divisions 1, 3, 6, 7, and 20.

Frank Bellezza reported that the financial status of Division 3 was good, although most expenses occur late 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 Division 3 membership is currently 967 of whom 196 are fellows. A number of comments were made regarding the reasons for declining membership. It was decided to send all Executive Committee members a copy of the Division 3 membership application to distribute to their colleagues and graduate students. Also, the possibility was discussed of contacting APA to send a note to members of those divisions affiliated Division 3 asking them to join Division 3.

Morton Gernsbacher, Chair of the Fellowship Committee, reported that materials were submitted in February, 2001, for six "Initial" fellow nominations: Robert G. Cook, Judith F. Kroll, Ken Paap, Mary A. Peterson, Peter J. Urcuioli, Rolf Zwaan. The selection committee conveyed extraordinary enthusiasm for all six nominees. In addition, Division 3 nominated the following ten "Current" fellows for fellow status in Division 3. Each is currently a fellow in the division(s) indicated in parentheses: James Townsend (41), Roger Thompson (6), Mahzarin Banaji (8,9), Douglas K. Candland (1,2,6,26), James W. Grau (6,28), Arthur F. Kramer (20), Leslie B. Cohen (7), Dennis Molfese (7), Jane Stewart (6), Cathy McEvoy (20)

Morton Gernsbacher also outlined the new APA Convention plans. Division 3 has been placed in Cluster A along with Divisions 1, 6, 7, 8, and 15. In addition to a Division 3 program chair, there is now a Division 3 representative who will hold office for 2 years. In 2002 the convention will last only 4 days. There will be 10 hours of programming divided into division, cluster, and plenary programming. Cluster A will have 10 hours of programming revolving around the two themes of (a) change and constancy and (b) consciousness and unconsciousness.

Doug Nelson announced the New Investigator Award winners for 2001.

They were

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Co-Winner: Justin A. Harris, "Contextual control over conditioned responding in an extinction paradigm"

Co-Winner: Jeffrey S. Katz "Stimulus repetition effects on texture-based visual search by pigeons"

 

 

 

 


Webpage Last Updated August 29, 2004

This page maintained by Mark Faust (mefaust@uncc.edu)