Science Briefs

Considering Interactions between Genes, Environments, Biology, and Social Context

by Kristen Jacobson

Kristen Jacobson received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies from the Pennsylvania State University in 1999. She spent a year as a postdoctoral scholar in psychiatric genetics under the direction of Dr. Kenneth Kendler at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, where she later served as faculty from 2000-2005. Dr. Jacobson is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago, and serves as the Associate Director for Twin Projects and the Associate Director of the Clinical Neuroscience and Psychopharmacology Research Unit. Dr. Jacobson is a collaborator on a number of twin studies of children, adolescents, and adults, and is currently conducting a multidisciplinary, multi-level study of adolescent development, From Neighborhoods to Neurons and Beyond, funded by an NIH New Innovator Award . She is editor of a special issue of Behavior Genetics entitled Pathways between Genes, Brain, and Behavior (expected publication January, 2010). New areas of research involve pilot studies of epigenetics in both mice and humans.

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) highlights the need to consider interactions between individual, family, peer, school, and community characteristics in understanding individual differences in human development. In order to obtain a complete understanding of the processes involved in individual differences, multidisciplinary studies that measure risk and protective factors at multiple levels of analysis are required. With recent advances in human molecular genetics, the need to integrate environmental measures into genomic studies is of even greater importance. While the mapping of the human genome and the corresponding availability of genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) techniques has led to a flurry of research activity trying to discover “genes for” particular disorders and traits, a significant body of research, both historic as well as quite recent, cautions that efforts to uncover specific genetic variants that ignore the effects of social and contextual environments in genetic studies of individual differences in human behavior and traits may be futile. This essay briefly reviews some of the most interesting work regarding the interplay of genes and environments on individual differences in human development.

Nature versus Nurture

For years, behavioral genetic studies using twin or adoptive samples have been considered the gold standard for assessing the joint effects of nature and nurture in accounting for individual differences in human behaviors and traits. Decades of behavioral genetic research have demonstrated the importance of genetically-influenced characteristics on individual differences in child, adolescent, and adult behaviors and traits. At the same time, behavioral genetic studies have revealed that generally over half of the variation in individual behaviors and traits is due to environmental factors, typically environmental factors that are unique across people within the same family or that have different effects on behavior (i.e., nonshared environmental influence).

Genetic influence has been found on “environmental” measures, suggesting the presence of gene à environment correlations. Gene à environment correlations arise because exposure to certain risk and protective environments is not random, but rather is influenced by inherited characteristics of the individual, and also because children “inherit” both genes and environments from their parents. The role of genes and environments in mediating pathways between risk and behavior is complex, however. For example, recent quasi-longitudinal work using twins to understand the relationship between peer group deviance and adolescent problem behavior found that while genetic factors accounted for most of the relationship between earlier problem behavior and later peer group deviance (consistent with genetic characteristics of an individual relating to peer selection), the relationship between prior peer group deviance and later problem behavior was largely environmentally mediated (consistent with peer influence effects; (Kendler, Jacobson, Myers, & Eaves, 2008).

Nature and Nurture

While the nature versus nurture debate may have attenuated in recent years with consensus from many fields regarding the importance of both genes and environments, other areas of research have further identified interactions between nature and nurture as important components of individual differences. A host of adoption studies in the 1980s and 1990s have shown that genetic liability to antisocial behavior (as indexed through biological parent psychopathology and substance abuse) is only associated with the development of adult criminality and aggression under adverse adoptive environmental conditions, indicating that neither nature nor nurture was sufficient in and of itself to cause pathology (Cadoret, Yates, Troughton, Woodworth, & Stewart, 1995; Cloninger & Gottesman, 1987).

Alternatively, gene X environment (gXe) interactions may be implicated when the relative importance of genetic influence on behaviors and traits as measured through standard twin designs varies across social and ecological context. For example, a study by Rowe, Almeida, and Jacobson (1999) integrated genetically-informative regression models within a hierarchical linear modeling design to show that levels of parental warmth, measured at the aggregate school level, moderated the heritability (i.e., proportion of individual differences due to genetic factors) of adolescent aggression.  Heritabilities of delinquent behavior are increased among adolescents living in families with high rates of dysfunction (Button, Scourfield, Martin, Purcell, & McGuffin, 2005), while the heritability of adolescent smoking decreases with higher levels of parental monitoring (Dick et al., 2007). Family and personal religiosity has been shown to decrease the importance of genetic variance on adolescent substance use behaviors (Koopmans, Slutske, Heath, Neale, & Boomsma, 1999; Timberlake et al., 2006), and urban-rural differences in the heritability of adolescent alcohol use were found to be mediated by contextual factors such as alcohol sales and neighborhood migration (Dick, Rose, Viken, Kapiro, & Koskenvuo, 2001). These latter areas of research may be of particular importance in generalizing results from prior twin studies to minority individuals or individuals in socially and economically disadvantaged environments, as most large-scale twin registries are based on primarily middle-class, Caucasian or Asian samples.

More recently, attention has turned to using measured genotypes and measured environments to investigate ”classic” gXe interactions for a number of important behaviors. Caspi et al.(2002) have elucidated an important and highly replicated (Kim-Cohen et al., 2006) gXe interaction using measured genotype (MAO-A gene) and environmental risk (child abuse) variables, demonstrating that the relationship between child maltreatment and various indices of aggressive and antisocial behavior is attenuated among individuals with the high MAO-A activity genotype. 

Another highly replicated interaction has been found between a serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTPLR) and stressful life events in predicting depression (Canli & Lesch, 2007). Further studies have found interactions between the 5-HTTPLR genotype and socioeconomic status (SES) for aggression in preadolescents (Nobile et al., 2007), between the 5-HTTPLR genotype and lab-induced stress for lab measures of aggression in adult males (Verona, Joiner, Johnson, & Bender, 2006) and between life stress and the 5-HTTPLR genotype for individual differences in amygdala activation (Canli et al., 2006). There is also emerging evidence for environmental modification of dopaminergic genes related to impulsivity and aggression, with studies finding significant interactions among the DRD4-7 repeat polymorphism and caregiver quality in predicting higher levels of aggression and impulsive traits in infants and preschoolers (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn, 2006; Sheese, Voelker, Rothbart, & Posner, 2007), and interactions between SES and the DRD4 gene for aggression in pre-adolescents (Nobile et al., 2007). Thus, genes implicated in multiple neurotransmitter pathways work in conjunction with a host of social and environmental experiences to alter individual differences across multiple behaviors and traits.

Additional Gene-Environment Interplay

While the above section concerns statistical interactions between genes and environments which may represent genetic sensitivity to environmental stressors, or, alternatively, environmental exacerbation of genetic effects, another potentially important avenue for research concerns the dynamic interplay between genes and environments, that is, genetic influence on environments and environmental influences on genes. By now, it is fairly common knowledge that when measures of family environment are treated as ‘phenotypes’ in traditional behavioral genetic models, significant genetic influences on these measures are often detected (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991). Decades of behavioral genetic studies have provided considerable evidence for significant genetic influence for measures such as various dimensions of parenting, indices of SES such as income and educational level, social support, and stressful life events (see Kendler & Baker [2007] for a recent review). What has been slower to develop, however, is the notion that environmental influences and experiences can have profound effects on genetic influence. While the underlying DNA structure and sequence individuals are born with does not change over time, a newer area of research in epigenetics is beginning to identify factors that may alter gene expression and function across the lifespan.

Epigenetics, defined formally as changes in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, offers an exciting new frontier in the study of human psychiatric and medical diseases, and psychological behaviors and traits. Epigenetic mechanisms include DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling, the latter via post-translational modifications (e.g. methylation, acetylation, phosphorylation and ubiquitylation) to histone proteins which form the scaffold for the DNA helix. Although some epigenetic processes are essential to organism function (e.g., differentiation of cells in the developing embryo during morphogenesis), other epigenetic processes can have major adverse effects on health and behavioral outcomes. While some epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime, animal models suggest that other epigenetic changes can be inherited from one generation to the next (see Champagne [2008] for a review), contributing, in part, to the heritability of behavioral traits and psychiatric disease.

However, a growing field of research suggests that environmental experiences, particularly those related to stress, have the capacity to alter biological and genetic mechanisms associated with increased risk of problem behavior. Again, the notion that environmental experience can change biological processes has important historical precedence. Harlow’s seminal deprivation studies of non-human primates have shown that disruptions in early rearing environments have the capacity to disrupt psychobiological regulatory functions, leading to behavioral changes. Other important animal research has begun to identify the precise mechanisms by which social environmental factors can alter epigenetic programming. Relatively recent research using animal models offers an elegant demonstration of how early environmental stressors can alter neurobiological responsivity to future stressful conditioning (Meaney, 2001). Meaney’s model highlights how individual differences in maternal behaviors can cause regulatory changes in the corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) system at the level of the central nucleus of the amygdala, and how these changes relate further to changes in adrenocortical and autonomic effects of later stressful events.  Importantly, his work suggests that these effects can be altered through intervention (Weaver et al., 2005).  Differences in early maternal care have also been associated with differences in methylation of the glucocorticoid receptor gene promoter in the hippocampus (Meaney & Szyf, 2005).  Most critically, a recent comparison of post-mortem brain tissue from a sample of patients with a history of child abuse and/or neglect and who died by suicide indicated DNA hypermethylation of the rRNA promoter region in the hippocampus relative to controls who experienced sudden, accidental death (McGowan et al., 2008), supporting the hypothesis that epigenetic changes due to social and environmental experiences are related to behavioral traits.

Other studies of monozygotic twins have identified variations in DNA methylation levels in certain target gene promoter regions. Because identical twins share identical genomes and experience many of the same family environmental factors, this indicates that environmental experiences that are not shared among children in the same family have an important causal role in gene expression, and may further be related to behavioral differences among identical twin pairs. Importantly, within-pair differences in DNA methylation and histone acetylation patterns were increased in older twin pairs, especially those who had different lifestyles and had spent fewer years of their lives together, strongly supporting epigenetic processes as a part of nonshared environmental influence on individual differences (Fraga et al., 2005). This suggests that epigenetic processes represent a fundamental gene-environment interface in the development and ongoing plasticity of the human brain.

Conclusions

While there is no doubt that genetic studies of individual behaviors and traits will increase our understanding of both normal human variation and pathological disorders, there is increasing recognition that the interplay between genes and environments is remarkably complex. Not only are both genes and environments important for both normal and abnormal human development, but genes and environments operate interactively to produce both risk and resilience to specific behavioral and psychiatric disorders. More importantly, emerging lines of research from epigenetics suggest that not only can nature alter nurture, but nurture, in turn, has the power to modify nature. Thus, genomic studies that incorporate a range of social and environmental influences will further our understanding of the complex dance between nature and nurture in human development.

References

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Gene-environment interaction of the dopamine d4 receptor (drd4) and observed maternal insensitivity predicting externalizing behavior in preschoolers. Dev Psychobiol, 48(5), 406-409.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychol Rev, 101(4), 568-586.

Button, T. M., Scourfield, J., Martin, N., Purcell, S., & McGuffin, P. (2005). Family dysfunction interacts with genes in the causation of antisocial symptoms. Behav Genet, 35(2), 115-120.

Cadoret, R. J., Yates, W. R., Troughton, E., Woodworth, G., & Stewart, M. A. (1995). Genetic-environmental interaction in the genesis of aggressivity and conduct disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 52(11), 916-924.

Canli, T., & Lesch, K.-P. (2007). Long story short: The serotonin transporter in emotion regulation and social cognition. Nat Neurosci, 10(9), 1103.

Canli, T., Q. M., Omura, K., Congdon, E., Haas, B.W., Amin, Z., Herrmann, M.J., et al. (2006). Neural correlates of epigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 103, 16033-16038.

Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851-854.

Champagne, F. A. (2008). Epigenetic mechanisms and the transgenerational effects of maternal care. Front Neuroendocrinol, 29(3), 386-397.

Cloninger, C. R., & Gottesman, I. (1987). Genetic and environmental factors in antisocial behavior disorder. In S. A. Mednick, T. E. Moffitt & S. A. Stack (Eds.), The causes of crime: New biological approaches (pp. 99-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dick, D. M., Rose, R. J., Viken, R. J., Kaprio, J., & Koskenvuo, M. (2001). Exploring gene-environment interactions: Socioregional moderation of alcohol use. J Abnorm Psychol, 110(4), 625-632.

Dick, D. M., Viken, R., Purcell, S., Kaprio, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Rose, R. J. (2007). Parental monitoring moderates the importance of genetic and environmental influences on adolescent smoking. J Abnorm Psychol, 116(1), 213-218.

Fraga, M. F., Ballestar, E., Paz, M. F., Ropero, S., Setien, F., Ballestar, M. L., et al. (2005). Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 102(30), 10604-10609.

Kendler, K. S., & Baker, J. H. (2007). Genetic influences on measures of the environment: A systematic review. Psychol Med, 37(5), 615-626.

Kendler, K. S., Jacobson, K., Myers, J. M., & Eaves, L. J. (2008). A genetically informative developmental study of the relationship between conduct disorder and peer deviance in males. Psychol Med, 38(7), 1001-1011.

Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Williams, B., Newcombe, R., Craig, I. W., et al. (2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene-environment interaction predicting children's mental health: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry, 11(10), 903-913.

Koopmans, J. R., Slutske, W. S., Heath, A. C., Neale, M. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (1999). The genetics of smoking initiation and quantity smoked in dutch adolescent and young adult twins. Behav Genet, 29(6), 383-393.

McGowan, P. O., Sasaki, A., Huang, T. C., Unterberger, A., Suderman, M., Ernst, C., et al. (2008). Promoter-wide hypermethylation of the ribosomal rna gene promoter in the suicide brain. PLoS ONE, 3(5), e2085.

Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annu Rev Neurosci, 24, 1161-1192.

Meaney, M. J., & Szyf, M. (2005). Maternal care as a model for experience-dependent chromatin plasticity? Trends Neurosci, 28(9), 456-463.

Nobile, M., Giorda, R., Marino, C., Carlet, O., Pastore, V., Vanzin, L., et al. (2007). Socioeconomic status mediates the genetic contribution of the dopamine receptor d4 and serotonin transporter linked promoter region polymorphisms to externalization in preadolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 19(4), 1147-1160.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on "environmental" measures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 373-427.

Rowe, D. C., Almeida, D. M., & Jacobson, K. C. (1999). School context and genetic influences on aggression in adolesceence. Psychological Science, 10, 277-280.

Sheese, B., Voelker, P., Rothbart, M., & Posner, M. (2007). Parenting quality interacts with genetic variation in dopamine receptor d4 to influence temperament in early childhood. Developmental Psychopathology, 19, 1039-1046.

Timberlake, D. S., Rhee, S. H., Haberstick, B. C., Hopfer, C., Ehringer, M., Lessem, J. M., et al. (2006). The moderating effects of religiosity on the genetic and environmental determinants of smoking initiation. Nicotine Tob Res, 8(1), 123-133.

Verona, E., Joiner, T. E., Johnson, F., & Bender, T. W. (2006). Gender specific gene-environment interactions on laboratory-assessed aggression. Biol Psychol, 71(1), 33-41.

Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Brown, S. E., Dymov, S., Sharma, S., Meaney, M. J., et al. (2005). Reversal of maternal programming of stress responses in adult offspring through methyl supplementation: Altering epigenetic marking later in life. J Neurosci, 25(47), 11045-11054.

Executive Director's Column

Between Timidity and Temerity
by Steven Breckler, Executive Director

As a student of social psychology “growing up” in the early 1980’s, I can still remember the much-anticipated publication in 1985 of the third edition of the Handbook of Social Psychology.  It was a massive two-volume effort spanning more than 1500 pages, and I read it cover to cover.

Yet, it is two paragraphs in an early chapter of the Handbook that stuck with me most over the past 25 years.  I return to those two paragraphs often, buried deep in the second chapter written by the late Edward E. Jones (Major Developments in Social Psychology During the Past Five Decades).

In a brief section on relevance and funding priorities, Jones made the point that social scientists (in contrast to natural scientists) are “pressed into working on problems defined as urgent or important by those outside the profession”.  The risk we run is that those problems may be so complex and difficult that solutions and breakthroughs can easily fall short of expectations.

In times of economic distress, Jones predicts that “failure to fulfill these expectations [will be] used by Congress or the administration in power to justify funding restrictions or cutbacks”.  These words have an eerie relevance as the nation struggles with its biggest financial crisis of the modern economic era, and social and behavioral scientists fret over shrinking allocations of research dollars at the federal agencies.

So what are social and behavioral scientists to do?  One approach is to lower expectations – focus on smaller, narrower problems, and never promise more than can be delivered.  Some may believe that this approach is closer to what our colleagues do in natural science fields – focus on tractable problems for which results are certain to obtain and expectations are easily met.  I think of this as timid science – achieve progress by taking small, incremental steps.

Another approach is to ignore expectations and the possibility of failure.  Aspire to solving grand challenges, and demand support for the endeavor.  Those problems may or may not get solved, but many things will be learned in trying.  In contrast to timid science, I think of this as impudent science – achieve progress by setting sights way too high.  We may stumble and fall, but new knowledge is likely to be found along the way.

Timid science seems safe, if not boring.  But the world seems to be moving much faster, demands on science are growing, and timid science runs the risk of not keeping pace.

Impudent science is attractive, if not dangerous.  It gets attention and resources, but is precisely the kind of science that runs the risk of not meeting expectations and of failing.

Somewhere between timidity and temerity is the right place for social and behavioral science.  If we must lean one way or the other, it should be toward temerity.  Every field of science promises more than it can deliver.  And even when problems are solved, it usually takes much longer than anyone expected (consider the 150 years that mathematicians have spent trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis, and they are still going at it).

The world of science has changed considerably since Jones wrote his chapter in 1985.  Ten years into the 21st century, expectations for science are higher than ever before.  Science is being counted on to cure diseases, to solve the crisis of global warming, and to improve the quality of life.  And most fields of science offer themselves as providing solutions.  Talk about temerity!

Results from social and behavioral science can be used to eliminate disparities in health, increase vitality in aging, reduce global warming, improve productivity, control dangerous addictions, make transportation safer, improve children’s learning, and otherwise make the world and society a better place to live.

Is that temerity?  Perhaps so.  I don’t think it is the expectation of success or failure that needs to be managed, it is the expectation of trying that counts.  If social and behavioral science won’t step up to the plate, then who will?  We can’t wait 150 years to solve these problems.  Social and behavioral science offers the best hope, and that’s the expectation we should promote.

Return of Interesting Careers in Psychology

The APA Science Directorate is pleased to revive the popular series Interesting Careers in Psychology. These articles are written by psychological scientists who have pursued scientific careers that depart from the traditional academic path. The authors describe how they came to the positions they now occupy and the lessons they learned along the way for building a successful and satisfying career. Future articles will highlight psychologists working in business, government, and non-profit settings and will include those who have moved between academic and non-academic positions.

An Interesting Career in Psychology:
Transportation and Safety Research Psychologist

EMANUEL ROBINSON

Ph.D. (2006) - Experimental Psychology
Georgia Institute of Technology

Senior Research Scientist (Transportation and Safety Research)
Westat, Inc.
Rockville, Maryland

“What is the practical application of your research?”  That was the usual question posed at colloquia, defenses, and job talks by Dan Fisk, a faculty member in my graduate program.  It usually unnerved most graduate students, many job candidates, and even a few established researchers.  Ironically, I would start to regularly think the same question about the practical application of some research while sitting through presentations based on obscure task manipulations.  Hence, the seeds of questioning my own career path were planted.

I am a relatively new Ph.D. (2006) in Experimental Psychology from the Georgia Institute of Technology, who studied with Chris Hertzog as part of the Cognitive Aging program with a minor in quantitative methods.  Throughout graduate school, I enjoyed working in a variety of areas, several with an aging or individual differences component:  meta-memory (understanding one's own strategies for memory retrieval), problem-solving, deductive reasoning (the topic of my master’s thesis), and eventually decision-making (the topic of my doctoral dissertation).  I continued my dissertation work as a Visiting Scientist at Brown University before making a career move.  Regardless of the domain, I wanted to understand how people thought in complex situations and what strategies were utilized.

Research has always been a passion of mine and it seemed like academia was the only outlet.  Like many students in a research-focused, experimental psychology program, getting a tenure-track position at a major university was the main goal.  Regardless, there were several things that kept other career options a solid possibility.  First, I had experiences in applied settings:  doing test development and validation with the local Civil Service Commission as an undergraduate intern, and statistical consulting for a survey/linguistics firm through connections of my post-doctoral advisor (Steven Sloman).  Second, I did not agree with the publish-or-perish metric, teaching was not a primary enjoyment, and I disliked the slower pace of academia.  And, unfortunately, there was the abysmal funding situation in my field.  There had to be other markets for my skills with more favorable risk/reward ratios.

So, how did I make the switch?  I methodically searched through everything I could find about potential types of jobs and places to work (research conference directories, search engines, etc.).  Also, I read through APA's Nonacademic Careers for Scientific Psychologists, which was a treasure trove of useful information.  Also, I reached out to contacts, which included applied professors in my graduate program and dissertation committee members (specifically Dan Fisk and Wendy Rogers), department alumni, and referrals from initial contacts.  Interestingly, there were several opportunities for an experimental psychologist with a quantitative, aging, and decision-making background.  One industry contact mentioned several firms that might be a good fit, including Westat, a research corporation in Rockville, Maryland.  As luck would have it, Wendy knew someone who worked at Westat, and offered to initiate contact.  This led to a preliminary meeting with Neil Lerner, who is the manager of the Human Factors division within the Transportation and Safety Research group.  I was initially apprehensive about what commonality there could be between my interests and the work they were doing.  A few minutes into the conversation and we were discussing railroad crossing accidents and how people take unnecessary risks to beat the train.  Aha!  That was similar to risky behavior in economics, a topic related to some of my decision-making work.  We continued with a formal interview, and the rest is history. 

Currently, I am a Senior Research Scientist in the Transportation and Safety Research group (Human Factors) at Westat, and have opportunities to explore a wide range of areas—some familiar (quantitative analysis, decision-making and economics, aging with a transportation focus), some unfamiliar (e.g., environmental, educational, and transportation interventions).  Examples include investigating the effectiveness of  various interventions implemented across multiple states for reducing car crashes involving teenagers, and developing an experimental evaluation of the design and safety outcomes of crash warning interfaces for vehicles.  I am also exploring new areas outside of those traditionally found in our group, including a recent proposal in behavioral economics and congestion pricing which has potential impacts on drivers’ route choice and safety.  In all of these projects, there is satisfaction in doing work that can directly save and improve lives.

After joining Westat, I discovered several similarities with academia (though this may not be true for every company).  These include publishing scientific articles, presenting at conferences, and receiving funding from government agencies.  We also compete and collaborate with researchers at many major universities.  Finally, there is a nice amount of freedom and independence, allowing us to move into different research areas based on new opportunities and interests. 

It was immediately obvious this was a better fit.  I can focus on existing real-world problems that need novel solutions—solving problems rather than creating them—and see the direct impact of my work.  Also, the amount of resources to do real-world, quality research is mind-boggling. In addition, work in industry is much more collaborative and interdisciplinary, often involving teams of researchers across companies and universities with diverse backgrounds.  For example, our group has a range of disciplines, from traffic engineers and civil engineers to sociologists to psychologists with training in vision, behaviorism, aging, decision-making, etc.  This diversity of skills is highly valued, which is very important to me given my broad interests.  Finally, everything moves at a much faster pace, which really challenges one to operate efficiently.

There are several general suggestions I hope will be helpful to a student or beginning researcher contemplating an industry career path: 

• Acquire project and/or lab management experience to become more competitive in both industry and academia (several years of managing my advisor's lab helped immensely).

• Collaborate and get to know professors (e.g., committee members, class instructors, colloquium speakers).  Expand your professional networks—you never know what information will turn out to be interesting or helpful.

• Think broadly about your skills, how they can be applied, and realistically assess their value to companies (and work to overcome weaknesses).

• Take quantitative and methodology courses (e.g., statistics, research design, psychometrics).  Those skills are desirable in both the academic and industry job markets, providing added flexibility (it gave me quite a few options).

• Don't succumb to the sunk cost fallacy (or “throwing good money after bad”). Often, people feel too much is invested to change.  If things do not feel right in what you are doing, then look for the type of work that fits better with your interests and skills.

• Plan ahead and seek out opportunities that allow you to thrive.  Find the niche that makes you happy, feels “right,” and allows full development.

After initially questioning what other options exist, I am aware of another world of research that has opened up many more possibilities.  Now the main career question I find myself asking is why this path was not pursued sooner.  The biggest confirmation of being in the right place for my interests is that I often smile when arriving to work.  Hopefully, anyone contemplating their career options will find this information helpful and have a similar opportunity. 

From the APA Science Student Council

The Science Student Council is a group of nine graduate students who spend a couple of weekends a year with the Science staff, advising on programs and activities that would benefit graduate students in psychological science. In this column, the students will present useful information that other graduate students need to know! Visit the Science Student Council page (www.apa.org/science/apasscweb.html) to learn more about the activities of the SSC.

Joining an APA Division: What’s in it for me?

by Gloria Luong

As student affiliates of the American Psychological Association (APA), you are undoubtedly aware of the numerous benefits of being a member of APA, such as discounts on attending the annual APA convention and subscriptions to American Psychologist, Monitor on Psychology, and GradPSYCH.  You might be wondering if there are even more benefits – there are. You can get much more out of your membership by joining an APA division. Divisions of APA represent more specialized fields and areas within psychology that may better represent your scientific and professional interests. With 54 APA divisions, finding the perfect division(s) for you should be no problem.

Why Join an APA Division?

1. Networking with professionals in your area of interest: Joining an APA division gives you access to professionals in your area of psychology. Some APA divisions have their own smaller conferences that seem like “home” for psychologists in a specific area of study. For example, Division 8 (Society for Personality and Social Psychology) hosts an annual conference, and some of the most recognized and well-respected scholars make a point not to miss this conference. These conferences and meetings are great opportunities to network with professionals in your area and may open the doors to post-doctoral and job opportunities in the future. In addition, at the APA convention, many divisions have social hours where you can also network with other students, faculty, post-docs, and professionals in your area. If you are in an interdisciplinary program or do not have many faculty members at your university who are specialists in your area, joining multiple divisions and using these opportunities to network with experts in your fields of study may be especially important for establishing your professional identity.

2. Connecting to the latest findings in your area: Many APA divisions have newsletters and specialized journals that report on the latest, cutting edge research findings in your area. In addition, most divisions offer these specialized journals at a discounted rate for students. As an example, Division 5 (Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics) offers the premier journal, Psychological Methods, at a reduced price for students. Most divisions also have newsletters, email listservs, and online postings that will keep you informed about relevant upcoming events (e.g., statistics workshops, conferences), award deadlines, and even post-doc and job openings.

3. Representing the interests of science students in your area: By joining an APA division, you are also making a statement that as a science student, you care about shaping the future of your field and giving a voice to the next generation of psychologists. You may have opportunities to attend division business meetings and vote on division policies and procedures that directly affect students (e.g., increases in membership dues). Believe it or not, students make up a large proportion of APA membership and your participation in division activities will make science student representation in APA more visible and impactful.

4. Opportunities for award recognition and funding: As any graduate student can testify, funding is often scarce and hard to come by. Luckily, many APA divisions offer awards targeted toward undergraduate and graduate students. Division 38 (Health Psychology), for example, offers a $1200 award to support graduate student research on various health psychology topics, and Division 14 (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology) offers a $1000 dissertation award. Because these awards are often geared toward specific topics within an already specialized area of psychology, the pool of applicants for these awards are typically smaller and your chances of getting these types of awards are generally much greater than general funding opportunities in which many applicants are competing for the same award (e.g., National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship). 

5. It’s cheap and easy! While most APA divisions charge membership fees in addition to the general APA membership fee, students oftentimes get discounts on their division memberships. Even better, some divisions offer students free membership. For example, Division 20 (Adult Development and Aging) offers students their first year of membership at no cost and Division 7 (Developmental Psychology) offers undergraduate and graduate student affiliates free membership as long as they remain students. As a graduate student you may be living like a pauper, but with cheap (or even free) membership in many of APA’s divisions, you have no reason not to join a division.

To qualify for membership, most divisions require that you are also a member of APA. For more information on APA divisions, including a complete listing of divisions, visit the APA web site. So what are you waiting for? Get out there and join a division (or two or three)!

Recipients of 2009 APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Awards

by Suzanne Wandersman

The American Psychological Association is pleased to announce the recipients of the 2009 APA Distinguished Scientific Awards.

Distinguished Scientific Contribution Awards

Susan E. Carey (Department of Psychology, Harvard University).  Dr. Carey is being honored for her contributions to the fields of cognitive development, cognitive science, and developmental psychology.

Her early research examined children’s thinking and language understanding.  This work altered our understanding of the nature of children’s word learning.  She documented the process of “fast mapping,” where a child can learn the meaning of a new word with a single exposure. 

Dr. Carey’s 1985 book, Conceptual Change in Childhood, describes her work on children’s understanding of living things.  The book articulates the idea of conceptual development as analogous to scientific theory change.  She recently published The Origin of Concepts, which further elaborates her model of the origin, representation, and development of abstract concepts and the nature of conceptual change.

She has also carried out seminal research on how infants individuate, identify, and count physical objects and on how adults perceive and recognize faces. 

Dr. Carey has significantly advanced our fundamental understanding of language, concepts, perception, number, and development.    

Alice H. Eagly (Department of Psychology, Northwestern University).  Dr. Eagly is being honored for her work on social psychology, the psychology of gender, the psychology of attitudes, and the use of meta-analytic techniques.
Her work on gender has advanced our understanding of how nature and nurture intertwine in producing sex differences and similarities.  Dr. Eagly recognized the value of meta-analysis as a tool for understanding sex differences and similarities and has become one of the most sophisticated meta-analysts in the field.  Her work represents a consistent effort to identify the moderating conditions that help determine why women and men behave differently in some contexts but similarly in others.  Dr. Eagly’s analyses of gender have produced insights into such diverse domains as altruism and heroism, conformity, social influence, aggressive behavior, and leadership.

She has constructed and continued to refine a social role theory which claims that the causal origins of observed psychological sex differences lie in the distribution of women and men into societal roles.  According to the theory, this distribution arises from biological differences related to reproductive roles and physical strength in interaction with the demands of the economy and social structure.

Dr. Eagly’s research on attitudes has spanned her career.  Her early research developed a theoretical account of findings related to source effects on persuasion.  She documented the attributional processes through which different communicators and communications were more or less effective at influencing their intended audiences.  Her subsequent research on attitudes addressed the nature of prejudice and the congeniality effect in people’s selection of and memory for attitude-relevant information.  In 1993, she and Shelley Chaiken pubished a landmark book, The Psychology of Attitudes.  Currently, Dr. Eagly is working on a theory of prejudice that focuses on the impact of the fit or lack of fit between group stereotypes and desirable social roles.  Some of this work is described in her 2007 book with Linda Carli, Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders.
Dr. Eagly has made major contributions to our understanding of attitude structure and function and the psychology of gender and has been a leader in the use of meta-analysis techniques in psychology. 

Steven F. Maier (Department of Psychology, University of Colorado).  Dr. Maier is being honored for his contributions to psychology, neuroscience, and psychoneuroimmunology.

His early research focused on understanding the factors that determine when an experience is stressful.  With Martin Seligman and Bruce Overmier, he developed the theory of learned helplessness, according to which aversive events are stressful for an animal only if they cannot be controlled by the animal.  This work has inspired a great deal of further research on human behavior and psychopathology.

Dr. Maier later moved to research on pain, examining the impact of psychological variables on the perception of pain and the activity of neural pathways for pain. He demonstrated that stressors in the environment can directly alter the activity of neurons in the spinal cord involved in processing pain signals, which led to an important line of research on “stress-induced analgesia.” 

Later, Dr. Maier became interested in the relationship between behavior and the immune system.  He showed that stress, understood in terms of control over aversive events, can alter immune function, and he went on to delineate the underlying biological mechanisms and address the implications for disease processes.  This work significantly advanced the new discipline of psychoneuroimmunology. 

Recently, Dr. Maier has returned to the study of learned helplessness with the intent of understanding the neurobiological basis of the effects of control, and he has begun to examine the nature and effects of neuroinflammation.

Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology

Nancy E. Adler (Departments of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco).  Dr. Adler is being honored for her contributions to health psychology and for enhancing understanding of psychological perspectives on current issues in health policy at the national and international levels.

Her early research addressed the causes of health behaviors, particularly in adolescents.  Dr. Adler’s work helped to explain why individuals engage in health-damaging behaviors and how their understanding of risk affects their choices.  This research was primarily in reproductive health, examining adolescent decision-making regarding contraception, conscious and preconscious motivation for pregnancy, and perception of risk of sexually transmitted diseases. 

Recently, Dr. Adler has been investigating the relations between socioeconomic status (SES) and health.  Her research focuses on how the primary components of SES (income, education, and occupation) are involved in key domains of life and shape life course, including physical and psychological development and health practices.
 
Through her position as director of the MacArthur Research Network on SES and Health, Dr. Adler has brought to psychology an awareness of the impact of social class on mental and physical health and demonstrated to researchers in other fields and to policymakers the important contributions that psychology can make.

Dr. Adler is an innovative and productive researcher examining important issues of health and well-being and serves as an effective spokesperson for the role of psychology in addressing these issues.

Distinguished Scientific Awards for Early Career Contributions to Psychology

Applied research

Robert E. Ployhart (Department of Management, University of South Carolina).  Dr. Ployhart is recognized for his contributions to the areas of personnel selection and job performance as well as in statistics and measurement.  His work on applicant reactions has made productive use of justice theory, attribution theory, and stereotype threat theory to understand applicant perceptions and behavior.  His research on performance ratings has been influential and innovative, especially in its use of longitudinal modeling methods to examine performance variability over time.  Dr. Ployhart received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University in 1999. 

Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience

Adam K. Anderson (Department of Psychology, University of Toronto).  Dr. Anderson is recognized for contributions to our understanding of the psychological and neural bases of emotions and their expression.  His studies have shown how emotions influence cognitive systems to shape the contents of awareness and memory.  His work is integrative and multi-disciplinary, drawing upon methods from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, peripheral psychophysiology, and functional neuroimaging.  Dr. Anderson received his Ph.D. from Yale University in 2000.

Individual differences
(two awardees)

Daniel J. Bauer (Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).  Dr. Bauer is recognized for his work on quantitative methodology and on individual differences in stability and change over time.  His primary work is in the statistical modeling of longitudinal data.  His collaborative research on adolescent social development focusing on problem behaviors provides empirical feedback on the performance of his quantitative models and helps to stimulate the development of new models.  Dr. Bauer received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2000.

Ahmad R. Hariri  (Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine). 
Dr. Hariri is recognized for his multidisciplinary approach to advancing understanding of the basic mechanisms and pathways leading to individual differences in behavior and risk for neuropsychiatric disease.  His earlier collaborative work investigated the interface of genes, brain, and behavior, a field that he and his colleagues termed “imaging genetics.”  Dr. Hariri’s recent research identifies the neurobiological mechanisms contributing to individual differences in impulsivity, reward sensitivity, and associated risk for addiction.  Dr. Hariri received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2000.

Perception and motor performance

Christian N.L. Olivers  (Department of Cognitive Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands).  Dr. Olivers is recognized for his contributions to the study of attention through his analysis of the "attentional blink" phenomenon. Dr. Olivers developed a new account of the attentional blink in terms of a selection mechanism that enhances perception of task-relevant information and suppresses perception of task-irrelevant information.  Dr. Olivers has produced persuasive experimental evidence for this account and its superiority to previous approaches and has pursued its implications for broader models of attention.  Dr. Olivers received his Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom in 2001.

Social psychology

Jennifer A. Richeson (Department of Psychology, Northwestern University).  Dr. Richeson is recognized for her innovative studies of the cognitive and behavioral underpinnings of stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and inter-group conflict.  Her research extends and integrates approaches from work on executive control, resource depletion, and self-regulation.  Her studies examine the experiences and behaviors both of members of devalued groups and of members of dominant groups. This research points the way to novel approaches to improving interactions across diverse individuals and groups.  Dr. Richeson received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2000.

New Indication of Support for Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at NIH

by Pat Kobor

Raynard Kington, Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health, recently announced that he has brokered a new partnership to advance basic research in the behavioral and social sciences. Jeremy Berg, Director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Richard Hodes, Director of the National Institute on Aging, will co-chair a group to develop a Blueprint for Basic Behavioral and Social Science.

“It was clear that basic behavioral and social science research was a trans-institute issue, and better coordination and funding would require a trans-institute solution,” Dr. Berg told a meeting of the NIH Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Coordinating Committee in March.

The organizational structure is inspired by the Neuroscience Blueprint, a plan for joint action of the NIH institutes that fund neuroscience research.  Participating institutes contribute to the pool of funds according to the amount of their neuroscience research portfolio, resulting in a pot of funds of about $38 million in FY 09. The Blueprint institutes decide jointly how best to allocate the funds to advance the field. Similarly, the Basic Behavioral and Social Science Blueprint would be a research plan accompanied by a pool of funds to which multiple institutes would contribute.  

The question of how to advance basic research in the behavioral and social sciences in the absence of a “home” for such research has been debated at NIH for much of the last decade.  In 2004, a working group formed out of the Advisory Committee to then-Director of NIH Elias Zerhouni recommended that a home be created within one of the institutes with the broadest research mission (e.g., NIA, NICHD, NIGMS).  Changing priorities within the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which had historically funded a significant amount of basic behavioral research, contributed to the urgency of that discussion.  Throughout this period, science advocacy organizations including APA have pressed for NIH to increase coordination for this research area and to identify and fill funding gaps. 

APA Government Relations staff will work closely with NIH officials with the goal of ensuring that the new Blueprint encompasses a comprehensive range of basic behavioral and social science research and that sufficient funds are allocated to the plan.  Further developments will be reported in future issues of PSA.

Research Funding Opportunities from Federal Agencies

Recent funding announcements from federal agencies for interdisciplinary research and training that are appropriate for psychological scientists

National Institutes of Health

NIH Recovery Act Funding: Frequently Asked Questions

NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Administrative Supplements
(NOT-OD-09-056)
(all institutes)

NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Competitive Revision Applications (NOT-OD-09-058)
(all institutes)

NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Administrative Supplements Providing Summer Research Experiences for Students and Science Educators
(NOT-OD-09-060)
(all institutes)

Recovery Act Notice: NIH ARRA Funding Considerations for Applications with Meritorious Scores that Fall Beyond the Pay-line (NOT-OD-09-078)
(all institutes)

Recovery Act Limited Competition for NIH Grants: Research and Research Infrastructure Grand Opportunities (RC2)  (RFA-OD-09-004)
(multiple institutes)
Application deadline: May 27, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Supporting New Faculty Recruitment to Enhance Research Resources through Biomedical Research Core Centers (P30)
(RFA-OD-09-005)
(multiple institutes)
Application deadline: May 29, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Research to Address the Heterogeneity in Autism Spectrum Disorders (R01)  (RFA-MH-09-170)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDCD, NIEHS, NINDS)
Application deadline: May 12, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Research to Address the Heterogeneity in Autism Spectrum Disorders (Collaborative R01)  (RFA-MH-09-171)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDCD, NIEHS)
Application deadline: May 12, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Research to Address the Heterogeneity in Autism Spectrum Disorders (R21)  (RFA-MH-09-172)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDCD, NIEHS, NINDS)
Application deadline: May 12, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Research to Address the Heterogeneity in Autism Spectrum Disorders (R34 and Collaborative R34)  (RFA-MH-09-173)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDCD)
Application deadline: May 12, 2009

Community Participation Research Targeting the Medically Underserved (R01) 
(PAR-08-075)
(OBSSR, multiple institutes)

Community Participation Research Targeting the Medically Underserved (R21) 
(PAR-08-076)
(OBSSR, multiple institutes)

Biomedical Research on the International Space Station (BioMed-ISS) (UH2/UH3)
(PAR-09-120)
(multiple institutes)

Promoting Careers in Aging and Health Disparities Research (K01)
(PAR-09-136)
(NIA)

Community-Based Partnerships for Childhood Obesity Prevention and Control: Research to Inform Policy (R03)  (PA-09-140)
(NICHD, NCI, NHLBI, OBSSR; CDC)

Community-Based Partnerships for Childhood Obesity Prevention and Control: Research to Inform Policy (R21)  (PA-09-141)
(NICHD, NCI, NHLBI, OBSSR; CDC)

Building System Capacity for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention (R34)  (PA-09-105)
(NIDA)

Pilot and Feasibility Studies in Preparation for Drug Abuse Prevention Trials (R34)
(PA-09-146)
(NIDA)

Native American Research Centers for Health (NOT-GM-09-015)
(NIGMS)

Basic and Translational Research in Emotion (R01) (PA-09-137)
(NIMH, NCI, NIA, NIAAA, NICHD, NIDA)

Mental Health Dissertation Research Grant to Increase Diversity (R36) (PAR-09-132)
(NIMH)

Research on Psychopathology In Intellectual Disabilities (Mental Retardation) (R01)
(PA-09-150)
(NIMH)

Interventions to Improve Palliative Care at the End of Life (R01) (RFA-NR-09-004)
(NINR)

Incorporating Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Into Factors Affecting Quality-of-Life Health Related Research (R01)  (RFA-NR-09-005)
(NINR, NCI, ODS)

National Science Foundation

NSF Information Related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Behavioral Systems (PD 07-7472)

Developmental and Learning Sciences  (PD 08-1698)

Innovation and Organizational Sciences (PD 07-5376)

Neural Systems (PD 07-5500)

Science of Learning Centers  (PD 07-7278)

Department of Education

Research and Research Training Programs (Institute of Education Sciences - FY2010)

• Education Research Programs
• Special Education Research Programs
• Postdoctoral Research Training Program in the Education Sciences
• Postdoctoral Research Training Program in Special Education
• Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences
• National Research and Development Centers
• Special Education Research and Development Centers
• Statistical and Research Methodology in Education
• Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies

Administration for Children and Families

Head Start Graduate Student Research  (HHS-2009-ACF-OPRE-YR-0004)

Secondary Analyses of Data on Child Care (HHS-2009-ACF-OPRE-YE-0080)

Center for Early Care and Education Research: Dual Language Learners
(HHS-2009-ACF-OPRE-YR-0083)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

A Cooperative Agreement for Monitoring Youth Exposure to Alcohol Marketing
(CDC-RFA-DP09-906)

National Center for Construction Safety and Health (U60) (RFA-OH-09-001)

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Health Services Research Grant Program  (HHS-2009-CMS-HHS-0006)

Hispanic Health Services Research Grant Program (HHS-2009-CMS-HHS-0005)

Department of Defense

Defense Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR)
(W911NF-09-R-0003)
(Army, Air Force, Navy)

Research Interests of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR-BAA-2009-1)
(Air Force)

Research on Edge Organizations in The Context of Network-Centric Operations
(NPSBAA09-001)
(Navy)

Department of Transportation

Improving Teen Driving Through a Parental Responsibility Program
(DTNH22-09-R-00203)

Reaching Parents of Tweens to Increase Tween Seat Belt Use (DTNH22-09-R-00204)

Announcements

2010 APA Distinguished Scientific Awards Program: Call for Nominations

The American Psychological Association invites nominations for its scientific awards program for 2010.

The Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award honors psychologists who have made distinguished theoretical or empirical contributions to basic research in psychology.

The Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology honors psychologists who have made distinguished theoretical or empirical advances in psychology leading to the understanding or amelioration of important practical problems.

The Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology recognizes excellent young psychologists. For the 2010 program, nominations of persons who received doctoral degrees during and since 2000 are being sought in these five areas:

• animal learning and behavior, comparative
• psychopathology
• health
• developmental
• cognition/human learning

These categories should be interpreted broadly.  APA encourages nominations of psychologists who are female and from underrepresented groups.

The deadline for submitting 2010 nominations is June 1, 2009. For more information visit: www.apa.org/science/sciaward.html

APA Grants for Scientific Conferences: Call for Proposals

The Science Directorate is currently seeking proposals for grants to support research conferences in psychology. The purpose of these grants is to promote the exchange of important new contributions and approaches in scientific psychology.

The next deadline for applications is June 1, 2009.

Grants ranging from $500 to $20,000 are available. Proposals will be considered for "add-a-day" conferences ($500-$3,000), "stand alone" conferences ($5,000-$20,000), and festschrifts ($5,000-$20,000). The conference must be additionally supported by the host institution with direct funds, in-kind support, or a combination of the two. A detailed budget including institutional support must be submitted as a part of the application.

APA is open to considering innovative and experimental formats for conferences, including internet-based conferences.  Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact APA to discuss their ideas for new formats. 

Conference proposals must meet the following eligibility requirements:

• One of the primary organizers must be a member of APA.
• Only academic institutions accredited by a regional body may apply. Independent research institutions must provide evidence of affiliation with an accredited institution. Joint proposals from cooperating institutions are encouraged.
• Conferences may be held only in the United States, its possessions, or Canada.
• APA governance groups, APA Divisions, and other related entities are not eligible for funding under this program.

For more information on review criteria, proposal contents, recipient responsibilities, and budget guidelines, please refer to the APA website or contact Rachel Martin via email or phone: (202) 336-5918.

Apply Now for an APA Advanced Training Institute

Applications are still being accepted for two of this summer’s APA Advanced Training Institutes (ATI).  These intensive training programs expose new and established faculty, post-doctoral fellows, advanced graduate students, and other researchers to state-of-the-art research methods. More information can be found on the Science Directorate web site.

Non-Linear Methods for Psychological Science
June 9-13, 2009
University of Cincinnati

Exploratory Data Mining in Behavioral Research
July 20-24, 2009
University of Southern California

Applications are being accepted until seats are filled for these ATIs.  Applications are available on the Science Directorate web site and must be submitted electronically through the program’s web site.  For more information, contact the APA Science Directorate by email or phone (202) 336-6000.

Call for Submissions: F. J. McGuigan Dissertation Award

The American Psychological Foundation is seeking applications for the F.J. McGuigan Dissertation Award, which supports dissertation research on the human mind that adopts a materialistic empirical and theoretical approach.  The research may address any aspect of mental function (e.g., cognition, affect, motivation) and should utilize behavioral and/or neuroscientific methods. 

Award Amount: $2,000
Application Deadline: June 1, 2009

For more information, including eligibility requirements, see the full announcement or contact Emily Leary.