to Division 3 homepage
Morton Ann Gernsbacher, (608) 262-6989, University of Wisconsin,
A. Balota, (314) 935-6549, Washington University, email@example.com
L. Nelson, (813) 974-2839, Univ. of South Florida, firstname.lastname@example.org
S. Bellezza, (740) 593-1084, Ohio University, email@example.com
L. Brewer, (803)294-3216, Furman University, firstname.lastname@example.org
of the Executive Committee
Healy (8/01-04), (303)492-5032, University of Colorado, email@example.com
Spear (8/01-04), (607)777-2663, SUNY-Binghamton, firstname.lastname@example.org
Engle (8/00-03), (404)894-8036, Georgia Tech, email@example.com
Wasserman (8/00-03), (319)335-2445, University of Iowa, firstname.lastname@example.org
A. Balota (8/99-02), (314) 935-6549, Washington University, email@example.com
Zentall (8/99-02), (606) 257-4076, University of Kentucky, firstname.lastname@example.org
to APA Council
P. Lipsitt (8/01-05), (401)863-2332, Brown University, email@example.com
P. Bahrick (8/00-04), (614) 368-3805, Ohio Wesleyan University, firstname.lastname@example.org
J. Bruce Overmier, (612)625-1835, University of Minnesota, email@example.com
L. Pick, Jr. (Awards) firstname.lastname@example.org
Ann Gernsbacher (Fellows) email@example.com
Rajaram (Membership) firstname.lastname@example.org
M. Williams (2002 Program) email@example.com
The Experimental Psychology Bulletin
J. Dark, (515) 294-1688, Iowa State University, firstname.lastname@example.org
3 2002 Young Investigator Award Winners
Division 3 Awards Committee annually selects Young Investigator Award
winners from nominations received from the editors of the Journals of
Experimental Psychology. The 2002 committee was Herb Pick (chair), Ruth
Maki, and Charles Shimp. The 2002 award winners are noted below. Look
for descriptions of the award-winning work in the January newsletter.
of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes
E. Bounton, Ed.)
Burns "Topography of spatially directed conditioned responding:
Effects of context and trial duration" with co-author Michael Domjan.
Vol. 27, 269-278.
of Psychology, Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, Texas, 76129,
of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Richard M. Rowe
anticipation in real-world tasks: Measurement of attentional demands in
the domain of tennis" with co-author Frank P. McKenna. Vol. 7, 60-67.
of Child Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry,
London, United Kingdom, SE5 8AF,
of Experimental Psychology: General
(Nora S. Newcombe,
Winner: Jeremy R. Gray
modulation of cognitive control: Approach-withdrawal states double dissociate
spatial from verbal two-back performance". Vol. 130, 436-452.
Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri,
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
A. Rosenbaum, Ed.)
"Asymmetric object substitution masking" with co-author Marvin M. Chun.
Vol. 27, 895-918.
of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 02139, email@example.com.
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
O. Nelson, Ed.)
"Memory for multidimensional source information" with co-author Arndt
Bröder. Vol. 28, 116-137. Department of Social Psychology, University
of Jena, Humboldtstraße 26, Jena, Germany, D-07743,
to all for excellence in research!!!
The Best Gift an
Experimental Psychologist Can Receive
Robert J. Sternberg
Fellow, Division 3
(I included Bob in a blanket invitation to members of
the Exec Board and the APA Science Directorate to submit articles for
the newsletter. He responded with the following essay written especially
for Division 3. So, once again someone from APA role models column-submitting
behavior for the rest of us! -- VJD)
When I was a child, my favorite day of the year was my
birthday. I just could not wait to see what gifts that year would bring.
Truth is, they were never that great. But I kept hoping that the next
year might be better. It never got a whole lot better. Maybe that's why
I no longer look forward to my birthday quite so much anymore. Or maybe
it's because I don't get nearly so many gifts anymore. But since then,
I have learned that there is a far better gift that an experimental psychologist
can get-and it is a gift that is not limited to birthdays. This is the
gift of, well, having or having had a gifted mentor.
I had three of them, and still do. As a junior faculty
member, my mentor was Wendell Garner; before that, as a graduate student,
it was Gordon Bower; and before that, as an undergraduate, Endel Tulving.
One could scarcely have three better mentors than they were and continue
to be, even to this day (at my advanced age of 52!). I'm not sure, off
hand, I can remember any of the birthday presents I've received. But the
lessons I've learned from them will stay with me forever, long after I
have stopped wearing whatever ties or other articles of clothing I may
have received for birthdays.
I think of great mentors such as they as transformational
mentors. They are mentors who change who one is, and how one thinks about
one's life-personal as well as professional. After having mentors such
as these, one is never the same. One does not learn just psychology or
how to operate within the field of psychology. One learns the kind of
wisdom that is so hard to find in life.
I learned many lessons from each of them, but because
I am writing for the Division 3 Newsletter, and because I tend to do things
in 3's anyway, I'll just state the 3 most important lessons I think I
learned from each of the 3 of them.
One is Judged by One's Positive Contributions
As a first-year assistant professor, I thought I had
found a hole in Wendell's work. I submitted a study on the supposed hole
to a journal and it got rejected. Thinking that the journal had made a
grievous mistake, I presented the study as a colloquium at Bell Labs.
It is the one time in my life that a talk I gave was demolished by just
a single comment. Saul Sternberg pointed out an inconsistency in my results,
and that was the end of that. Where was the proverbial trap door in the
floor when I needed it?
Wendell, of course, knew what I was doing, and called
me into his office. A lesser man might have roundly rebuked me and have
held a grudge for years thereafter. Instead, he told me that I'd made
a mistake, but that the mistake was not so much in the particular paper
I wrote, but rather, in my belief that I was going much to advance science-or
my career--through negative contributions. His advice was to remember
that we are judged by the positive contributions we make. And after that,
I decided not to waste my time poking holes in other people's work. Since
then, I have dedicated myself to emphasizing, in my work, not what I think
is wrong with what other people do, but to finding what I hope are better
ways of doing things, or of understanding them.
If You Don't Have It in Writing, You
Don't Have It
During my third year at Yale, I received a phone call
from a professor at another institution, and I took his phone call to
be a tenure offer. It sure sounded like one. I thought to myself that
this was really great-here I was in just my third year, and I was already
being offered tenure. I dutifully informed Wendell, who was Chair of the
Psychology Department, that I had a tenure offer. What followed was a
nightmare of proportions that I have tried to forget, because it later
turned out that the tenure offer was neither a tenure offer nor even an
offer. I ended up with a lot of sticky egg on my face. Wendell could have
excoriated me for being such a fool. Instead, he merely pointed out to
me that I had learned a valuable lesson about academia: If you don't have
it in writing, you don't have it at all.
Being True to Oneself
In my fifth year, I really was being considered for
a tenured position at Yale. I started to get feedback through the grapevine
that some of the referees who were writing letters about me were openly
wondering whether Yale would want to use up a tenure slot for someone
who studied intelligence. Apparently, they thought the cognitive-psychology
program would be better served by hiring someone who worked in a more
prestigious area, such as reasoning or problem solving.
I went to consult Wendell and told him that I thought
I had been very foolish-that I could have done exactly the work I was
doing but called it "reasoning" or "problem solving," and then Yale would
not be getting these negative letters telling them to hire someone in
a more prestigious field. I asked him what advice he had to give me. Wendell's
advice to me was simple. He said something like this: "When you came to
Yale, you were committed to making a difference to the field of intelligence.
Now," he told me, "You are afraid that your commitment may cost you your
job. Well, you're right, it may cost you your job. But your mission was
to make a difference to the field of intelligence, so that's what you
have to do, even if it costs you your job." It didn't cost me my job,
although it might have. But the lesson was a valuable one: Stick to the
mission you really care about, even in the face of adversity. Every once
in awhile, in my career, I've been faced with important decisions of principle.
And when I have, I've remembered Wendell's advice. You've got to stand
for what you believe in, and if you then have to pay the price, so be
it. If you can't stand for what you believe in, you stand for nothing
Teachers Should Learn as Much from
Students as Students Learn from Teachers
Gordon Bower has had an amazing career. He has gone from
one problem to another, and each time he has switched problems, he has
become a leader in studying whatever it is that has interested him. I
once asked him how he managed to undertake such numerous and diverse ventures
with such great success. And his answer was simple: He often let students
lead him, rather than always insisting on leading his students. By often
letting his students lead him, he ventured into areas that he otherwise
never would have explored. I have tried to follow in Gordon's path, not
insisting that my students follow my interests, but rather realizing that
I would never become bored if I allowed teaching to be a two-way street.
I have adopted Gordon's path of learning as much from my students as ever
I have to teach them.
Letting Your Students Find their Own
Gordon has been among the very most successful mentors
in the field of psychology in terms of having produced students who later
went on to make a name for themselves. I realized this as soon as I arrived
at Stanford, purposely choosing the desk John Anderson had sat at in the
hope that some of John's success would rub off. (I'm still hoping.) At
first, when I was Gordon's student, I felt anxious. I was interested in
intelligence, and that was a pretty far cry from Gordon's own interests.
But Gordon let me, and his other students, pursue our own interests, our
own dreams, our own calling. Rather than deciding what niche we should
carve out for ourselves, he let us carve out our own niche, and supported
us in whatever we chose to do. Even though my interests were pretty far
afield from Gordon's, he let me do what I wanted and even supported me
off his grants to do so. He had a generosity of spirit that all of us
should try to bestow upon our own students.
The Importance of Taste in Problems
When I first arrived at Stanford, I gave Gordon a paper
to read that I had written as an undergraduate. I asked him for his comments.
The paper was on some alternative method of scoring a particular type
of mathematical problem that appeared, at the time, on the SAT. I thought
my system was really quite clever, and I was confident Gordon would be
impressed. A few days later, he returned the paper to me, and told me
that he liked the paper except for the portions that he had crossed out.
I looked at the paper, and discovered to my chagrin that he had crossed
out almost the entire paper. There was essentially nothing left.
At the time, I felt pretty dejected about it. But I came
over the years to understand Gordon's message, namely, that the problem
I was addressing just wasn't a very important problem. No matter how clever
the little study, if the problem wasn't worth pursuing-and it really wasn't-then
there was no point to working on the problem at all.
Just Because a Lot of People Believes
Something, It Doesn't Mean It's True
Endel Tulving has had a way of showing that just because
a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean that that something
is true. When almost everyone thought that recognition memory was always
better than recall memory, he showed that recall memory can be better
than recognition memory. When almost everyone thought that rehearsal in
and of itself would improve recall, he showed that the frequency of repetition
does not necessarily increase free recall, and can actually decrease it.
Once, we submitted a joint paper to Psychological Bulletin, a journal
of which I would become the editor many years later. The paper was rejected.
I needed to cite the paper in another paper I was writing, and asked Endel
how I should cite it. Without missing a beat, he said I should cite it
as "rejected by Psychological Bulletin."
I thought he must be joking-or crazy. Why advertise that
the paper got rejected?
And then I realized that he was neither joking nor was
he crazy. He believed in what we had to offer, and if the journal didn't,
that reflected badly not on us, but on the journal. The journal did, in
fact, later publish our article, and to this day we are pretty sure that
our point-regarding measurement of subjective organization in free recall--was
correct. But he showed me that one did not give up or hide one's face
just because one got a paper rejected. He took pride in his ideas, whatever
the journal may have had to say about them.
Allowing Oneself and One's Students
After I worked with Endel on transfer in part-whole and
whole-part free recall I went to graduate school and began my graduate
work with Gordon Bower on the same problem. Gordon and I published a paper
in the Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior that argued
for an explanation of negative transfer that was different from Tulving's-that
negative transfer was due not to problems in subjective organization of
target words, but to problems in list identification of target words.
I think that many former advisors would have been pretty angry at a former
student who went on to propose a new explanation of a finding for which
they became famous. How could one be more of an ingrate? But Endel was
most welcoming of the finding. And I saw right away that he valued scientific
inquiry and the pursuit of scientific truth far more than he valued preservation
of his own particular account of a phenomenon, or his own ego.
Gordon and I may have been right, or we may have been
wrong. But Endel clearly believed then and believes today in the self-correcting
nature of science, and he was eager to see it take place, even if it applied
to his own particular account of a phenomenon. Today, I tell my students
that if, someday, they come up with a theory of some psychological phenomenon
that replaces my own theory, I will view their accomplishment not as an
indicant of my having failed, but rather, of my having succeeded. No theory
in psychology is likely to last forever, and certainly not my own!
It's Not Just What You Find, but How
You Communicate It
When I was an undergraduate, Endel was Editor of the
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, and took his job
quite seriously. He spent a lot of time helping authors with their manuscripts.
He also put assiduous care into his own manuscripts. I wondered why he
bothered: After all, wasn't science about generating the findings, with
writing them up just a small and painful detail that followed upon the
excitement of the chase? I discovered from Endel that writing things up
was by no means a detail. Good scientists pay as much attention to the
way they present their findings as they do to unearthing those findings.
Indeed, scientists like Tulving have a certain style in their thought
and writing so that even if their articles are reviewed anonymously, you
usually can tell who wrote them. Endel taught me that the creative process
does not end with the discovery-that the write-up and the means one uses
to persuade others of the validity and value of one's findings is just
as important as coming to the findings in the first place. You have to
have an audience, he taught me, and you don't have one if you write without
careful planning and attention to how you present what you have found.
The lessons I learned from my transformational mentors
outside the classroom were more important than anything I learned from
them in the classroom. I learned from them how to be a scientist, and
that is truly what a scientific mentor is for. But I learned one thing
more from all three of them-and that is, the importance of wisdom and
balance in life. All three of my mentors have achieved levels of respect
and renown that few of us ever can hope to reach. But all three of them
have led balanced lives, having successful personal lives in addition
to their successful professional lives. They showed me and others that
professional and personal lives are not an either/or proposition, but
rather, a both/and proposition.
When I compare myself to Wendell, Gordon, and Endel,
I feel a bit depressed at times. Who can achieve what they achieved at
the ages they achieved them? But I realize that none of them wanted to
create clones-or junior versions of themselves. They wanted their students
to find themselves and to succeed in whatever way worked for each of those
students. So the goal is not for me to compare myself with them, but rather,
to compare what I have achieved with what I want to achieve, and then
to seek ways to achieve what I still have left in me to achieve, given
the environments in which I work. That is what they have done, and their
gift to me and to others is to provide us with the wherewithal to do the
Robert J. Sternberg, firstname.lastname@example.org
IBM Professor of Psychology and Education
Director, Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise
Back to the Table of Contents
E-Mail) to the Editor
The letter was in response to last issue's puzzle: 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.
To:"Veronica J. Dark
Subject: Exp Psy Bull
Dear Editor: The "all-vowel" puzzle says:
DO YOUR PART:
WRITE A LETTER
TO THE EDITOR
ON ANY TOPIC
OF YOUR CHOICE.
Assuming that I am the "winner," you may send my big-screen
TV prize to the address below. Oh, and I just thought I'd point out that,
in Canada at least, "F" is still not a vowel. We always take a while to
catch up to the US on these things... your fellow Editor, Colin
Colin M. MacLeod Professor of Psychology, Division of
Life Sciences University of Toronto at Scarborough Scarborough, Ontario
(Well, Colin, you ARE the winner! Congratulations!!
Of course, yours also was the only entry. As you no likely have already
concluded, the puzzle was designed to be solvable only by those creative
enough to realize that F can sometimes function as a vowel. J -- VJD)
Back to the Table of Contents
(AT LAST--Some member to member dialog as a result of a newsletter article!!
I Beg to Differ: Another Perspective
on APA Council
Bill Howell, CASAP Election Committee
Having served on Council and in various other APA governance
and staff roles, I read with interest my good friend Harry Bahrick's observations
in the January Bulletin. His conclusion that APA is a "top-down"
organization in which "science divisions" have little voice and even less
impact is widely held and understandable, but in my opinion, inaccurate.
It derives in large part from the long-standing myth that some massive,
highly organized and monolithic "practice majority" has a stranglehold
over Central Office and the governance structure (i.e. boards and committees),
thereby controlling APA's agenda and decisions. By this account, science/academic
interests don't stand a chance. I will argue that not only is this perception
wrong, but the longer it persists, the more likely it is to become self-fulfilling
prophesy. Harry articulates nicely the points underlying his conclusions,
so I will simply address each one in turn.
1. Top-down control. Council members have little
control over the Association's agenda, which instead comes largely from
standing board/committees comprised of "APA administrators and elected
council members." No question, the bulk of the Council agenda does come
via governance bodies, very often several layers of them. However, every
Council member has the opportunity to submit items for the Council agenda;
many in fact do; and a lot of these items-along with others contributed
by individual members and interest groups (including divisions)-wind up
in boards and committees for intensive study. In fact, most of what these
bodies do is generated this way, either directly or indirectly. To me,
that's "bottom-up." Items may look "top-down" to a sitting Council member
who first encounters them in an agenda book, but rarely did either "administrators"
or "standing boards/ committees" create them out of whole cloth (incidentally,
Harry's "administrators" merely staff governance bodies, but are not a
part of them, and board/committee members are not "elected council members"
but people elected by council). I would argue that the process, tortuous
though it may seem, is highly effective. In my experience, APA's boards
and committees do valuable service examining issues in depth, getting
input, working with other groups, and eventually putting items into a
form that a huge body like Council (many of whose members are only marginally
engaged in many of the issues) can grasp and act on intelligently.
Noncontentious items take little of Council's time, and
contentious ones have had enough prior vetting and exposure to generate
informed debate on the floor. I shudder to think what Council meetings
would be like if every "grassroots" idea and request from every corner
of the Association were thrashed out-start to finish-by the 160 or so
elected Council representatives. And remember: since most boards/committees
are elected by Council, they're basically an extension of Council. If
science-oriented divisions aren't as influential as some of the others,
it's not because of the way APA is organized; it's simply because they
tend not to understand the system or participate actively in it-along
with their self-induced delusions of helplessness. I'm convinced that
science divisions can be as influential as they want to be, but not without
the same level of effort invested by other constituencies.
2. The Science Directorate is well-meaning and kind
of helpful, but not in touch with "their constituency in the science divisions."
Having spent over five years in the Directorate, I can tell you that nothing
had a higher priority, or occupied more of our time and resources, than
two-way communication with this "constituency." And I know the same was
true before my watch and remains so today. Our number one challenge has
been figuring out how to get through to-and activate-this "constituency,"
convincing them that APA is worth their time and effort, and that the
payoff is in direct proportion to their investment. For whatever reasons,
many choose not to listen; many more choose not to participate-not even
voting in elections or turning in apportionment ballots. Again, this is
a perception or motivation or attitude problem; not a structural one.
3. The professional/applied divisions have a big edge
on us because their Council reps "meet in caucus sessions to which they
bring the concerns of their members" and coordinate their input to boards/committees
and action on Council agenda items. Well, the science/academic representatives
have a coalition too (CASAP), with precisely the same opportunities for
collective action as the "professional/applied" ones do. Fact is, we have
a better opportunity, because ours is a single coalition of divisions
with pretty uniform positions on most issues, whereas there is no single-minded
"professional/ applied" coalition. In all, there are eleven "other" Council
coalitions and their political orientation varies all over the map. The
reality is, some other constituencies have made the most of the coalition/caucus
structure and we haven't, despite the heroic efforts of folks like Sharon
Brehm and June Tangney, the two past CASAP Chairs, and Leona Aiken, the
present Chair. I currently serve on CASAP's "elections committee," and
we have been trying our best to get core science divisions more involved
in the process-lately with modest success. But I can tell you, it's not
easy. So, Harry, once again, it's not a structural advantage that others
have over us; they simply lack our tradition of apathy, disinterest, misinformation,
4. "Science divisions and their council representatives
believe that they have little influence on what is going on in the APA,
and they are correct." To the extent this is true, it is self-imposed
as I've tried to explain. However, the board/committee, presidential,
and board of directors elections over the last few years constitute very
strong evidence against this whole proposition. A large percentage of
the folks nominated and endorsed by CASAP have wound up on slates and
gotten elected. If the deck is stacked so solidly against us, what accounts
for these successes? Are the people we're endorsing-Marty Seligman, Phil
Zimbardo, Bob Sternberg, Sharon Brehm, Bruce Overmier, Charles Brewer,
Morty Gernsbacher, Linda Bartoshuk, and Manny Donchin, to name just a
few-not really representative of science, or are the "other constituencies"
more receptive to our folks than we care to admit? The good news is that
CASAP is having better luck these days recruiting scientists and academics
to run, and Division 3 has helped. But it won't continue unless there
is a serious attitude adjustment within the science divisions.
5. Harry closes by offering several suggestions for leveling
the playing field that he considers so badly tilted against the science
divisions. The first is to emulate the "applied/professional divisions"
in "organizing caucus sessions preceding each council meeting" and feeding
consensus positions into the Council and board/ committee hopper.
Well, this is exactly what CASAP was created for and tries to do. The
problem is, too many of the science representatives are no-shows at the
caucus meetings-either physically or functionally-and in its other endeavors.
Once again, the structure exists; it's the commitment that's lacking.
Harry's second suggestion-one that is shared, incidentally,
by many "applied/ professional" representatives as well-is for Council
to create its own committees to "parallel APA committees and boards to
whom they would submit consensus recommendations for APA action/agenda."
This is a fairly popular idea that might have some communication benefits-if
nothing else, it could make our Council reps better informed on the issues.
However, I fail to see how this would correct the perceived power imbalance
between science and "applied/ professional" divisions, and I believe it
would create a lot of new problems that its advocates have not thoroughly
examined. Space does not permit me to go into them here, so I'll leave
it at that. But the only way this structural change could improve things
for science would be if it promoted a change in attitude within the science
In sum, I agree with Harry that the science divisions
are not as influential as they could be in APA decision making, although
I think the situation is improving. But I beg to differ completely with
his diagnosis and prescriptions. The problem is neither the APA structure
nor the plight of an oppressed minority. It lies completely within our
own cognitive/affective/motivational structure, and is well within our
power to change. Nike offers the best prescription: just do it.
Bill Howell, email@example.com
A Letter FROM the Editor (There's a bit of space to fill
and I've already included the one letter written TO me as well as the
two columns submitted TO me, so I thought I'd print a letter FROM me.
Besides, I'm in crusader mode. Here was my response to Bill-VJD)
Bill, Your response resonates well with me. In some ways,
it sounds like my response to my colleagues when they complain about faculty
governance here at Iowa State. Faculty Senate doesn't represent them,
they say, but the fact is that we can't get anyone in the department to
even run. Why not? Well, it wouldn't do any good because the senate doesn't
represent us. ARGH! How's that for another example of a self-fulfilling
Part of the problem also is the attitude among many of
us that we shouldn't sully our hands with anything other than research.
After all, we're scientists and scientists don't waste time doing activities
like service or playing politics that take them out of the lab. This is
the message preached to assistant professors and they hear and internalize
the message. Is it surprising, then, that few put effort into professional
service even late in their careers?
So, this puzzle has missing consonants: _ _ I _ I _ A
_ I _
_ O _ E _ I _ _ I _ U _ _,
_O? _ U _ _ O _ I _ E
_ _ A _ _ _ E _ _ O
A _ E _ _ E A _ E _
_ O _ _ E _ _ _ Y A _
_ O _ E _ _!
Back to the Table of Contents
Division 47: Sport
and Exercise Psychology Presents
The 24th Annual Running Psychologists' APA 5K Race and Walk
Saturday, August 24, 2002
The annual race and walk for the 2002 Chicago Convention
of APA will be held on Saturday morning, August 24th, at 7AM. The start/finish
area will be by the lakeshore in the Grant Park area, a short walk from
the hotels and convention center. The out and back run will parallel Lake
Michigan and turn back near the Shedd Aquarium. Trophies will be awarded
to the overall men and women's winners and to the top three in each 5-year
age group, from under 25 to over 74. The top three male and female finishers
who are Division 47 members will receive awards. The top three finishers
who are current Psi Chi members also will receive awards, as well as the
top three current or past Psi Chi National Council members.
To honor our sponsors who make the race possible and the exhibitors at
our meeting who provide the excellent raffle prizes, the highest finishing
male and female sponsor and exhibitor will receive awards. Pre-registration
will run until August 16th - which means that the entry form and fee must
be received by that date.
THE ENTRY FEE FOR PRE-REGISTERED RUNNERS IS $20.00, which includes a commemorative
shirt, raffle chance, and post-race refreshments. PAST AUGUST 16TH, CONVENTION
AND DAY-OF-RACE REGISTRATION FEE IS $25.00. Pre-registration for students
is $10.00 and convention/day-of-race student registration is $14.00. PLEASE
pre-register to help us avoid too many convention and day-of-race registrations.
Copies of the registration form are available from Keith Cooke at 202-336-6197
or firstname.lastname@example.org or online at
The 5th Annual Pre-Race Pasta Dinner will be held on
Friday evening, August 23rd, at 6:00 - 8:00 PM at Gioco's Restaurant,
near McCormick Place. You may pick up your race number, shirt, and raffle
ticket at the business meeting of Running Psychologists on Friday morning
at 8AM (see the program for room number) or at the APA Division Services
booth in the McCormack Place Convention Center, beginning Friday morning.
GOODBYE to FRANK!! Frank Bellezza is completing his term as secretary-treasurer
of Division 3. Many thanks to you for a job well done!
David Gorfein, U of Texas-Arlington, email@example.com,
is the new secretary-treasurer of Division 3.
WELCOME to DAVID!!
Back to the Table of Contents