Science Briefs

Effortful Control in the Context of Socioeconomic and Psychosocial Risk

by Liliana J Lengua

Liliana Lengua received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from Arizona State University in 1994, working as an NIMH pre-doctoral fellow at the ASU Prevention Research Center. After completing a post-doctoral position at the Seattle, Washington site of the multi-site Fast-Track Prevention Intervention Project, she joined the faculty of the University of Washington in the Child Clinical Psychology area where she is currently an Associate Professor and chair of the Child and Family Well-being interdisciplinary group. She is serving as a member of the National Children’s Study Advisory Committee. Her research examines children’s individual differences in temperament as moderators and mediators of the effects of contextual risk, with a particular focus on the effects of socioeconomic risk on children’s social, emotional and behavioral adjustment.

A central goal of child clinical research is to understand children’s adjustment in response to stress and adversity, explaining why some children develop adjustment problems and psychopathology while others emerge well adjusted even in the face of significant stress. Understanding person–by-environment interactions is critically important for child clinical research examining the emergence of children’s social, emotional and behavioral problems in response to risk. With relevance to the emergence of adjustment problems and psychopathology, effortful control appears to be a central construct in this endeavor. Effortful control reflects an individual’s ability to act purposefully in modulating thoughts, emotions and behavior, and therefore, has broad-reaching implications for children’s adjustment. Evidence shows that effortful control is a critical predictor of a range of indicators of children’s adjustment, and it moderates the relation between contextual risk and adjustment problems. Given this, it is important to understand not only how effortful control develops in children growing up in high-risk contexts but also the family and contextual factors that shape its development.

Researchers are increasingly incorporating the study of individual temperament and physiological differences in the examination of the effects of stress and adversity on children’s adjustment (e.g., Boyce & Ellis, 2005). Temperament is defined as individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation that are genetically influenced, biologically based, and shaped by socialization and contextual experiences (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Reactivity can be defined as autonomic and affective responses to events or contexts, and thus should be relevant in differentiating children’s response to stress. Self-regulation is defined as the ability to modulate reactivity, and a key basis of self-regulation is effortful control, that is, executive-based abilities that regulate attention, behavior, and emotions. Effortful control is thought to serve to down-regulate high levels of negative reactivity through the inhibitory control of automatic cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses. Thus it reduces the likelihood of children emitting inappropriate or undesirable responses as a result of high negative reactivity, but also allows children to overcome inhibition and avoidance given the reduced motivation to engage in an emotionally arousing situation. As a result, greater ability to regulate reactivity can serve to mitigate the effects of other risk factors. Therefore, children’s characteristic physiological and affective responses to stress and their ability to regulate their responses are expected to play an important role in the degree to which they develop adjustment problems in the presence of risk.

The hypothesis of organismic-specificity (Wachs, 1991) suggests that individuals respond differently to the environment according to their own reactivity, a concept that is echoed in Belsky’s (2005) differential susceptibility and Boyce & Ellis’ (2005) biological sensitivity hypotheses. These models suggest that children with certain characteristics, particularly high negative emotionality or stress reactivity, are more susceptible to environmental and socialization influences, being more adversely affected by high-risk influences but benefitting more from positive experiences. Extending from this, effortful control should serve as an important protective factor in the face of risk by modulating children’s negative reactivity and mitigating the effects of risk. It should also allow children to benefit from positive experiences as it can facilitate appropriate engagement with those experiences. Thus, individual differences in effortful control should modulate children’s reactions to contextual influences and mitigate the effects of risk, making a child less susceptible to their effects.

There is extensive evidence supporting the moderating role of children’s temperament negative reactivity and effortful control in the relation between parenting and children’s adjustment. Negative reactivity moderates the effects of parenting such that children high in negative reactivity are more adversely affected by parents’ harsh, inconsistent or rejecting behaviors. These children may also benefit more than children low in negative reactivity from parents’ positive behaviors (Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn, 2007). Further, effortful control protects children from the adverse effects of negative parenting behaviors (e.g., Lengua, 2008; Morris et al., 2002).

The interaction between temperament and other risk factors has been investigated much less frequently than interactions with parenting. However, evidence indicates that temperament, and effortful control in particular, moderates the effects of contextual risk. For example, infants high in negative reactivity demonstrated more behavior problems compared to infants low in negativity when exposed to poor quality childcare settings but fewer behavior problems when in high quality childcare settings (Pluess & Belsky, in press).  Temperament is also shown to interact with neighborhood characteristics. A fearful temperament in children may be relatively protective against the effects of unsafe neighborhoods, but may also be associated with less benefit from the social organization and resources of low-risk neighborhoods (Bush, Lengua & Colder, 2008; Colder, Lengua, Fite, Mott & Bush, 2006). Impulsivity, which can be an indicator of poor self-regulation, increases the likelihood of youth developing problems in the context of a high-risk neighborhood (Bush et al., 2008; Lynam et al., 2000). In addition, effortful control moderated the effects of socioeconomic (Kim-Cohen, Moffitt, Caspi & Taylor, 2004) and cumulative contextual risk (Lengua, 2002 Lengua, Bush, Long, Trancik & Kovacs, 2008). Specifically, children lower in effortful control demonstrated greater adjustment problems and increases in problems at higher levels of contextual risk, whereas children higher in effortful control were relatively protected from the effects of contextual risk (Lengua, 2002; Lengua et al., 2008; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

These findings suggest that effortful control is a critical factor to consider in understanding children’s development in high-risk contexts. It appears to serve as a protective factor mitigating the effects of socioeconomic and contextual risk. In addition, effortful control predicts a range of child adjustment indicators, including academic readiness and success (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007; McClelland et al., 2007; Valiente, Lemery-Chlfant, Swanson & Reiser, 2008), empathy, compliance and social competence (Eisenberg et al., 2003; Kochanska, 1997; Lengua, 2003), and lower internalizing and externalizing problems (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Lengua, 2003; Rothbart, Ahadi & Evans, 2000). Thus, it appears to have broad relevance in children’s adjustment, also predicting adjustment above the effects of other risk factors (e.g., Lengua, 2002).  Further, effortful control appears to facilitate more effective coping in the presence of stress. Children higher in effortful control are more likely to use adaptive forms of coping (Lengua & Long, 2002) and to benefit more from their coping efforts (Lengua & Long, 2002; Lengua & Sandler, 1996). Given this, it is a critical task for researchers to understand the development of effortful control, particularly in children growing up in high-risk contexts, and to identify predictors of the development of effortful control which can be targets of interventions aimed at promoting effortful control in children.

Individual differences in effortful control are evident by the end of the first year of life with infants showing differences in their attention regulation (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Effortful control demonstrates its most dramatic developmental increase in the preschool period (Kochanska et al., 1996), with continued growth at a moderate rate during middle childhood (Lengua, 2006). Apart from the examination of parental influences (e.g., Kochanska et al., 2000; Lengua et al., 2007), there has been very little research examining the factors that contribute to the development of effortful control. Evidence suggests that children in low-income families have lower effortful control as early as the preschool period (Buckner et al., 2003; Evans & English, 2002; Li-Grining, 2007; Raver, 2004), but the pathways from low income to low effortful control are poorly understood.

Our research has used a bioecological model (Bronfrenbrenner & Morris, 1998) to understand the socioeconomic, family, parenting, and physiological factors that contribute to the development of effortful control. We hypothesized that low family income would increase the likelihood of family disruptions, including negative life events, residential instability, maternal depression and family conflict. These, in turn, would contribute to compromised parenting behaviors, including more negative affect, inconsistent discipline, lower responsiveness and less support for autonomy. Compromised parenting was expected to predict lower effortful control directly and indirectly through children’s physiological stress responses. In turn, this process would be expected to influence children’s social-emotional development and the emergence of psychopathology (see Figure 2). We examined these associations during two developmental periods, preadolescence and preschool. 

Figure 2

During the preadolescent period, we found strikingly few predictors of the development of effortful control, despite effortful control demonstrating significant growth and individual variability in rates of growth (Lengua, 2006). Sociodemographic (income, parental education, single parent status), environmental (neighborhood and home environment), family disruptions (negative life events, residential instability, family conflict, maternal depression), and parenting (acceptance, rejection, inconsistent discipline, physical punishment) risk factors were examined. Many were related to lower initial levels of effortful control in 8-12 year old children. However, none of these factors was significantly related to growth in effortful control (Lengua, 2006, 2008; Lengua et al., 2008). This highlights the need to identify factors that predict the development of effortful control in preadolescent children.

The pattern of findings, particularly the consistent association of risk factors with lower initial levels of effortful control, points to the possibility that these risk factors exerted their influence earlier in development, a possibility we examined in preschool-age children. In this age group, poverty, cumulative contextual risk, family disruptions, and parenting were significantly related to smaller developmental increases in effortful control across six months (Lengua, 2007; Lengua, Honorado & Bush, 2007). Further, parenting mediated the effects of poverty and cumulative contextual risk. Specifically, mothers’ appropriate limit setting and scaffolding, composed of responsiveness to negative affect and support of autonomy, were related to greater increases in effortful control and accounted for the effects of contextual risk (Lengua et al., 2007). It appears that mothers’ structuring of their children’s emotional and behavioral responses together with support for autonomous behavior can promote the development of effortful control.

To further understand the pathways from poverty and parenting to the development of effortful control, we examined the relations of these factors to children’s physiological stress responses as indicated by disrupted diurnal cortisol patterns. Typical diurnal cortisol patterns are characterized by high morning levels and low evening levels. However, a small portion of children in our study failed to demonstrate morning elevations in cortisol, instead having low levels throughout the day. This diurnal pattern has been found in samples of children in foster care who have experienced disruptions in early care giving experiences (e.g., Dozier et al., 2006; Fisher et al., 2007) and indicates disruptions in the regulation of neuroendocrine functioning. Our preliminary findings suggest that this disrupted diurnal cortisol pattern was more common among children living in poverty and was related to lower effortful control (see Figure 3). In addition, a negative affective quality of maternal parenting, that is mothers’ low warmth and high negativity, was related to a greater likelihood of the disrupted diurnal cortisol patterns (Lengua, 2008). These findings suggest that parenting and physiological stress responses might mediate the effects of poverty on children’s developing effortful control. Thus, it appears that early childhood might be a sensitive period during which sociodemographic, family, parenting and physiological factors shape this very important aspect of self-regulation, with implications for children’s social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment.

Figure 3

This research highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the development of effortful control and its potential role as a protective factor in the presence of risk. Further investigation of its protective role, moderating the relation between risk and adjustment, is needed. Such research should also examine multiple system levels of influence to better understand the role of socioeconomic, family and parenting factors, as well as neuropsychological and physiological mediators of their effects on adjustment. In addition, the relations of physiological stress processes to the development of effortful control might be better understood when examined within the full range of contextual risk.

This research also points to the importance of the developmental timing of risk. It appears that risk factors have different effects at different developmental periods, and it is possible different risk factors might predict the development of effortful control at different developmental periods. The incorporation of developmental models that account for normative developmental processes and the timing of risk can inform the targets and timing of preventive interventions. The preschool period appears to be a sensitive period in the development of effortful control, suggesting that interventions should be targeted at preschool children and families. School-based interventions have been shown to improve pre-school children’s executive functioning, closely related to effortful control (e.g. Diamond, Barnett, Thomas & Munro, 2007; Domitrovich, Cortes et al. 2007). An important future direction is to develop parenting interventions that improve children’s effortful control or executive functioning. Parenting is a critical factor in the development of young children and it appears to be a key predictor of the development of effortful control and a mediator of the effects of other contextual risk factors (e.g., Lengua et al., 2007). Greater support for parenting, in the form of interventions and guidance for parents of preschool children, particularly in low-income families, is needed. Interventions can promote parenting that facilitates the development of effortful control, which can serve as a buffer for children growing up in high-risk contexts.

Accounting for children’s development from a bioecological perspective—which integrates socioeconomic, social, interpersonal, and individual level influences on children’s adjustment—will sharpen our etiological models of the development of adjustment problems and psychopathology in children. It will also clarify children’s vulnerability or resilience in the face of risk by identifying children who are susceptible to the effects of risk. Effortful control appears to be centrally important in protecting children faced with high levels of contextual risk. The use of a bioecological approach to understanding the development of effortful control will allow the development of preventive interventions that are systemic in nature, tailored to meet children’s and families’ needs, and potentially targeted to those who most need them.

References

Belsky, J. (2005). Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In B. Ellis & D. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 139-163). New York, NY: Guilford.

Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H (2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300-304.

Blair, C. & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647-663.

Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271-301.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol.Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993-1028). New York: Wiley.

Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2003). Characteristics of resilient youths living in poverty: The role of self-regulatory processes. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 139-162.

Bush, N., Lengua, L. J., & Colder, C. R. (2008). Temperament as a moderator of neighborhood effects: Predicting children’s adjustment. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Colder, C. R., Lengua, L. J., Fite, P. J., Mott, J. A.,& Bush, N. (2006). Temperament in context: Infant temperament profiles moderate the relationship between perceived neighborhood danger and behavior problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 456-467.

Diamond, A., Barnett, W., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.

Domitrovich, C. E., R. C. Cortes, et al. (2007). "Improving young children's social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of the Preschool "PATHS" curriculum." Journal of Primary Prevention 28(2) 67-91.

Dozier, M., Manni, M., Gordon, M. K., Peloso, E., Gunnar, M. R., Stovall-McClough, K. C., et al. (2006). Foster Children's Diurnal Production of Cortisol: An Exploratory Study. Child Maltreatment, 11, 189-197.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., & Reiser, M. et al. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children's externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112-1134.

Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., Smith, C. L., Reiser, M., Shepard, S. A., Losoya, A. H., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Cumberland, A. J. (2003). The relations of effortful control and ego control to children's resiliency and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 761-776.

Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1238-1248.

Fisher, P. A., Stoolmiller, M., Gunnar, M. R., & Burraston, B. O. (2007). Effects of a therapeutic intervention for foster preschools on diurnal cortisol activity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 892-905.

Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Genetic and environmental processes in young children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation. Child Development, 75, 651-668.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228-240.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220-232.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490-507.

Lengua, L. J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-regulation, adjustment problems and positive adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 595-618.

Lengua, L. J. (2002).  The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding of children’s response to multiple risk. Child Development, 73, 144-161.

Lengua, L. J. (2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during children’s transition to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 819-832.

Lengua, L. J. (2007, April). Family Disruptions and Parenting as Predictors of the Development of Executive Functioning. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting for the Society for Research on Child Development, Boston, MA.

Lengua, L. J. (2008, October). Effortful control in the context of socioeconomic and psychosocial risk. Invited paper for the symposium, "New Directions in Psychological Science and their Implications for Dissemination," American Psychological Association's fourth annual Science Leadership Conference “Designing the Future: Innovations in Knowledge Dissemination for Psychological Science”

Lengua, L. J., Bush, N., Long, A. C., Trancik, A. M., & Kovacs, E. A. (2008). Effortful control as a moderator of the relation between contextual risk and growth in adjustment problems. Development & Psychopathology, 20, 509-528.

Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. (2007). Cumulative risk and parenting as predictors of effortful control and social competence in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 40-55.

Lengua, L. J., & Long, A. C. (2002). The role of emotionality and self-regulation in the appraisal-coping process: Tests of direct and moderating effects. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 471-493.

Lengua, L. J., & Sandler, I. S. (1996). Self-regulation as a moderator of the relation between coping and symptomatology in children of divorce. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 681-701.

Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology, 43, 208-221.

Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Wikstrom, P., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563-574.

McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers' literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947-959.

Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M. J. (2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting predictors of child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 461-471.

Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (in press). Differential susceptibility to the rearing experience: the case of childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75, 346-353.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E., (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122-135.

Rothbart, M. K. &  Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th edition). (pp. 99-166). Hoboken, New Jersey.

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Dwyer, K. M., & Hastings, P. D. (2003). Predicting preschoolers' externalizing behaviors from toddler temperament, conflict, and maternal negativity. Developmental Psychology, 39, 164-176.

Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children's academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 67-77.

Executive Director's Column

Looking Ahead in 2009
by Steven Breckler, Executive Director

This new year brings with it great hope and a long list of goals and objectives. With a new administration in the White House comes the opportunity for fresh leadership on the hill and in the federal agencies.

All indications are that the changes will be good for science. President-elect Obama has already demonstrated a deep appreciation for the value of science and its role in solving society’s greatest challenges. Science is clearly a high priority now.

That new priority should be well-understood by the leaders already named by the transition team. Over the next several months, key appointments will be made at the next level down – heads of agencies, deputies, and others who will be in positions to effect change.

APA will continue to press the value of including psychology and behavioral science as part of the agenda. All of us should continue to seize the opportunity – educate, disseminate, and agitate for all that psychology has to offer toward the solution of human and social challenges.

The economy will figure prominently in all of this. It will drive decisions about funding levels and priorities of the federal agencies. An investment in science needs to be understood as an investment in our economy, as one component of a stimulus package. For some disciplines, this is evident. For others, it is not. Where does psychology stand? Can we make the case that an investment in psychological science is a wise one for the economy? I think we can, but it needs to be made clearly – and quickly.

Economic stress is also creating challenges for the scientific, academic, and research infrastructure. Colleges and universities suffer greatly, and the result is a diminution of support for research. Faculty lines are being cut, salaries are stagnant, and entire Departments are being closed down or merged with others.

Psychology is often the target of draconian efforts by college and university administrations to save money. It is short-sighted and ill-conceived. But if psychology does not stand up for itself, who will? Now, more than ever, psychology – by itself and in concert with others – needs to assert its value and centrality to the academy of the 21st century.

To paraphrase Charles Dickens, it is the best of times and it is the worst of times. Fresh new opportunities on the horizon are accompanied by ominous threats and obstacles for psychology. In 2009, our discipline is more relevant than ever, but we must rely on ourselves to spread the word. Let’s make that our new year’s resolution.

Nurturing Our Interdisciplinary Science

by Alice Young, Chair, Board of Scientific Affairs

At the fall 2008 meeting of the Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA), Executive Director Steve Breckler and Deputy Executive Director Howard Kurtzman of the Science Directorate challenged BSA members to identify ways that the Directorate can support interdisciplinary research in psychology. What activities will support psychologists who study problems at the intersection of traditional subfields in psychology, or at the intersection of psychology and other disciplines?

After multiple brainstorming sessions, BSA members identified more than 30 activities that the Directorate might target. Next, in order to capture BSA members’ initial feelings about how to set priorities, we used an exercise perhaps more common to administrators’ offices than to laboratories or review panels. Each BSA member received $100 in the form of 10 (unfortunately, fake) $10 bills. Each of the 30 ideas was posted on the wall with a cup placed just below. Members then allocated their funds to the ideas that they thought were most likely to pay off.

On purpose, we did not define “best”. For some, it might indicate ideas likely to have a quick, measurable, positive effect (in administration speak - “low hanging fruit”). For some, it might mean a core value or function that must be articulated to those who support science and scientific endeavors. For some, it might represent practices that have proved effective for other disciplines. For most, I suspect, “best” had multiple meanings.

Where did BSA members put their money? Four ideas each captured about 20% of the funds, and four others combined to capture about 15%.

The four top suggestions were that the Science Directorate

• Provide a forum for discussion and promulgation of training models that encourage interdisciplinarity. Examples included research rotations; requirements that graduate students complete two or more projects that use different techniques, models, and theoretical approaches; and journal clubs that cross disciplinary boundaries.

• Articulate the value, sources and implications of interdisciplinary work both inside and outside the discipline. Examples of advocacy directed at psychological scientists included activities to convince psychologists that interdisciplinary work advances our science, discussion of how multidisciplinary work may change our publication practices, and training in best practices for collaboration. Examples of external advocacy included educating university administrators about administrative structures that promote or hinder interdisciplinary work; advocacy to policy makers, public, and other scientists about psychology’s contributions; and advocacy to funding agencies concerning the role of psychology in interdisciplinary research.

• Provide concrete “how-to's” for collaboration. What are known pitfalls, and how do you avoid them? How do effective high-technology centers operate, and what practices limit psychologists’ access to or utilization of core resources? How do you find fast, effective training in a new area? What models attract students from disciplines outside psychology (such as biomedical engineering, computer science, genetics)?

• Provide a web-based “one-stop-shopping” resource of information about training opportunities, specialist meetings, career development, and research centers. In short, become the “go-to” source for information about where and how research is occurring in psychology.

Other ideas that captured support included building of a semantic network to allow data mining of links between psychology and other sciences, a forum for data sharing, a forum to identify the landscape of funding models and resources, and strategies to incorporate discussion of public policy implications of research into our training models.

So – what will happen to these good ideas? The leaders and staff of the Science Directorate will use them to fine-tune programs already underway in the ongoing PSY21 – Psychological Science for the 21st Century – initiative that BSA began in 2005. As an example of how ideas for strengthening research become part of APA activities, one activity of PSY21, the BSA Ad Hoc Committee on Research Issues, has led to increased awareness of APA’s role in identifying effective IRB practices that simultaneously protect human research participants and support research work. A proposal to replace the Ad Hoc Committee by re-establishing a continuing Committee on Human Research has been approved by the Board of Directors and will be considered by the Council of Representatives in February 2009.

APA will be most effective by enhancing the environment in which psychological science is conducted. Putting APA's resources to work to support our interdisciplinary science is one way the Science Directorate and BSA seek to grow the science of psychology.

APA Science Committees: Seeking to Meet Your Needs

by Suzanne Wandersman

The 2009 APA science board and committee members are on the lookout for new opportunities for psychological science.  At the beginning of each year, newly elected members join the science board and committees that oversee Directorate and science activities within APA.  Below is a list of the members and short statements about the mission of each group.

Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA)

Toni C. Antonucci, Chair
    University of Michigan (2007-09)
Leona S. Aiken
    Arizona State University (2008-10)
Robert L. Balster
    Virginia Commonwealth University (2009-11)
Patricia M. Greenfield
    University of California, Los Angeles (2007-09)
Frederick T. L. Leong
    Michigan State University (2007-09)
Jennifer Manly
    Columbia University (2008-10)
Vickie M. Mays
    University of California, Los Angeles (2008-10)
Kevin R. Murphy
    Pennsylvania State University (2009-11)
Nora S. Newcombe
    Temple University (2009-11)

The Board of Scientific Affairs has general concern for all aspects of psychology as a science, including the continued encouragement, development, and promotion of psychology as a science; scientific aspects of the program at the Annual Convention; and psychology's relations with other scientific bodies. It has particular responsibility for liaison with agencies giving financial support to scientific projects, for awards and honors in recognition of scientific achievement, and for seeking new ways in which the Association can assist scientific activities.

Committee on Scientific Awards (COSA)

Steven Hollon, Chair
    Vanderbilt University (2007-09)
Monica R. Biernat
    University of Kansas (2008-10)
Marvin Chun
    Yale University (2009-11)
Michael Davis
    Emory University (2008-10)
Louise F. Fitzgerald
    University of Illinois (2009-11)
Susan Gelman
    University of Michigan (2007-09)

The Committee on Scientific Awards selects individuals to receive the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, the Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology, and the Distinguished Scientific Award for an Early Career Contribution to Psychology.

Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE)

Jennifer Higa, Chair
    University of Hawaii - Honolulu Community College (2007-09)
Barbara Kaminski
    Johns Hopkins University (2009-11)
Theresa Jones
    University of Texas (2008-10)
Scott Robinson
    University of Iowa (2009-11)
Pamela Scott-Johnson
    Morgan State University (2007-09)
Eric P. Wiertelak
    Macalester College (2008-2010)

The Committee on Animal Research and Ethics is responsible for safeguarding responsible research with animals, other than humans, disseminating accurate information about such research, reviewing the ethics of such research and recommending and disseminating guidelines for ethical conduct when involving animals other than humans in research, teaching, and practical applications.

Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (CPTA)
Marcia M. Andberg, Chair
    Marcia Andberg Associates, LLC (2007-09)
Ron K. Hambleton
    University of Massachusetts (2008-10)
Robert Heaton
    University of California at San Diego (2009-11)
Jerry Kehoe
    Selection & Assessment Consulting, LLC (2009-11)
Michael J. Kolen
    University of Iowa (2007-09)
Robert J. McCaffrey
    Albany Neuropsychological Assoc. (2008-10)
Samuel O. Ortiz
    St. Johns University (2009-10)
Beverly Vandiver
    Pennsylvania State University, (2009-11)
Frank C. Worell
    University of California, Berkeley (2007-09)

The Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (CPTA) is responsible for addressing problems regarding sound psychological testing and assessment practices.  Members of CPTA serve as technical advisors to other APA boards and committees on all issues affecting testing and assessment as it involves policy, practice, and science; monitoring actions of government and other organizations concerning regulation and control of assessment and testing practices; maintaining knowledge of and concern regarding current policy issues on the use of tests and assessment in clinical, counseling, educational, and employment settings; and promoting the appropriate use of tests and sound assessment practices. 

Ad Hoc Committee to Advance Responsible Research (CARR)
Arthur Daniel Fisk, Chair
    Georgia Tech
Karen Calhoun
    Georgia State University
Neil Charness
    Florida State University
Thomas Eissenberg
    Virginia Commonwealth University
Martha Mann
    University of Texas at Arlington
Diane Scott-Jones
    Boston College

The mission of  the Ad Hoc Committee to Advance Research will be to: (a) monitor the status of legislation, regulations, and professional policies on topics germane to the responsible conduct of research including the protection of human participants in behavioral research, data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership, mentor/trainee relationships, publication practices and responsible authorship, peer review, collaborative science, research misconduct and conflicts of interest and to ascertain their impact on research in the behavioral sciences; (b) engage in activities to promote the responsible conduct of research including workshops, curriculum development, and dissemination; develop resources, including guidelines for responsible conduct of research in the behavioral sciences; and, (c) establish and maintain cooperative relations with organizations sharing similar interests.  (See article on page x for more information about this new committee.)

Ad Hoc APA Science Student Council (APASSC)

Gloria Luong, Chair
    University of California, Irvine (2008-2009)
Abby Adler
    Ohio State University (2008-2009)
Azurii Collier
    Northwestern University (2009-2010)
Nisha Gottfredson
    University of North Carolina (2009-2010)
Lisa Jaremka
    University of California, Santa Barbara (2008-2009)
Stanley King
    University of Virginia (2008-2009)
Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz
    New York University (2009-2010)
Tara Queen
    North Carolina State University (2009-2010)
Winny Shen
    University of Minnesota (2009-2010)

The APA Science Student Council represents the interests and concerns of graduate students in psychological science.  The Council is broadly representative of the discipline.  It provides advice to BSA and the Directorate on programs and activities that would be of benefit to graduate students.  It arranges APA Convention programming of interest to science-oriented students, and works closely with APAGS on a variety of projects.  It selects recipients for the APASSC Early Researcher Awards. 

BSA, CPTA, and CARE will meet on March 20-22, 2009. 

These individuals, and those serving on the APA Board of Directors and Council of Representatives, are the critical players in our deliberations about and actions for science.  It is their generous contribution of time and effort that make APA science policy and program development possible.

Society’s Grand Challenges: Insights from Psychological Science

by Kirk Waldroff

During the past year, the Science Directorate worked alongside then-APA President Alan E. Kazdin to develop his initiative on the grand challenges to society. As one of his presidential initiatives, the ultimate purpose of this endeavor was to identify these challenges and acknowledge how the science of psychology can be used to help in addressing them. From a long and well-thought list, three specific topics were chosen to receive special attention:

• Global Climate Change
• Health Disparities
• Prolonging Vitality

Once these topics were selected, the Science Directorate created and published a series of three booklets, one for each topic. Each booklet describes how psychological science is already contributing to and will continue to play a large role in addressing each of these grand challenges.

Currently the booklets are available to the public, free of charge, both in print and electronic formats (ordering details below). It is our goal to widely disseminate these booklets, with a particular interest in targeting educators and policy makers.

The New Year promises to be a crucial decision-making time, particularly regarding  policies that will affect how we, as a society, address some of our greatest challenges. As we look forward, it is of increasing importance that we communicate the powerful role that psychological science can play in creating positive outcomes. These booklets aim to do just that.

If you are interested in viewing the booklets you may do so online: www.apa.org/science/GCBooklets.html

If you wish to order printed copies, please contact Kirk Waldroff at the APA Science Directorate.

Deadlines Nearing for APA Undergraduate Summer Programs

by Amy Pitta

APA undergraduate summer programs are designed to give promising undergraduate students an opportunity to experience cutting-edge psychological methods through seminars and hands-on laboratory activities. These programs are a fun way for students to equip themselves with the skills essential to enter and succeed in graduate school, while meeting students from across the country with the same interests.

Summer Science Fellowships

The APA Science Directorate is pleased to announce that the Summer Science Fellowships (SSF) will return in 2009. An offshoot of the successful Summer Science Institute, SSF aims to immerse advanced undergraduate students in the science of psychology by exposing them to the excitement and promise of the best of psychological science. Our principal objective is to prepare these students for the rigors of graduate study in psychological science.

An expenses-paid, intensive summer training program, SSF places up to 12 talented students in the psychology laboratories of some of the most outstanding researchers in the Washington, DC area for up to 7 weeks. SSF gives students an opportunity to explore the intellectual, personal, and social processes of scientific inquiry and to experience psychological research through hands-on laboratory activities. SSF offers promising students the opportunity to equip themselves with the skills essential to success in graduate school, and gives students who plan to pursue advanced degrees in psychological science the opportunity to be mentored by nationally-known faculty.

Eligibility is strictly limited to rising college seniors. Students from underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply. Students will be provided with travel funds, a stipend for living expenses, and a summer salary. This should make the program financially feasible for most college students.

Visit www.apa.org/science/ssf.html for complete details about the program and the online application.

The deadline for SSF applications is February 9, 2009.

Advanced Statistical Training in Psychology

Advanced Statistical Training in Psychology (ASTP) is an intensive, 9-day seminar on statistics and research methods in a dynamic setting that emphasizes hands-on computer skills. Up to 20 students who plan to pursue a graduate degree in psychology are selected annually. Students are mentally stimulated with lectures, SPSS activities, hands-on activities, and discussions of graduate school. After a full day of t-tests, multiple regression, linear correlation, ANOVA, and repeated measures design, students have the opportunity to participate in blackjack workshops, juggling workshops, Charades, and other fun.

The ASTP targets students who are rising seniors and who are from traditionally underrepresented groups in psychology. The definition of underrepresented groups for this program is extremely broad, including students who are members of ethnic minority groups, first generation college students, and students who have had to overcome social or economic barriers on the road to academic excellence.

For more information and a link to the online application, please visit www.apa.org/science/astp.html.

The deadline for applications to ASTP is February 20, 2009.

Nominate Your Department or Your Colleague for a Culture of Service Award

by Suzanne Wandersman

Department Nominations

The APA Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is soliciting nominations for the Departmental Award for Culture of Service in the Psychological Sciences. This Award recognizes departments that demonstrate a commitment to service in the psychological sciences. Departments selected for this award will show a pattern of support for service from faculty at all levels, including a demonstration that service to the discipline is rewarded in faculty tenure and promotion. Successful Departments will also demonstrate that service to the profession is an integral part of training and mentoring.

Service to the discipline includes such activities as departmental release time for serving on boards and committees of psychological associations; editing journals; serving on a review panel; or chairing an IRB. Other culture of service activities that a department would encourage include mentoring students and colleagues; advocating for psychological science’s best interests with state and federal lawmakers; and promoting the value of psychological science in the public eye. The focus of this award is a department’s faculty service to the discipline and not their scholarly achievements.

Both Undergraduate and Graduate Departments of Psychology are eligible. Self-nominations are encouraged.

To submit a nomination the following is required:

• A letter that describes and illustrates the department’s commitment to a culture of service (e.g., nature of the department’s commitment, effect on tenure and promotion, mentoring, effect on current and/or former students’ activities as a result of the department’s focus on service, etc.). The letter should be no more than three pages long.

• Three letters of support from individuals familiar with the department’s support for a culture of service. (These letters can be from current or past faculty members; a Dean familiar with the department’s service program; etc.)

Each Department selected will receive an award of $5,000 to be used for departmental activities. Nominations will be accepted only as electronic submissions to Culture of Service. Please be sure to submit the nomination as a package that includes all the required letters.

The deadline for 2009 submissions is April 1, 2009.  For more information, please contact Suzanne Wandersman.

Past Recipients

Individual Nominations

The APA Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is soliciting nominations for the Award for Distinguished Service to Psychological Science. This Award recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to psychological science through their commitment to a culture of service. Nominees will have demonstrated their service to the discipline by aiding in association governance; serving on boards, committees and various psychological associations; editing journals; reviewing grant proposals; mentoring students and colleagues; advocating for psychological science’s best interests with state and federal lawmakers; and promoting the value of psychological science in the public eye. Nominees may be involved in one service area, many of the areas, or all of the service areas noted above. An individual’s service to the discipline and not a person’s scholarly achievements are the focus of this award.

To submit a nomination, provide the following:

• A letter of nomination that describes and supports the individual’s contributions (e.g., nature of the individual’s service to psychological science, positions held, etc.). The nomination letter should be no more than two pages long.

• A curriculum vita

• Three letters of support from individuals familiar with the nominee’s service to the discipline (These letters can be from colleagues who have served with the nominee; a Dean familiar with the nominee’s service; former students; Association/Society presidents, etc.)

Award recipients will receive an honorarium of $1,000. The deadline for nominations is April 1, 2009.

Nominations for both departments and individuals will be accepted only as electronic submissions to Culture of Service. Please be sure to submit the nomination as a package that includes everything you need for the nomination.

Past Recipients

Congratulations to Presidential Early Career Award Winners

by Pat Kobor

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy recently announced winners of the 2007 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). Two psychological scientists were among the twelve NIH-supported researchers to receive the prestigious awards. The winners were honored in a ceremony at the White House with President George W. Bush on Friday, Dec. 19, 2008.

Laura Elena O’Dell, Assistant Professor at the University of Texas, El Paso, won for her research on the neural bases of addiction. O’Dell’s work, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, focuses on the effects of nicotine exposure and withdrawal on molecular targets related to stress. She received her BS in Psychology from Texas A & M, and her MS and PhD degrees from Arizona State University.

Francis S. Lee, directs a laboratory at the New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College that focuses on basic molecular and neural mechanisms relevant to neuropsychiatric disorders. He uses genetic models to delineate the role of growth factors in complex behaviors related to the pathophysiology and treatment of affective disorders. Lee received his undergraduate degree with high honors in Psychology from Princeton University, and an MD and PhD from the University of Michigan.

According to NIH, the PECASE program demonstrates the federal government’s commitment to leadership in the sciences. Since its inception in 1996, the PECASE program has sought to enhance connections between fundamental scientific research and national goals. NIH's PECASE winners have achieved excellence in multiple disciplines of biomedical research and have complemented their research efforts with a strong commitment to education and mentorship in their communities.

Thousands Attend NIH Summit on Eliminating Health Disparities

by Karen Studwell

The NIH Summit: The Science of Eliminating Health Disparities brought together current and former leaders in research and public health, including scientists and community members alike to highlight the progress NIH and communities have made since Congress established the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD) in 2000. NCMHD Director John Ruffin was joined by former NIH Directors Harold Varmus and Bernadine Healey, as well as former HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan, former Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health David Satcher and the Acting Director of NIH, Raynard Kington, in recognizing the challenge of making the elimination of health disparities a priority across NIH. “Health disparities research is key in our quest to improve the health of all Americans,” said Kington. “This summit represents the multidisciplinary scientific progress that the NIH has made to understand health disparities, and underscores the significance of partnerships to eliminate this complex issue.”

More than 3,000 community leaders, researchers, stakeholders and policy advocates attended the conference, along with many of the NIH Institute Directors. The theme of this Summit was the intersection of science, practice, and policy that brought together researchers across disciplines and areas of health. The goals of the Summit were to: 1) Showcase the collective contribution of NIH in the development of new knowledge in the Science of Eliminating Health Disparities; 2) Highlight the progress of NIH minority health and health disparities research activities to improve prevention, diagnostic, and treatment methods; 3) Increase awareness and understanding of disparities in health; 4) Share best-practice models in research, capacity-building, outreach, and integrated strategies to find solutions to health disparities; and 5) Identify gaps in health disparities research.

“The elimination of health disparities will require a wide spectrum of approaches, “ said John Ruffin, Director of the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which sponsored the Summit. “Continual improvement and integration of different paradigms is fundamental in understanding and identifying real solutions to health disparities.”

Experts discussed strategies, challenges, and progress in diagnosing, treating, and preventing some of the most debilitating and devastating diseases and conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes that disproportionately burden African Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Hispanics/Latinos, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and individuals of all races and ethnicities living in poor and medically underserved communities such as rural areas.

Presentations by APA Members

Psychologists from NIH and across the country joined nearly 300 other presenters at the summit to share their research and experiences. Current APA Board of Scientific Affairs member Vickie Mays, UCLA Department of Psychology, is a Director of one of the NCMHD’s Centers of Excellence and participated as a panelist in two workshops—one concerning the collection of data on race and ethnicity, and the other on the next decade of HIV in the United States. According to Mays, the meeting provided a much needed opportunity for Center Directors to come together and learn what each are doing and develop collaborations across centers and disciplines. APA members James Jackson, Director of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, and Brian Smedley, Vice President and Director of the Health Policy Institute at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, also presented. At the opening session, Maya Angelou challenged the participants to look at the issue from the positive perspective of achieving health equity for all, rather than focus on disparities, which she feels has a negative connotation. 

Public Policy Solutions

Representing the policymaker perspective, both Howard Dean, a physician and former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD), addressed the Summit. Cummings thanked Ruffin for his leadership and shared his concern for minority health, stating, “We know there are social determinants of health, such as poverty, inadequate education, poor housing, and toxic environments that contribute greatly to the health disparities that people of color face.” He also indicated that as the anticipated health care reform legislation moved through Congress, they would seek to address issues that are key to eliminating health disparities, such as: 1) providing people with access to quality, affordable health care, regardless of their employment status or employer type; 2) institutionalizing measures that measure the quality of care for persons of color, 3) eliminating discriminatory treatment in our health care system through cultural competency training; and 4) enhancing language access and stronger civil rights enforcement.

Career Development Opportunities

At the Summit, NCMHD Director John Ruffin also announced the rejuvenation of the Center’s intramural research program to expand research into eliminating health disparities. The redesigned intramural research program will be a campus-community system with two major components: a health disparities career development component and the health disparities research intervention component.

The health disparities career development component is a five-year effort that will bring health disparities researchers from the NCMHD pool of Loan Repayment Program graduates to the NIH to gain research experience and training to develop their research careers further. These grantees have received support to pay tuition costs incurred while attaining a MD, PhD, or DrPH degree. In the health disparities research intervention component, health disparities research will be based at the NIH campus and within health disparity communities. Under this effort, researchers will study the biologic and behavioral causes of health disparities.

Research Funding Opportunities from NSF, NIH, and CDC

Funding announcements for interdisciplinary research and training that are appropriate for psychological scientists have recently been issued  by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and various components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  

National Science Foundation
     Research in Disabilities Education (NSF 09-058)
     Math and Science Partnership (NSF 09-507)

National Institutes of Health (multiple institutes)
     NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00) (PA-09-036)
     Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (K24) ( PA-09-037)
     Independent Scientist Award (K02) (PA-09-038)
     Mentored Research Scientist Development Award (K01) (PA-09-040)
     Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award (K23) (PA-09-043)

National Institute on Aging
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Office of Dietary Supplements
     Academic Career Award (K07) (PA-09-041)

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
     NIAAA Career Transition Award (K22) (PAR-09-059)
     Limited Competition: Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (RFA-AA-09-005)

National Cancer Institute
     NCI Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award to Promote Diversity (K23) (PAR-09-051)
     NCI Mentored Research Scientist Development Award to Promote Diversity (K01) (PAR-09-052)
     NCI Transition Career Development Award to Promote Diversity (K22) (PAR-09-069)
     Comprehensive Minority Institution/Cancer Center Partnership (Limited Competition) (RFA-CA-09-501)

National Cancer Institute
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
     NIH-Supported Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (RFA-CA-09-001)

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
     Biosocial Approaches to Infertility Research (PA-09-032)

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
     Partnerships for Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) Clinical Translational Research (PAR-09-066)

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
     Improving Intervention Possibilities for  Communication Disorders (PAR-09-056)
     Improving Interventions for Communication Disorders (PAR-09-057)

National Institute on Drug Abuse
     Pre-Application for the 2009 NIDA Avant-Garde Award Program for HIV/AIDS Research (PAR-09-044)
     2009 NIDA Avant-Garde Award Program for HIV/AIDS Research (RFA-DA-09-011)

National Institute on Drug Abuse
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
     Support Opportunity for Addiction Research (SOAR) for New Investigators (RFA-DA-09-011)

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
     Research to Action: Assessing and Addressing Community Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (RFA-ES-09-001)

National Eye Institute
     NEI Translational Research Program on Therapy for Visual Disorders (PAR-09-035)

National Library of Medicine
     NLM Grants for Scholarly Works in Biomedicine and Health (PAR-09-030)

National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities
     NCMHD Disparities Research and Education Advancing Mission (DREAM) Career Transition Award (RFA-MD-09-001)

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
     Career Development Award to Promote Diversity in Neuroscience Research (K01)( PAR-09-065)

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
National Institute on Aging
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of Nursing Research
     Research on the Cognitive Sequelae of Parkinson’s Disease: R01 (PA-09-033),  R21 (PA-09-034)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
     Notice Regarding Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research (NOT-OH-09-003) 
     Public Health Conference Support Program (CDC-PA-HM09-901)
     Climate Change: Environmental Impact on Human Health (RFA-EH-09-001)
     Evaluating Locally-Developed (Homegrown) HIV Prevention Interventions for African-American and Hispanic/Latino Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (RFA-PS-09-007)
     Operational Research to Improve the Implementation of Evidence-Based Interventions that are Supported by the Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions (DEBI) Project (RFA-PS-09-008)
     Adaptations of Evidence-Based Parenting Programs to Engage Fathers in Child Maltreatment Prevention (RFA-CE-09-002)
     Preventing Sexual Violence Perpetration: Targeting Modifiable Risk Factors (RFA–CE-09-003)

You can receive automatic notification of new funding opportunities and policies by signing up at the NSF, NIH, and CDC websites.

Announcements

Applications Due in January for APA Executive Branch Science Fellowship

Have you always wanted to get some experience working at the intersection of science and government? Are you looking to spend a sabbatical exploring the world of psychology and public policy? Come live for a year in Washington, DC as the 2009-2010 APA Executive Branch Science Fellow, sponsored by APA’s Science Directorate. This year’s Fellow is placed at the National Science Foundation (NSF), where she is putting her cognitive and developmental science expertise to work in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate. Previous Fellows have been assigned to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, various institutes at NIH, the Department of Defense, and NSF. Applications for the 2009-2010 Fellowship may be found on our website and applications are due January 9, 2009. For more information, please contact Dr. Heather Kelly of the Science Government Relations Office.

Call for Nominations: Meritorious Research Service Commendation

The APA Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is soliciting nominations for the Meritorious Research Service Commendation. This commendation recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to psychological science through their service as employees of the federal government or other organizations. Contributions are defined according to service to the field that directly or indirectly advances opportunities and resources for psychological science. This may include staff at federal or non-federal research funding, regulatory or other agencies. Nominees may be active or retired but ordinarily will have a minimum of 10 years of such service. The individual's personal scholarly achievements (i.e., research, teaching, and writing) are not considered in the selection process independent of their service contributions.

To submit a nomination provide the following:

• A letter of nomination that describes and supports the individual's contributions (e.g., nature of the individual's service to psychological science, positions held, program development activities). The nomination letters should be no more than two pages long.

• A curriculum vita

• Three letters of support from scientists, at least two from outside the nominee's organization

The deadline for submitting 2009 nominations is March 9, 2009. Please email nominations to: Suzanne Wandersman. For more information visit: www.apa.org/science/meritorious.html.

2008 Meritorious Research Service Commendation recipients (front row L to R) Robert Ruskin and Robert Huebner with (back row L to R) APA President Alan Kazdin, Executive Director for Science Steve Breckler, and APA CEO Norman Anderson.

Call for Nominations: 2010 APA Distinguished Scientific Awards Program

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 and are not meant to be exclusive; all of psychology is of sufficient merit to be considered for awards.  The Awards Committee is particularly interested in nominees 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

Call for Nominations: Master Lecturers and Distinguished Scientist Lecturers

The American Psychological Association’s Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is soliciting nominations for speakers for the 2010 Master Lecture Program and the 2010 Distinguished Scientist Lecture Program.  These annual programs spotlight experts in psychological science and are sponsored by the APA’s Science Directorate.

Selected speakers receive an honorarium of $1,000 and reimbursement for travel expenses, up to $1,000.  All nominees should be excellent public speakers.  BSA will review all nominations at its 2009 spring meeting and begin to contact potential speakers for these programs.  Nominations may be for the Distinguished Lecture Program, the Master Lecture Program, or both. .

The Master Lecture Program supports up to five (5) psychological scientists to speak at the APA Annual Convention.  A list of previously selected speakers can be found on-line at www.apa.org/science/masterlecturers.html.  BSA has organized the lectures into ten core areas that reflect the field.  Each year, five of these areas are addressed by Master Lecturers.  Speakers for the 2010 Convention, to be held in San Diego, CA, August 12-15, 2010, will be chosen to have expertise in the following areas:

• developmental psychology
• learning, behavior, and action
• methodology
• psychopathology and treatment
• social and cultural psychology

The Distinguished Scientist Lecture Program supports up to three (3) psychological scientists to speak at Regional Psychological Association meetings to be held in 2010.  Speakers must be actively engaged in research, with expertise in any area.  A list of previously selected speakers and their topics can be found on-line at www.apa.org/science/distsci-lecturer.html.

Please send in the name of your nominee(s) by e-mail or fax to Rachel Martin, APA Science Directorate, 750 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC. 20002-4242 (fax 202-336-5953).

Nominations must be received by February 16, 2009.

Call for Proposals: APF Visionary and Weiss Grants

The American Psychological Foundation (APF) visionary and Weiss grants seek to seed innovation through supporting research, education, and intervention projects and programs that use psychology to solve social problems in the following priority areas: 

• Understanding and fostering the connection between mental and physical health to ensure well-being;
• Reducing stigma and prejudice to promote unity and harmony;
• Understanding and preventing violence to create a safer, more humane world; and
• Supporting programs that address the long-term psychological needs of individuals and communities in the aftermath of disaster.

Amount (New in 2009): One-year grants are available in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000.  Multi-year grants are no longer available.  Additionally, a $10,000 Raymond A. and Rosalee G. Weiss Innovative Research and Programs Grant is also available for any program that falls within APF’s priority areas. 

Deadline: March 15, 2009

Eligibility: Applicants must be affiliated with 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.  APF will NOT consider the following requests for grants to support:

• political or lobbying purposes
• entertainment or fundraising expenses
• anyone the Internal Revenue Service would regard as a disqualified group or individual
• localized direct service
• conference/workshop expenses

APF encourages proposals from individuals who represent diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation.

For more information and to access the grant application form, please visit www.apa.org/apf/grantguide.html. 

Call for Applications: Esther Katz Rosen Fellowships for Research and Programs on Giftedness in Children

The American Psychological Foundation (APF) provides financial support of innovative research and programs that enhance the power of psychology to elevate the human condition and advance human potential both now and in generations to come.

APF is requesting applications for the Esther Katz Rosen Fellowships. The Rosen Fund was established in 1974 for the advancement and application of knowledge about gifted children. The Rosen Fellowships support activities related to the psychological understanding of gifted and talented children and adolescents.

Amount: Up to $25,000 for a one year graduate student fellowship.

Eligibility: Applicants must be graduate students who have achieved doctoral candidacy. Students may apply before having passed their qualifying exams, but proof of having advanced to doctoral candidacy will be required before funds are released. Students must be in good academic standing at a university in the United States or Canada.

The home institution of the selected Fellow must provide a tuition waiver.

Deadline: March 2, 2009
           
For more details, download the RFP. Questions about this program should be directed to Emily Leary, Program Officer.

Terrorism Studies Repository Launched

On Monday, December 15, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence based at the University of Maryland, launched the Terrorism Studies Syllabi Repository: www.start.umd.edu/education/syllabi. The repository currently contains 154 undergraduate, 56 graduate, and 1 K-12 syllabi relevant to the study of terrorism and responses to terrorism. Of those, a search on “psychology” returned 15 undergraduate and 4 graduate syllabi. The Web interface for the repository allows visitors to search by instructor name, course level, discipline, or one of 36 discrete keywords. Each syllabus is available for download in PDF format.

Requests to have a syllabus included in the repository should be directed via Email.

Call for Proposals: Health Games Research

On January 15, 2009, Health Games Research will release its 2009 Call for Proposals. This CFP will provide an opportunity for universities, government agencies, medical centers and non-profit organizations* to submit proposals for research projects that will investigate how health games can be designed and used to improve players’ health behaviors and health outcomes.

As of January 15th, the CFP will be available on the web site of Health Games Research at www.healthgamesresearch.org. More specific information will be available in the CFP beginning on the official release date.

About Health Games Research: Health Games Research is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Pioneer Portfolio. It funds research to enhance the quality and impact of interactive games that are used to improve health. The goal of the program is to advance the innovation, design and effectiveness of health games and game technologies so that they help people improve their health-related behaviors and, as a result, achieve significantly better health outcomes.

*Applicant organizations must have valid 501(c)(3) status; however, for-profit organizations may participate as subcontractors or consultants on project teams.