Science Briefs

What They See is What You Get: Eye Tracking of Attention in the Anxiety Disorders

by Thomas Armstrong and Bunmi Olatunji

Thomas Armstrong is a graduate student in the Emotion and Anxiety Research Laboratory at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. He completed undergraduate training at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, working with Brian Detweiler-Bedell and Mark Becker on research investigating emotional influences on visual search. Prior to his graduate studies, he also coordinated research on the role of disgust in social cognition in David Pizarro’s laboratory at Cornell University. At Vanderbilt, Thomas employs eye tracking and facial electromyography to study emotion processing abnormalities associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). He is currently working on a project investigating the relationship between disgust sensitivity and attentional biases in contamination-based OCD.  

Bunmi Olatunji is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. He currently serves on the editorial boards of the journals International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, and Behavior Therapy. He has published more than 70 journal articles and book chapters and has participated in several conference presentations. As director of the Emotion and Anxiety Research Laboratory at Vanderbilt University, he is currently examining the role of basic emotions as they relate to the assessment, etiology, and maintenance of anxiety-related disorders. His research has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Anxiety Disorders Association of America.

Ever since psychology’s “cognitive revolution,” information-processing biases have been thought to play an important role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders. Both clinical observation and experimental research suggest that individuals with anxiety disorders differ in how they think about (Butler & Matthews, 1983), remember (Amir, Foa, & Coles, 1998), and attend to (MacLeod & Matthews, 1988) threatening aspects of their environment. While early theorists (Beck, 1976; Eysenck, 1992) posited an “anxiety schema,” assumed to create threat-related biases at all stages of stimulus processing, recent research has looked more closely at specific components of attention thought to play a role in anxiety disorders. By inserting emotional stimuli into classic attention tasks (e.g. Stroop task; Stroop, 1935; cueing task; Posner, 1980; visual search task; Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977), clinical scientists have identified patterns in the emotional modulation of attention that may characterize anxiety disorders. An aggregate of studies suggest a “vigilant-avoidant” pattern of attention, as individuals with anxiety disorders initially attend to threatening stimuli more than healthy controls, yet subsequently attend less (Mogg & Bradley, 1998). However, controversy remains over which components of attention underlie these phenomena. Although reaction time measures of attention, such as the Stroop and modified dot probe, have provided crucial insights, the adoption of eye tracking technology, which provides a more direct and continuous measure of attention, promises significant advances in our understanding of information-processing biases in affective disorders.

Reaction time measures of emotional modulation of attention and their limitations

To explain the initial increase of attention to threat in anxiety disorders, some researchers (Mogg & Bradley, 1988) stress “vigilance” for threat, a phenomenon involving facilitated detection and subsequent biases in the orientation of attention. However, others (Derryberry & Reed, 2002; Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001) argue that biases begin after detection, through the maintenance of attention on identified threats. Primary evidence for the latter view comes from the Emotion Stroop task (MacLeod, 1991), in which quick and accurate responding to a word’s color requires ignoring the word’s meaning. Individuals with anxiety disorders show delayed color responses when words are threatening (more so than healthy controls), suggesting that anxiety disorders are characterized by increased attentional engagement by threat, as well as difficulty disengaging attention from threat (Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996). However, the Emotional Stroop does not allow the demonstration of an orientation bias, as there are not multiple stimuli in different locations competing for attention. In addition, the response interference caused by emotional word content may not be the result of attention, per se, but instead some other aspect of one’s emotional reaction to the word’s meaning (MacLeod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986).

The modified dot probe (MacLeod et al., 1986) in which participants respond to a neutral “probe” placed behind one of two simultaneously presented pictures, improves on the Emotional Stroop by allowing multiple stimuli to compete for the engagement, as well as the orientation of attention. Despite this improvement, reaction times in the dot probe task may fail to discriminate components of attention, as faster responses to probes at the location of a threatening stimulus could be the result of orienting to that location first, or of maintaining attention to that location, once fixated (Koster, Crombez, Verschuere, & De Houwer, 2004). As Weierich, Treat, and Hollingworth (2008) note, the 500 ms asynchrony between stimulus onset and probe presentation used in most dot probe studies allows for multiple fixations during the stimulus presentation, making it unclear which component(s) of attention are responsible for decreased response latencies. In addition, the modified dot probe has limited ability to register biases in later stages of processing. The inhibition of detailed, elaborative processing of threat described in multiple theories of anxiety (Foa & Kozak, 1986; Mogg, Bradley, De Bono, & Painter, 1997) can, in theory, be measured by longer probe onset asynchronies; however, a continuous measure of attention, as opposed to the snapshot provided by reaction times, would address the question with more efficiency.

Measuring eye movements through eye tracking technology

Although improved reaction time measures have been developed to better differentiate components of attention (e.g. Posner’s (1980) cuing paradigm), many researchers have turned to eye tracking technology to overcome the limitations inherent in manual reaction time measures. The measurement of eye movements has been pursued for over a century; however, only in the last thirty years have accurate, non-invasive, methods been developed (Duchowski, 2003). Today, the most popular methods involve directing a camera and infrared light source at the participant’s eye(s). By recording the surface of the eye with a video camera, the pupil can be detected by its lack of reflectance (dark pupil tracking; Richardson & Spivey, 2004); alternatively, with a bright light aimed at the eye, the pupil can be identified by the light reflecting through the pupil, off of the retina (light pupil tracking; Richardson & Spivey, 2004). While locating the pupilary reflection provides the primary indicator of eye movement, a second corneal reflection is often used to control for head movement (Duchowski, 2003).  An alternative method of eye tracking involves electro-oculography, the use of electrodes placed near the eye to record changes in electrical potentials produced by eye movements (e.g., Rohner, 2002).

The eye movements measured by these methods are more closely linked to attention than key press behavior, which occurs downstream of intervening response selection and skeletal muscle movement (Weierich et al., 2008).  Indeed, eye movements are a direct indicator of overt attention, that is, the selection of stimuli for fine-grained, foveal perception. In addition to providing a highly direct measure of visual attention, eye tracking systems also allow continuous measurement of eye movements, with gaze location typically sampled at rates of once per 16.7 ms (60 Hz) or faster. By directly and continuously measuring eye movements (see Figure 1 for a sample scan path), eye tracking devices greatly enable researchers to parse the orientation and engagement of attention, as the locations of initial fixations indicate orientation (i.e. where one looks first), while the duration of these fixations indicate the engagement of attention (i.e. how long one looks). Eye tracking also provides richer data for the analysis of later attentional processes. Whereas extended dot probe tasks can reveal the probability of attending to one location at a single point in time, eye tracking allows the comparison of fixation durations at multiple locations across the time course of the trial. In other words, eye tracking devices liberate the measurement of attention from the parameters of the task. The dot probe requires varying the presentation time of the stimulus in order to register either early or late attentional processes. Whereas additional conditions, or even studies are required to assess different components of attention or stages of processing in the dot probe paradigm, eye tracking can assess a multitude of attentional processes within the same trial.

Figure 1. Scanpath from an eye tracking experiment (circles represent fixations; area of circles represents fixation duration).

Extant research on eye movements in anxiety disorders

Although small in number, preliminary eye tracking studies have begun to clarify the nature of increased attention to threat in anxiety disorders. One emerging conclusion is that initial increases in attention to threat cannot be fully accounted for by engagement alone. The strongest evidence thus far comes from Mogg, Millar, and Bradley’s (2000) research in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). These authors measured eye movements during a dot probe task, in which happy, sad, or angry faces were presented alongside a neutral face. While GAD patients did not differ from controls or patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in their responding to sad or happy faces, they showed reduced latencies to first fixation on the angry face, and exhibited an orientation bias on trials with angry faces, looking at the angry face first more often than the neutral face. This pattern of speeded detection, coupled with biased orientation, fits squarely with Mogg and Bradley’s (1998) conceptualization of vigilance in anxiety disorders.

Interestingly, Mogg and colleagues found no attentional bias in reaction times with the dot probe task in which they measured eye movements. This finding is inconsistent with the hypothesis that attentional biases involve increased maintenance of attention (i.e. disability disengaging attention) to threat. However, Mogg and colleagues dot probe task involved a relatively long (1000 ms) asynchrony between picture onset and probe onset, leaving open the possibility that difficulty disengaging attention occurred on a shorter timescale. Unfortunately, Mogg and colleagues did not report the duration of initial fixations, which would shed light on this possibility. However, similar studies with social anxiety (Garner, Mogg, and Bradley, 2006) and specific phobia (Rinck & Becker, 2006) have reported the duration of initial fixation to threat stimuli, and have not found evidence of increased maintenance of attention in viewing paradigms reminiscent of the dot probe task. Together, these studies suggest that reduced reaction times in the dot probe task may not reflect difficulties disengaging attention.

However, these findings do not rule out the possibility that threat holds attention in other contexts. Indeed, other eye tracking studies, in which the threat stimulus serves as a distractor, have found difficulty disengaging attention in anxious or phobic participants. For example, Miltner, Krieschel, Hecht, Trippe, and Weiss (2004) found that a single spider, placed as a target in a 4 x 4 array with 15 other flowers, did not hold attention longer in the initial fixations of spider phobics, compared to those of controls. However, when a mushroom was added as the target, and the spider left in the array as a distractor, spider phobics begin to show delayed reaction times to the target reminiscent of engagement effects in the Stroop task. When eye movements were analyzed, it was found that delayed manual reactions appeared to be the result of difficulty disengaging attention from the spider, when it was fixated prior to the mushroom target (which appeared to occur by chance, in the absence of an orientation effect). These findings have been replicated in multiple experiments with spider phobics (Gerdes, Alpers, & Pauli, 2008; Rinck, Reinecke, Ellwart, Heuer, & Becker, 2005).

It appears that vigilance for threat, as well as difficulty disengaging threat, both contribute to information-processing abnormalities in anxiety disorders. However, each bias may be expressed in a different context. Vigilance-based biases seem to predominate when participants freely view a simple scene, while engagement-based biases arise during more complex search tasks with conflicting task demands. How these biases may differentially contribute to anxiety disorders is unclear. Vigilance is believed to contribute to anxiety disorders by promoting an exaggerated sense of danger and vulnerability to threat (Mogg & Bradley, 1998).  Difficulty disengaging attention, on the other hand, may interfere more with daily functioning, by distracting attention from ongoing tasks when threats are identified (Bishop, 2007).

Perhaps the most consistent finding in the eye tracking and anxiety literature relates to the phenomenon of avoidance. Continuous measurement of eye movements has revealed avoidance of disorder-specific threat on multiple timescales, ranging from 3 to 60 seconds (Garner et al., 2006; Hermans, Vansteenwegen, & Eelen, 1999; Pflugshaupt et al., 2005, 2007; Rinck & Becker, 2006; Rohner, 2002). In these studies, avoidance has been operationalized most often as a decrease or sustained reduction in the time spent fixating a threat stimulus, relative to a neutral stimulus (e.g. Rinck & Becker, 2006). However, Pflugshaupt and colleagues (2005) operationalized avoidance as the distance of fixations away from spiders embedded in a naturalistic scene, and found a similar pattern of avoidance in phobic individuals. Although a few studies have found avoidance beginning as early as the first fixation on a threat stimulus (e.g. Garner et al., 2006), a more typical finding is avoidance beginning somewhere between 1500-2000 ms following exposure to threat stimuli (Hermans, Vansteenwegen , & Eelen, 1999; Rinck & Becker, 2006; Rohner, 2002). Attentional avoidance is believed to maintain anxiety disorders by preventing elaborative processing of feared stimuli, which in turn prevents reappraisal, and maintains learned associations with harm (Mogg & Bradley, 1998). Given the apparent robustness of attentional avoidance in anxiety disorders, it would seem that recent attempts to retrain attention (e.g. Amir, Weber, Beard, Bomyea, & Taylor, 2008) might benefit by adding tasks that address this later bias, instead of focusing solely on earlier biases in the opposite direction.

Limitations of extant research

One difficulty in comparing the findings of these eye tracking studies is inconsistency in how researchers operationalize attentional biases. For example, “vigilance for threat” has been used to describe diverse, and sometimes unrelated findings. As mentioned above, Mogg and colleagues (2000) use the term “vigilance” to describe aspects of anxious individuals’ first fixation only, namely, its latency and target. However, the same construct is used elsewhere (Mogg & Bradley, 2006) to describe processes involving multiple fixations (Rinck et al., 2005). In two experiments, Rinck and colleagues found that phobics detected spiders faster than other insects when featured as targets in an array of 19 identical distractor animals (dragonflies, dogs, cats, butterflies). While similar to Mogg et al.’s findings at first glance, analysis of eye movements revealed that, in the phobic group, detection of spiders was hastened by reduced fixation times on neutral distractors. In other words, speeded detection of spiders was not related to orientation (i.e. finding the spider in fewer fixations) but instead to quick disengagement from neutral targets until the threat was found. This example highlights the need to decompose broad phenomena such as “vigilance,” “maintenance,” or “avoidance” into more specific processes, which may represent different routes to the same outcome (e.g. delayed or speeded detection of a target stimulus).

Future Directions

Eye tracking is a promising methodology for future research on anxiety disorders, providing crucial improvements over manual reaction time measures of attention. However, eye tracking measures need not replace reaction time measures. Indeed, research thus far suggests that eye tracking can actually improve the utility of a dot probe (Mogg et al., 2000) or visual search task (Gerdes et al., 2008; Rinck et al., 2005) by clarifying the determinants of reaction time. Future research should continue to combine eye tracking with previously used reaction time measures, in order to enhance the interpretation of reaction time data.

In addition, given eye tracking’s increased sensitivity to detect attentional biases, it would be an ideal tool for assessing attentional biases in anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder where such biases have proven to be somewhat elusive (Summerfeldt & Endler, 1998).  Eye tracking may also be a useful supplement for research on treatment outcome. If attentional biases play a causal role in anxiety disorders, as hypothesized elsewhere (e.g. Mogg & Bradley, 1998), they should be attenuated by successful treatment. Eye tracking could also be used to measure cognitive vulnerability for the development of anxiety-related psychopathology. In this sense, eye tracking may provide a means of detecting an endophenotype marked by attentional biases.

References

Amir, N., Foa, E. B., & Coles, M. E. (1998). Automatic activation and strategic avoidance of threat-relevant information in social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 285–    290.

Amir, N., Weber, G., Beard, C., Bomyea, J., & Taylor, C. (2008). The effect of a single session attention modification program on response to a public speaking challenge in socially anxious individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 860-868.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.

Bishop, S. J. (2007). Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: An integrative account. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 307-16.

Butler, G., & Matthews, A. (1983). Cognitive processes in anxiety. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5, 51-62.

Derryberry, D., & Reed, M.A. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 225-236.

Duchowski, A. T. (2003). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory & Practice. London: Springer-Verlag.

Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20–35.

Fox, E., Russo,R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 681-700.

Garner, M., Mogg, K. & Bradley, B. P. (2006). Orienting and maintenance of gaze to facial expressions in social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 760-770.

Gerdes, A. B. M., Alpers, G. W. & Pauli, P. (2008). When spiders appear suddenly: Spider phobic patients are distracted by task-irrelevant spiders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 174-187.

Hermans, D., Vansteenwegen, D., & Eelen, P. (1999). Eye movement registration as a continuous index of attention deployment: Data from a group of spider anxious students. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 419-434.

Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2004). Selective attention to threat in the dot probe paradigm: Differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1183–1192.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.

MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Visual Attention and Anxiety. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 40, 653-670.

MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15-20.

Miltner, W.H.R., Krieschel, S., Hecht, H., Trippe, R., & Weiss, T. (2004). Eye movements and behavioral responses to threatening and nonthreatening stimuli during visual search in phobic and nonphobic subjects. Emotion 4, 323-339.

Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. (1998). A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 809-848.

Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2006).Time course of attentional bias for fear-relevant pictures in spider-fearful individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1241-50.

Mogg, K., Bradley, B., de Bono, J., & Painter, M (1997). Time course of attentional bias for threat information in non-clinical anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 297- 303.

Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Weinman, J. (1987). Memory bias in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 94–98.

Mogg, K., Millar, N., & Bradley, B. P. (2000). Biases in EMs to threatening facial expressions in generalized anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 695–704.

Pflugshaupt, T., Mosimann, U. P., von Wartburg, R., Schmitt, W., Nyffeler, T., & Mu¨ri, R. M. (2005). Hypervigilanceavoidance pattern in spider phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 105–116.

Pflugshaupt, T., Mosimann, U. P., Schmitt, W. J., von Wartburg, R., Wurtz, P., Lüthi, M.,  et al. (2007). To look or not to look at threat? Scanpath differences within a group of spider phobics. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 353-366.

Posner, M.I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.

Richardson, D. C., & Spivey, M. J. (2004). Eye Tracking: Characteristics and Methods. In Wnek. G.& Bowlin, G. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, (pp.           568-572), Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Rinck, M., & Becker, E.S. (2006). Spider fearful individuals attend to threat, then quickly avoid it: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 231-238.

Rinck, M., Reinecke, A., Ellwart, T., Heuer, K., & Becker, E.S. (2005). Speeded detection and increased distraction in fear of spiders: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 235-248.

Rohner, J.C. (2002). The time-course of visual threat processing: High trait anxious individuals eventually avert their gaze from angry faces. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 837–844.

Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.

Summerfeldt, L. J., & Endler, N. S. (1998). Examining the evidence for anxiety-related cognitive biases in obsessive– compulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12, 579–598.

Weierich, M. R., Treat, T. A., & Hollingworth, A. (2008). Theories and measurement of visual attentional processing in anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 985-1018.

Williams, J. M., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 3–24.

Executive Director's Column

Exclusive Clubs
by Steven Breckler, Executive Director

Membership in scientific societies and associations is important.  It is one part of how we identify with a discipline.  It is one way for us to achieve collective goals – publishing, advocating, convening, and educating.

Some memberships are available at our own discretion.  After meeting basic requirements, it is simply a matter of completing an application and paying dues.  Membership in most professional societies works this way.

Achievement within a discipline is often recognized by professional societies when they recognize members as fellows, or bestow on them other forms of honor.  We take pride in these designations, because they signal special accomplishment.  They represent membership in exclusive clubs.

Scientists earn membership in a very exclusive club when they win a Nobel Prize or the National Medal of Science.  Also ranking high in exclusivity is membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

Membership in one of the National Academies is indeed a special honor.  One must be elected, based on distinguished achievements in original research (NAS) or in medicine and health (IOM).  Only current members of the NAS or IOM may nominate new members.  Each year, the NAS admits a maximum of 72 new members across all fields of science.  The IOM elects no more than 65 new members each year.

The membership of the NAS and the IOM includes many psychologists.  Indeed, an entire Section of the NAS is devoted to psychology.  At last count, the NAS Psychology Section listed among its members 64 of the most accomplished scientists we associate with psychology.  It is not the smallest Section, nor is it the largest.

Membership in the National Academies is a significant marker.  The PR materials of most colleges and universities include a count of faculty who have won Nobel Prizes or are members of the NAS and IOM.  It is a point of pride, and an indicator of faculty quality and accomplishment.

Membership in the National Academies also carries with it significant influence and opportunity.  The real work of the National Academies takes place among its Boards, Committees, and Studies.  These groups draw on relevant scientific expertise from outside the Academy membership, but they also rely heavily on expertise from within.  Thus, members of the Academy enjoy unparalleled opportunity to address important national issues and provide advice both to the federal government and to the public.

Now, more than ever, our nation needs scientific advice.  And a new administration wants that advice.  Considering the challenges before us – climate change, health disparities, an aging population, an economy in recession – psychology is needed.

The National Academies should respond by expanding its representation of psychology and related behavioral sciences.  The ranks of this exclusive club must grow.  Psychology can surely provide the new members.

In large part, it is up to current members to make this happen.  They need to nominate more of their colleagues, and then press for their election.  We can’t all be members of this exclusive club, but we can take pride in those who are and share in the satisfaction of knowing that psychology is well represented.

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.

How to Develop Relationships with Faculty
(other than your advisor)

by Stanley O. King II

We all know (or at least we are told) that a healthy relationship with your advisor is critical for success as a graduate student. However, less emphasized and probably less thought about is how establishing relationships with other faculty members within your department, your college or university, and beyond, can also be beneficial now and later in your professional life. For instance, many doctoral programs require graduate students to include one faculty member from outside their department on their dissertation committee. In addition, most faculty job applications require recommendation letters from academics other than your primary advisor. Therefore, it is in your personal and professional interest to reach out and connect with professors aside from your advisor during your graduate training.

However, forming relationships with faculty can be a difficult and daunting task. Let’s be honest, addressing them by their first name doesn’t make some of them any less intimidating, more social, or even more normal. Luckily, in spite of this, there are numerous opportunities throughout your graduate training to interact with professors. Here are a few tips to help you capitalize on and maximize these opportunities to meet, socialize, and develop relationships with those faculty members that do not stand between you and graduation.

Invite outside faculty to your department to give a seminar. This is a great way to meet and interact with professors from other institutions. Additionally, by taking charge and organizing a professor’s visit, it will allow you to make a good impression on the visiting professor as well as your department. If you have limited time, another option to make an impression would be to volunteer to introduce a visiting professor for their lecture.

Introduce yourself and welcome visiting professors. Professors often spend their sabbatical or summers doing research at a different university than their own. This is a great opportunity to welcome a visiting professor. Offer yourself as a resource to help them get acclimated and find their way around campus or town. Remember that little gestures can go a long way.

Be social at departmental receptions and seminars. Try to resist the urge to socialize only with your fellow graduate students at departmental receptions. This is an ideal time to get to know faculty in your department, beyond the science and on a more personal level. Additionally, try getting to the seminar early so you can sit next to a faculty member and initiate conversation before the seminar begins. This tactic is an easy way for you to begin developing rapport with a faculty member without having the anxiety of carrying on an extended conversation.

Attend seminars outside your department. This may be the easiest way to meet faculty at your university that are outside your department. Do not underestimate the value of developing relationships with faculty outside of your specific research area. You never know when or from where a new research idea will come. In addition, acknowledging your enjoyment of a professor’s lecture at a seminar works as a great opening line in an email to start correspondence.

Join a departmental committee and/or a university committee needing graduate representation. This leadership experience is an ideal way to meet and work with faculty. Be social and competent in your committee work and this is a fool-proof way to form professional bonds and earn the esteem of faculty.

Get to know post-docs. After researchers complete their post-doctoral appointments they typically become professors. Capitalize on this academic convention and get to know the post-docs in your lab or department before they move on to faculty positions. However, keep in mind this is a long-term networking strategy and should be done in addition to meeting current faculty.

While trying to establish a relationship with faculty, remember that professors have very limited time and you do not want to be a nuisance. Always be professional and respect any boundaries faculty may establish. Moreover, show a genuine interest in faculty and their research as you are getting to know them. However, meeting faculty is only half the battle, you also need to maintain and sustain any bonds formed.  A couple of suggestions to maintain faculty ties are to keep them up-to-date with your graduate milestones or achievements, send congratulatory emails for any awards or promotions the faculty member may have received, and if you do not have a specific reason, ask if you could be of assistance with anything.  Everyone needs help. Nonetheless, try not to be overbearing when maintaining contact and resist regurgitating their curriculum vitae to them in conversation. Lastly, whether developing or maintaining a relationship with faculty, never forget the power of a warm smile and a friendly hello.

A Guide for the Perplexed—Congressional Action on Research Funding

by Pat Kobor

We know there is a lot of economic news coming out of Washington these days, and much of it is troubling. However, Congress and the new Administration have also been busy making spending decisions that affect science—and some of these decisions are quite positive for researchers. So we at Psychological Science Agenda offer you this quick guide to the major science funding bills either recently enacted or on their way.  We focus on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which are the major sources of funding for much of psychological research.

AMERICAN  RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

This is the HUGE economic stimulus legislation signed by President Obama on February 17. Funding in this bill is intended to be spent in one to two years, and the funds are added to the regular annual appropriations.

The NIH receives $10 billion within this legislation.  $8.2 billion is directed to the Office of the Director, and $7.4 billion of that will be transferred to the Institutes, Centers, and Common Fund, with $800 million being retained for the Office of the Director.   (As described elsewhere in this issue of PSA, at least $200 million of the Director’s funds will be used to support the new Challenge Grants.) The remainder will go to buildings and facilities construction or renovation, either on the NIH campus or extramurally through the National Center for Research Resources.

The legislation provides NSF with $3 billion. Of that, $2 billion will go to research grants distributed through NSF’s regular peer review process. The remainder includes $300 million for the Major Research Instrumentation program, and $200 million to restart the Academic Research Infrastructure program for competitively awarded laboratory construction grants. $100 million will go to the Education and Human Resources Directorate for various programs to support science and math education at the secondary and baccalaureate levels.

FISCAL YEAR 2009 OMNIBUS FUNDING

You may recall that before the November election, Congress and the Administration were unable to reach agreement on spending levels for Fiscal Year 2009, and so rolled all the pending appropriations bills into one temporary bill (known as a “continuing resolution”) that funded most agencies at the Fiscal Year 2008 level.  So there was unfinished business for this current year, which began on October 1, 2008.

Now, however, Congress and the President have broken the logjam. The House and Senate passed a new omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105, that funds most parts of the federal government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2009. (Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs are not included in the omnibus bill, as they were funded through the regular appropriations process last year.) The President signed the bill into law on March 11. This bill represents the basic funding for federal programs; the stimulus funding is additional.

The omnibus bill provides NIH with $30.32 billion, an increase of $937.5 million (3.2 percent) over the FY 2008 comparable level. This is essentially a flat budget given that the biomedical inflation index is reached but not exceeded. NSF is given $6.5 billion, $425 million (7.0 percent) above 2008.

FISCAL YEAR 2010—ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSED BUDGET

It was a bit late in arriving, but frankly, the President has been very busy.  On February 26, President Obama released some of the details of a $3.6 trillion budget request for Fiscal Year 2010, which will begin on October 1, 2009.  The spending plan includes a $634 billion, 10-year health care reserve fund for reform of the American healthcare system.

Specifics regarding research funding won’t be available until the last week in March or the first week in April.  The House and Senate Budget Committees will develop a budget, which the two houses of Congress must approve, and then the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate will develop spending legislation based on the budget guidelines.

The APA Science Government Relations Office will provide updates on prospects for research funding as soon as details are available.  Please contact us at any time with questions about science funding and policy at any federal agency.

NIH Announces New Challenge Grants

by Pat Kobor

NIH has received new funds for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. At least $200 million of these funds have been designated for a new initiative called the NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research. This new program will support research efforts addressing specific scientific and health research challenges that would benefit from significant 2-year jumpstart funds.

NIH has identified fifteen Challenge Areas, including Behavior, Behavioral Change, and Prevention; Bioethics; Clinical Research; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Enabling Technologies; Genomics; Health Disparities; Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education (STEM); and Translational Science.  Each NIH Institute or Center has selected specific topics within these areas for which it will consider Challenge Grant applications.

For more information, see the formal Request for Applications.  The deadline for applications is April 27, 2009.  NIH has also created a website containing information on all of its ARRA-related activities. 

NSF Searches for New Biology Chief as Animal Cognition Researchers Call for Shift in Focus

The National Science Foundation has initiated a search for a new Assistant Director for Biological Sciences to succeed Dr. James Collins, who has served in that position since 2005.   The Assistant Director leads the Directorate for Biological Sciences, one of the major units of NSF.  Of particular interest to psychologists, this Directorate funds research on neural systems and on animal behavior. 

A group of fifty-seven scientists with expertise in animal learning, cognition, and behavior recently submitted a white paper to Dr. Steven Beering, chair of the National Science Board (the oversight body of NSF) expressing concerns about the direction that NSF funding of animal behavior research has taken in recent years.  These scientists point to a “dramatic decline in NSF’s support of basic laboratory research into the nature of learning and cognition in animals” and “a clear bias in the Animal Behavior program away from process and mechanism and toward evolution, ecology, and function.”  According to these scientists, reductions in funding by both NSF and the National Institutes of Health have “created what may very well herald the imminent demise of the science of animal learning and cognition in America.”  They call for NSF either to establish a new program for laboratory research on animal cognition and learning or to alter the missions of existing programs to accommodate this research area. 

APA has also communicated concerns about declines in NSF funding for animal learning and cognition research, through meetings it has arranged between scientists and Foundation officials and in testimony to Congress.  APA will continue to press the issue as the search for a new Assistant Director progresses.  

Psychological scientists are encouraged to apply for and recommend candidates for the Assistant Director position, and to express their own views to NSF about the direction of research funding.   Additional information can be obtained from the APA Science Government Relations Office (contact Geoff Mumford).

Research Funding Opportunities from Federal Agencies

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

National Science Foundation

Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP)  (NSF 09-7626)

Virtual Organizations as Sociotechnical Systems (VOSS) (NSF 09-540)

Decision Making Under Uncertainty Collaborative Groups (DMUU) (NSF 09-544)

National Institutes of Health

Recovery Act Limited Competition: NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research (RC1)
(RFA-OD-09-003)
(all institutes)
Application deadline: April 27, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Core Facility Renovation, Repair, and Improvement (G20)
(RFA-RR-09-007)
(National Center for Research Resources)
Application deadline: September 17, 2009

Recovery Act Limited Competition: Extramural Research Facilities Improvement Program (C06)
(RFA-RR-09-008)
(NCRR)
Application deadlines: May 6, 2009 (projects between $2M and $5M); June 17, 2009 (projects between $10M and $15M), July 17, 2009 (projects between $5M and $10M)

Recovery Act Limited Competition: High-End Instrumentation Grant Program (S10)
(PAR-09-118)
(NCRR)
Application deadline: May 6, 2009

Centers for AIDS Research: D-CFAR, CFAR (P30) (PAR-09-103)
(multiple institutes)

Alzheimers Disease Core Centers (P30) (RFA-AG-10-001)
(NIA)

Alzheimers Disease Research Centers (P50)  (RFA-AG-10-002)
(NIA)

Alcohol Pharmacotherapy and the Treatment and Prevention of HIV/AIDS (R01)
(RFA-AA-09-007)
(NIAAA)

Alcohol Pharmacotherapy and the Treatment and Prevention of HIV/AIDS (R03)
(RFA-AA-09-008)
(NIAAA)

Alcohol, Decision-Making and Adolescent Brain Development (R21) (PA-09-096)
(NIAAA)

Alcohol, Decision-Making, and Adolescent Brain Development (R01) (PA-09-097)
(NIAAA)

Alcohol Research Resource Awards (R24) (PAR-09-128)
(NIAAA)

Mechanisms of Behavior Change Initiation (MOBCI) for Drinking Behavior
(Contract Solicitation NIAAA-09-07)
(NIAAA)

Mechanisms of Alcohol and Nicotine Co-Dependence (R21) (PA-09-098)
(NIAAA, NIDA)

Mechanisms of Alcohol and Nicotine Co-Dependence (R01) (PA-09-099)
(NIAAA, NIDA)

Testing Tobacco Products Promoted to Reduce Harm (R01) (PA-09-046)
(NCI, NIDA)

Testing Tobacco Products Promoted to Reduce Harm (R21) (PA-09-047)
(NCI, NIDA)

Exploratory Grants for Behavioral Research in Cancer Control (R21) (PA-09-130)
(NCI, NCCAM)

NCMHD Health Disparities Research on Minority and Underserved Populations (R01)
(RFA-MD-09-004)
(NCMHD)

Pediatric Functional Neuroimaging Research Network (NOT-HD-09-010)
(NICHD)

Measuring the Propensity and Severity of Drug Addiction  (NOT-DA-09-025)
(NIDA)

Medications Development for the Treatment of Pregnant/Postpartum Women with Substance Related Disorders and/or In Utero Substance Exposed Neonates (R01)
(PA-09-106)
(NIDA)

Medications Development for the Treatment of Pregnant/Postpartum Women with Substance Related Disorders and/or In Utero Substance Exposed Neonates (R21)
(PA-09-107)
(NIDA)

Data & Statistics Center for the NIDA Clinical Trials Network  (NOT-DA-09-026)
(NIDA

Exploratory/Developmental Clinical Research Grants in Obesity (R21) (PA-09-124)
(NIDDK, NCCAM, NCI, NHLBI)

Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD) (R25) (PAR-09-104)
(NIGMS)

Suicide Prevention in Emergency Medicine Departments (U01) (RFA-MH-09-150)
(NIMH)

Women's Mental Health and Sex/Gender Differences Research (R01) (PA-09-108)
(NIMH)

Women's Mental Health and Sex/Gender Differences Research (R21) (PA-09-109)
(NIMH)

Tools to Mitigate and Understand the Mental Health Effects of National Disasters: SBIR [R43/R44]
(PA-09-117)
(NIMH)

Novel Interventions for Neurodevelopmental Disorders (R34) (RFA-MH-09-160)
(NIMH, NIAAA)

Novel Interventions for Neurodevelopmental Disorders (R21/R33) (RFA-MH-09-161)
(NIMH, NIAAA)

Developmental Psychopharmacology (R01)  (PA-09-111)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDA)

Developmental Psychopharmacology (R21) (PA-09-112)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDA)

Research on Clinical Decision Making in People with or at Risk for Life-Threatening Illness (R01)
(PA-09-122)
(NINR, NCI)

Research on Clinical Decision Making in People with or at Risk for Life-Threatening Illness (R21)
(PAR-09-121)
(NINR, NCI)

Biobehavioral Methods to Improve Outcomes Research (R01) (PA-09-125)
(NINR, NCI, NIAMS, NIDCD, NIDDK, NIGMS, OBSSR)

Biobehavioral Methods to Improve Outcomes Research (R21) (PA-09-126)
(NINR, NCI, NIAMS, NIDCD, OBSSR)

Clinical Research Curriculum Award (K30) (RFA-RR-09-006)
(NCRR)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Prevention of Health Risk Behaviors among Youth with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (U01) (RFA-DD-09-003)

Impact of Tic Disorders, including Tourette Syndrome, in Youth, on Individuals, Families and Communities (U01)   (RFA-DD-O9-004)

Interventions for Youth and Young Adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (U84)  
(RFA-DD-09-006)

Translating Research to Protect Health through Health Promotion, Prevention, and Preparedness (R18)  (RFA-CD-09-001)

CDC Grants for Public Health Research Dissertation (R36) (PAR-07-231)

Administration for Children and Families

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDD) 
(HHS-2009-ACF-ADD-DD-0084)

Rigorous Evaluations of Existing Child Abuse Prevention Programs
(HHS-2009-ACF-ACYF-CA-0055)

Department of Defense

DoD Autism Research Program Clinical Trial Award (W81XWH-09-ARP-CTA)
(Army)

DoD Autism Research Program Idea Award  (W81XWH-09-ARP-IDEA)  
(Army)

Autism Research Program Concept Award  (W81XWH-09-ARP-CA)
(Army)

Cognition and Neuroergonomics (CAN) Collaborative Technology Alliance (CTA)
(W911NF-08-R-0014)  
(Army)

Suicide Prevention and Counseling Research (SPCR) (W81XWH-08-MOMRP-SPCR2)
(Army)

DTRA FY2009 – 2011 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)  (HDTRA1-08-10-BRCWMD-BAA) 
(Defense Threat Reduction Agency)

Department of Justice

NIJ FY09 Crime and Justice Research  (NIJ-2009-2007)
(National Institute of Justice)

Environmental Protection Agency

Understanding the Role of Nonchemical Stressors and Developing Analytic Methods for Cumulative Risk Assessments (EPA-G2009-STAR-E1)

Announcements

Upcoming APA Academic Career Workshops

Each year, the Science Directorate sponsors Academic Career Workshops for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at the regional psychological association meetings and other conferences. These workshops are designed to introduce graduate students and postdocs to the nuts and bolts of an academic career. Experienced psychology faculty share their insights on topics ranging from how the academic culture varies across institutions to the pragmatics of the hiring process. Substantial time is set aside for questions and discussion.

The 2009 programs will address the challenges arising from the current economic climate, including how to increase one’s chances of obtaining an academic position and what sorts of jobs are available while one waits for an appropriate academic position to become available.

The remaining workshops for 2009 will be conducted at the following meetings:

Southwestern Psychological Association: April 2-4, 2009
San Antonio, TX
Workshop Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009
Time: 10:30 am- 12:00 pm
www.swpsych.org

Midwestern Psychological Association: April 30- May 2, 2009
Chicago, IL
Workshop Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009
Time: 3:00 pm- 5:00 pm
www.midwesternpsych.org

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.

Upcoming Application Deadlines for Advanced Training Institutes

The application deadlines for the 2009 Advanced Training Institutes (ATI) are quickly approaching. These APA-sponsored events offer participants the opportunity to gain knowledge and experience in cutting-edge research methods. Through lectures, labs, and discussions, ATI instructors lead participants to understand how these methods can be applied within psychological science. Instructors also make a special effort to help individual participants incorporate the methods into their own research.

ATIs are appropriate for new and established faculty, non-academic researchers, post-doctoral fellows, and advanced graduate students. Modest financial assistance is available for some participants. Details can be found on the web or by email.

Nonlinear Methods for Psychological Science
June 8-12, 2009
Application Deadline - Mar. 24, 2009

Research Methods with Diverse Racial and Ethnic Groups
June 22-26, 2009
Application Deadline - Mar. 30, 2009

Structural Equation Modeling in Longitudinal Research
June 29-July 3, 2009
Application Deadline - Apr. 6, 2009

Exploratory Data Mining in Behavioral Research
July 20-24, 2009
Application Deadline - Apr. 14, 2009

To apply, or for more information, please visit the ATI website.

APA Departmental Award for Culture of Service in the Psychological Sciences Call for 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 review panels; or chairing IRBs. Other culture of service activities that a department could encourage include mentoring students and colleagues; advocating for psychological science to 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 cultureofservice@apa.org. Please be sure to submit the nomination as a single package that includes all the required letters.

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

APA Award for Distinguished Service to Psychological Sciences Call for 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 serving on boards and committees of  psychological organizations; editing journals; reviewing grant proposals; mentoring students and colleagues; advocating for psychological science to 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. The focus of the award is an individual’s service to the discipline and not his or her scholarly achievements.

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 2009 submissions is April 1, 2009. Nominations will be accepted only as electronic submissions to cultureofservice@apa.org. Please be sure to submit the nomination materials as a single complete package.For more information, contact Suzanne Wandersman.

Deadline Nears for APA Student Travel Award Competition

Graduate students: Are you looking for a little extra cash to get to this summer’s APA Convention in Toronto?  If you are a Student Affiliate and are first author of your paper or poster accepted for presentation at Convention, you could be the recipient of a $300 travel grant!

The Student Travel Award and Ungerleider/Zimbardo Travel Scholarship competitions are sponsored by the APA Science Directorate and the American Psychological Foundation, and are intended to encourage pre-doctoral research by providing funds toward convention travel.  Applications are due by April 1, 2009.  For more information visit the award website or contact the Science Directorate at 202-336-6000.

All members of the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) who present first-authored papers or posters at the Convention are also eligible for a waiver of their Convention registration fees.  Information about this fee waiver will be mailed to current APAGS members.  If you do not receive the mailing by mid-May, contact the APA Convention Office at 202-336-5500 or via email for information before registering.