The Experimental Psychology Bulletin

from Division 3 of the American Psychological Association

Vol. 6, No. 2

June 2002


Table of Contents

Division Representatives


Letters To/From the Editor


2002 Division 3 New Investigator Award Winners


Division 3 Program Information



Featured Article: The Best Gift an Experimental Psychologist Can Receive, Robert J. Sternberg

Half Price Special

5K Race

Commentary/Discussion: William Howell responds to Harry Bahrick's Report

E-mail Network


Back to Division 3 homepage

Division Representatives 2001-2002

President Morton Ann Gernsbacher, (608) 262-6989, University of Wisconsin,

President-elect David A. Balota, (314) 935-6549, Washington University,

Past President Douglas L. Nelson, (813) 974-2839, Univ. of South Florida,

Secretary-Treasurer Francis S. Bellezza, (740) 593-1084, Ohio University,

Historian Charles L. Brewer, (803)294-3216, Furman University,

Members-At-Large of the Executive Committee

Alice Healy (8/01-04), (303)492-5032, University of Colorado,

Norman Spear (8/01-04), (607)777-2663, SUNY-Binghamton,

Randall Engle (8/00-03), (404)894-8036, Georgia Tech,

Edward Wasserman (8/00-03), (319)335-2445, University of Iowa,

David A. Balota (8/99-02), (314) 935-6549, Washington University,

Thomas Zentall (8/99-02), (606) 257-4076, University of Kentucky,

Representative to APA Council

Lewis P. Lipsitt (8/01-05), (401)863-2332, Brown University,

Harry P. Bahrick (8/00-04), (614) 368-3805, Ohio Wesleyan University,

Board of Directors

J. Bruce Overmier, (612)625-1835, University of Minnesota,

Committee Chairs

Herbert L. Pick, Jr. (Awards)

Morton Ann Gernsbacher (Fellows)

Suparna Rajaram (Membership)

Wendy M. Williams (2002 Program)

Editor, The Experimental Psychology Bulletin

Veronica J. Dark, (515) 294-1688, Iowa State University,

Division 3 2002 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 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.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes (Mark E. Bounton, Ed.)
Melissa Burns "Topography of spatially directed conditioned responding: Effects of context and trial duration" with co-author Michael Domjan. Vol. 27, 269-278.
Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, Texas, 76129,

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (Ray Nickerson, Ed.) Winner: Richard M. Rowe "Skilled anticipation in real-world tasks: Measurement of attentional demands in the domain of tennis" with co-author Frank P. McKenna. Vol. 7, 60-67.

Department of Child Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Camberwell, London, United Kingdom, SE5 8AF,

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (Nora S. Newcombe, Ed.)
Winner: Jeremy R. Gray
"Emotional 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, 63130.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance (David A. Rosenbaum, Ed.)

Winner: Yuhong Jiang "Asymmetric object substitution masking" with co-author Marvin M. Chun. Vol. 27, 895-918.
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139,

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (Thomas O. Nelson, Ed.)

Winner: Thorsten Meiser "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,

Congratulations to all for excellence in research!!!


Back to the Table of Contents

The Best Gift an Experimental Psychologist Can Receive

Robert J. Sternberg

APA President-Elect
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.

Wendell Garner
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 at all.

Gordon Bower

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 Niche

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.

Endel Tulving

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 to Grow

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 same.

Robert J. Sternberg,
IBM Professor of Psychology and Education
Director, Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise
Yale University


Back to the Table of Contents



Letter (er.. 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:


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 M1C 1A4

(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!! -- VJD)

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, and non-involvement.

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 divisions.

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,

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 cycle?

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?

Thanks, Veronica

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 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,, is the new secretary-treasurer of Division 3.



Back to the Table of Contents


A tip from the President (i.e., from Morty):

If you go to,

you'll see that APA electronic products are half price for the rest of the year!


Back to the Table of Contents

Division 3 APA 2002 Program Notes

Wendy M. Williams, Program Chair

The 2002 APA annual convention is in Chicago on August 22-25. Check the apa website,, for hotel and registration information (or check the April Monitor). Because APA is using a shortened convention format this year (Thursday through Sunday), there were fewer hours of divisional programming than in the past. The Division 3 program is provided on the next page. APA makes many last minute changes so check your programs rather than relying fully on this schedule.


P.S. Studs Terkel will speak as part of the Opening Session, Thurs., Aug. 22, 11-1 in McCormick Place--VJD.

  Friday, August 23 Saturday, August. 24 Sunday, August 25

Invited Address: Robert J. Sternberg

Cultural, Multicultural, and Cross-Cultural Intelligence Research: Necessary, Not Just Nice

McCormick Place Lakeside Center-Level 4, Meeting Room E450a


Invited Address: Susan J. Goldin-Meadow

Hearing Gestures: How Our Hands Help Us Think

McCormick Place South Building-Level 4, Meeting Room S405a


Wendy M. Williams (Chair)

Symposium: Perils and Pitfalls of Peer Review and Other Publishing Nightmares

Stephen J. Ceci, Fat Fate of Already-Published Articles Submitted Again

Henry L. Roediger How Editors Can Prevent Peer Review Disasters

McCormick Place Lakeside Center-Level 2, Meeting Room E271a


Invited Address: Peter Salovey

Framing Messages to Motivate Health Protective Behavior

McCormick Place Lakeside Center-Level 3, Meeting Room E353b

11:00 fffff

Invited Address: Jenny R. Saffran

Infant Statistical Learning and Language

AcquisitionMcCormick Place South Building-Level 5, Meeting Room S501a


Invited Address: Bennett I. Bertenthal

Challenges and Opportunities for Psychological Science in the 21st Century

McCormick Place Lakeside Center-Level 2, Meeting Room E271a

fffff fffff

Invited Address: David Dunning

Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence

McCormick Place SouthBuilding-Level 1, Meeting Room S105a

Invited Address: Virginia Valian

Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women in Academia

McCormick Place North Building-Level 4, Meeting Room N426b


Presidential Address: Morton A. Gernsbacher

Tackling the Myths of Autism: Insights From Experimental Psychology

McCormick Place SouthBuilding-Level 1, Meeting Room S105a

Invited Address: Gerd Gigerenzer

Cognition the Fast and Frugal Way

McCormick Place North Building-Level 4, Meeting Room N426b

3:00 fffff fffff fffff
4:00 fffff fffff fffff
5:00 fffff

Division 3 Business Meeting

McCormick Place Lakeside Center-Level 2, Meeting Room E261



Back to the Table of Contents

See you in Chicago!

                          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

Back to Division 3 homepage


Webpage Last Updated August 29, 2004

This page maintained by Mark Faust (