 |
Psychological Science Agenda
Volume 23: No. 5, May 2009
|
Science Briefs Evolutionary Theory and PsychologyIn commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work On the Origin of Species, this edition of Psychological Science Agenda includes a special section on evolutionary theory and psychology. Scientists and philosophers were invited to submit personal reflections on the significance and influence of Darwin’s theory and of current views of evolution within contemporary psychology. PSA thanks the authors for their provocative contributions. Darwin’s Influence on Modern Psychological Science Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Psychology Darwinizing the Social Sciences Darwinian Psychology: Where the Present Meets the Past Psychology’s Best Discovery Heuristic Survival of the Fittest? An Open Letter to Comparative Psychologists Evolution of Human Sex Differences
Darwin’s Influence on Modern Psychological Science
At the end of his classic treatise in 1859, On the Origin of Species, Darwin envisioned that in the distant future, the field of psychology would be based on a new foundation—that of evolutionary theory. A century and a half later, it’s clear that his vision proved prescient (Buss, 2009). Evolutionary psychology is not a distinct branch of psychology, but rather a theoretical lens that is currently informing all branches of psychology. It is based on a series of logically consistent and well-confirmed premises: (1) that evolutionary processes have sculpted not merely the body, but also the brain, the psychological mechanisms it houses, and the behavior it produces; (2) many of those mechanisms are best conceptualized as psychological adaptations designed to solve problems that historically contributed to survival and reproduction, broadly conceived; (3) psychological adaptations, along with byproducts of those adaptations, are activated in modern environments that differ in some important ways from ancestral environments; (4) critically, the notion that psychological mechanisms have adaptive functions is a necessary, not an optional, ingredient for a comprehensive psychological science. Darwin provided two key theories that guide much of modern psychological research—natural selection and sexual selection. These theories have great heuristic value, guiding psychologists to classes of adaptive problems linked with survival (e.g., threats from other species such as snakes and spiders; threats from other humans) and reproduction (e.g., mate selection, sexual rivalry, adaptations to ovulation). Advances in modern evolutionary theory heralded by inclusive fitness theory and the “gene’s-eye” perspective guide researchers to phenomena Darwin could not have envisioned, such as inherent and predictable forms of within-family conflict and sexual conflict between males and females. Over the past decade, evolutionary psychology has increasingly informed each sub-discipline within psychology. In perception and sensation, it has led to the discovery of phenomena such as the auditory looming bias and the visual descent illusion. In cognitive psychology, based on a fusion of signal detection theory and the asymmetric evolutionary costs of cognitive errors, it has led to error management theory and the discovery of functional cognitive biases that are, strange as it may seem, “designed” to err in adaptive ways. Evolutionary social psychology has produced a wealth of discoveries, ranging from adaptations for altruism to the dark sides of social conflict. Evolutionary developmental psychology has explored the ways in which critical ontogentic events, such as father absence versus father presence, influence the subsequent development of sexual strategies. Evolutionary clinical psychology provides a non-arbitrary definition of psychological disorder--when an evolved mechanism fails to function as it was designed to function. It also sheds light on common afflictions such as depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and sexual disorders. And it provides a framework for examining how mismatches between ancestral and modern environments can create psychological disorders. Personality psychology, historically refractory to evolutionary analysis, is finally beginning to discover adaptive individual differences. Hybrid disciplines too make use of the tools of evolutionary psychology. Cognitive and social neuroscientists, for example, use modern technologies such as fMRI to test hypotheses about social exclusion adaptations, emotions such as sexual jealousy, and kin recognition mechanisms. More generally, evolutionary psychology breaks down the barriers between the traditional sub-disciplines of psychology. A proper description of psychological adaptations must include identifying perceptual input, cognitive processing, and developmental emergence. Many mechanisms evolved to solve social adaptive problems, such as when social anxiety functions to motivate behavior that prevents an individual from losing status within a group. And all adaptations can malfunction, as when social anxiety becomes paralyzing rather than functional, making clinical psychology relevant. The key point is that organizing psychology around adaptive problems and evolved psychological solutions, rather than around the somewhat arbitrary sub-fields such as cognitive, social, and developmental, dissolves historically restrictive branch boundaries. Evolutionary psychology provides a metatheory for psychological science that unites these fields, and justifies why the seemingly disparate branches of psychology truly belong within the covers of introductory psychology books and within the same departments of psychology. Reference Buss, D. M. (2009). The great struggles of life: Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 140-148.
Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Psychology
The framework of evolutionary theory will be increasingly adopted as the foundation for a cumulative understanding of psychological science. As the unifying theory of the life sciences, evolution by natural and sexual selection offers an unparalleled ability to integrate currently disparate research areas (Wilson, 1998), creating a powerful framework for understanding the complex patterns of causality in psychological and behavioral phenomena. The evolutionary perspective will grow from its perceived status as a special interest area into an organizing principle that pervades every corner of every field, as well as serve as a bridge across levels of analysis. The incorporation of evolutionary theory into psychology has waxed and waned in the 150 years since Darwin (1859) predicted that the field would be based on a new foundation. There are many notable examples of psychological theories with evolutionary bases, such as Bowlby’s (1969) model of attachment, yet these are often isolated examples. In the last three decades, the evolutionary perspective has been reinvigorated with considerable theoretical advances and a continually growing array of empirical studies. Claims for such dramatic advancements on currently held beliefs likely evoke skepticism. The massive empirical evidence accumulating for the influence of evolutionary selection pressures on psychological mechanisms will convince objective observers. It is important to note that evolutionary explanations will not necessarily replace the current models for specific psychological and behavioral phenomena, but rather integrate the “how” with the “why.” It may help to recognize that evolutionary psychology is not monolithic; there are multiple levels of theory from basic principles to specific phenomena and multiple competing explanatory theories. Disagreements occur even between those considered the founders of the modern field. For example, some believe there are psychological adaptations facilitating homicide for strategic ends (Buss, 2005) whereas others believe that homicide is the product of adaptations for sub-lethal motivations such as competition combined with lethal modern technology (Daly & Wilson, 1988). It may also help to distinguish modern evolutionary psychology from the selective breeding programs in previous eras of human history. There is no teleology in evolution; no person or people are more highly evolved than any other persons or peoples. Everyone alive today is descended from a long, long line of successful ancestors. Yet there may be individual and group differences in psychological domains that are partially a result of differential selection pressures on ancestral populations. Humans have colonized nearly every land area on the surface of the earth, and each of these diverse ecologies could shape our psychological design. Efforts to advance human welfare may benefit from this recognition, as well as the understanding that genes are not the script for a pre-ordained destiny. Everything about us as individuals is a product of complex interactions between our genetic instructions and aspects of the environments in which they are expressed. By providing the broader context in which research results may be interpreted, researchers across fields will facilitate the integration of a larger body of scientific knowledge. The evolution of psychology will facilitate its recognition and integration as science. References Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Volume. 1. New York: Basic Books. Buss, D. M. (2005). The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill. New York: Penguin Press. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Alidine de Gruyter. Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray. Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Darwinizing the Social Sciences
There is only one known cause of the complex functional organization of matter that characterizes the biological world: evolution by natural selection. Because scientists do not typically ignore the central causal process that gives rise to the object of their study, it makes sense that 150 years after The Origin of Species, scientific research investigating the physiology or behavior of any of the roughly 1.5 million species on Earth requires graduate training in biology, in particular instruction in the theory of evolution by natural selection, a fact which stands as a tribute to Darwin’s legacy. Scholarship on each of the world’s species is motivated by hypotheses of evolved function, which in turn guides research on proximate mechanisms. This is true for every single species on the planet with one exception: Homo sapiens. Students who wish to study humans – psychologists, political scientists, economists, sociologists and other social scientists – are not required to take a single course in biology, and, with few exceptions, they do not. This puts much of the social sciences in the position of trying to explain human psychology without the tools of Darwinism, a circumstance akin to trying do chemistry while keeping studiously ignorant of the causal foundations of the discipline: atoms, molecules, the periodic table, and the basic forces that govern matter. This leads to embarrassing mistakes. Biologists would never think that an explanation for complex behaviors such as dam-building in beavers would either begin or end with reference to constructs such as “protecting self-esteem,” “salience,” or “maximizing utility,” yet “explanations” of precisely this sort are pervasive in the social sciences. Biologists understand that explanations owe a Darwinian debt: evolved mechanisms have biological functions, and these must, eventually, be explicated. However, not only are explanations that begin with a theory of evolved function still rare in the social sciences, but such explanations, perversely, frequently attract scorn, ridicule, and blind incomprehension. This situation can be remedied. I offer two suggestions. First, graduate training in all of the social sciences should require at least one class in evolutionary biology. Students entering the field should be armed with the tools that have been so productive in explaining and predicting the behavior of every other species. Psychology can lead the way in this by acting quickly. Second, editors should begin requiring that papers include an explicit hypothesis about the evolved function of the mechanisms investigated in the manuscript. Form follows function in biology, and hypotheses about the form psychological mechanisms take – how they work – should always be informed by hypotheses about function – what they’re designed to do. The continued stubborn resistance of psychologists to learn the ideas that integrate their discipline with the natural sciences will be viewed unfavorably by posterity. Change has been glacial, leaving psychology to be condemned, as Max Planck is frequently quoted as having said of science, “to advance one funeral at a time.” So, one way or another, the social sciences will, eventually, be Darwinized.
Darwinian Psychology: Where the Present Meets the Past
200 years after Charles Darwin’s birth and 150 years after the publication of “On the Origin of Species”, the field of psychology is traveling back to its roots as a life science, integrating the same principles biologists use to understand non-human life forms to understand human behavior and cognition. Darwin’s theories of natural and sexual selection identified the primary forces that shape both physiological structures and psychological mechanisms alike. Combined with the recent theoretical advances offered by genic selection and inclusive fitness theory, Darwin’s principles have proved to be invaluable tools for mapping the structure of the modern human mind and linking it with our long evolutionary history. For instance, we now know that the threats our ancestors faced left their legacy in the particular fears and phobias humans are most likely to acquire – fears of fanged creatures like spiders and snakes, but not of modern-day threats like the guns and fast moving cars that are far more likely to kill us today. Research applying Darwinian principles has also shown that kinship is a privileged social relationship, governed by specialized psychological mechanisms that infer relatedness based on ancestrally available cues that reliably distinguished kin from non-kin and between different types of kin. We have also discovered that human females, like our mammalian cousins, have an estrus phase of the cycle in which their sexual preferences and behaviors shift in reproductively sensible ways. These, and the many other discoveries enabled by the application of evolutionary tools, would not have been made without Darwin’s grand theory. Looking forward, the application of evolutionary principles continues to permeate different subdisciplines within psychology including clinical science, cognitive psychology and neuroscience. More and more, Darwin’s influence can be seen in research programs investigating, for instance, whether particular clinical “disorders” are in fact psychological adaptations, the domain specificity of memory and attentional processes, and the specialized circuits involved in processing particular emotions. Despite widespread application, obstacles remain. Darwin’s theory is beautiful yet deceptively simple. It is often misapplied – for example, by assuming that adaptations work for the benefit of the group or species or by side-stepping rigorous consideration of the historical selective pressures leading to the evolution of a particular capacity. This will only continue if psychologists do not receive serious training in evolutionary biology. The study of the human mind must be grounded in biology, the study of life. Of course, there are those who oppose the full integration of biological theorizing into psychology, but this is based on concerns that, at least to us, are largely outdated. It is our hope that new generations of psychologists and social scientists will be fluent in Darwinian principles and modern evolutionary biology and that just as Darwin predicted, “psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (Darwin, 1859, pp 428). Reference Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.
Psychology's Best Discovery Heuristic
Psychologists have often relied on unreliable technological metaphors to develop hypotheses about the nature of the human mind. Freud’s psychoanalytic hypotheses were inspired by the then prevalent hydraulic metaphor, which compared desires, emotions, and urges to fluids, while cognitive scientists have more recently been looking for psychological counterparts of the processes and systems making up digital computers (think of, e.g., working memory as the counterpart of a computer’s CPU and of attention as the counterpart of the allocation of computing power to different softwares). As Gigerenzer (1991) has shown, statistical tools such as, e.g., linear regression or bayesianism, have also often been turned into hypotheses about the nature of human psychological processes. In contrast to these unreliable and often unprincipled discovery heuristics, evolutionary theory provides psychology with a well-motivated and powerful method for discovering human psychological traits. Nobody seriously denies that the mind is made of evolved traits, and, in combination with discoveries about animal behavior and psychology, archaeological findings, and anthropological data from hunter-gatherer studies, evolutionary theories can lead psychologists to develop plausible hypotheses about the nature of these evolved traits. In fact, because these are likely to be our best discovery heuristics, evolutionary theories should guide psychologists’ efforts to understand mind and behavior. But there’s a catch: Taking evolutionary theory seriously has costs. Although psychologists rarely have the time and competence to engage with the burning controversies within evolutionary biology, they should keep up with the developments of evolutionary thinking instead of relying on somewhat outdated theories. Furthermore, showing that some psychological trait evolved and, a fortiori, that it is an adaptation is more difficult than is typically acknowledged by evolutionary-minded psychologists. These should be willing to broaden the toolbox they currently use, and to make place for the sources of evidence biologists view favorably. Reference Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review, 98, 254-267
Survival of the Fittest?
Few phrases in science are as powerful – or as widely misunderstood – as the words “survival of the fittest.” The problem with the phrase (actually coined by Darwin’s contemporary Herbert Spencer) is that it is perfectly ambiguous. On the one hand, “survival of the fittest” could mean “of all the possible creatures that one might imagine, only the fittest possible creatures survive”; on the other, it could mean something considerably less lavish: not that the fittest possible creatures survive, but only that creatures that survive tend to be the fittest that happen to be around at any given moment. This seemingly subtle difference – between “fittest among the choices that happen to be laying around” – and “fittest imaginable” – makes all the difference in the world. “Better than one’s neighbor” is a far cry from “best possible.” Discussions of evolutionary psychology sometimes seem to be premised on the first. Human beings do such and such because such and such was the optimal (“fittest”) thing for our stone-age ancestors to do. Men like women with smooth skin because (prior to the advent of plastic surgery), smooth skin was a reliable predictor of fertility, so it was in the interest of our ancestors’ “selfish genes” to create brains with a preference for smooth skin. While talk of function certainly has its place, examples like the injury-prone human spinal column (an unwise modification of the more sensible horizontal spine of our four-legged ancestors) suggest that the usual considerations of optimal function should be supplemented with consideration of what one might call evolutionary inertia. Just as objects in motion tend to stay in motion (Newton’s second law), evolution tends to modify what is already in place, rather than starting from scratch. Consider human memory, which is far less reliable than computer memory. Whereas it takes the average human child weeks or even months or years to memorize something as simple as a multiplication table, any modern computer can memorize any table in an instant – and will never forget it. Why can’t we do the same? Whereas computers organize everything they store according to physical (or logical) locations, with each bit stored in a specific place according to some sort of master map, we have no idea where anything in our brains is stored. We retrieve information not by knowing where it is, but by using cues or clues that hint at what we are looking for. In the best case, this process works well: the particular memory we need just “pops” into our minds, automatically and effortlessly. The catch however is that our memories can easily get confused, especially when a given set of cues points to more than one memory. What we are able to remember at any given moment also depends heavily on the accidents of which bits of mental flotsam and jetsam happen to be mentally active at that instant. Our mood, our environment, even our posture can all influence our delicate memories. Our memories may work in this fashion not because that is the optimal solution, but simply because, at the time of human evolution, cue-dependent memory was a firmly entrenched off-the-shelf part: cue-driven memory and all its idiosyncrasies has been found in just about every creature ever studied, from worms to flies, from spiders to rats, from monkeys to humans. The structure of human memory might thus exist as it does not because it is the ideal solution (fittest possible) but simply because it was the fittest solution that was readily available (Marcus, 2008). Reference Marcus, G. (2008). Kluge: The haphazard evolution of the human mind. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
An Open Letter to Comparative Psychologists
Darwin believed that earthworms have a sense of consciousness and that plants can hear bassoons. He claimed that “higher” animals have an incipient capacity for empathy, logic, language, magnanimity, an appreciation of beauty and a nascent belief in God. And he believed that dogs have a “sense of humor as distinct from mere play” and “possess something very like a conscience.” (Darwin, 1871). Darwin’s anthropomorphic view of animals was as unfounded and unnecessary as his theory of pangenesis: Nothing about Darwin’s theory of evolution requires—or even suggests—that there be a seamless psychological continuity among living species. And yet, over the last quarter century, many comparative psychologists have stubbornly championed Darwin’s quaint idea that there are no “fundamental differences” between the mental capacities of humans and animals and have made anthropomorphic claims about nonhuman cognition as unsubstantiated as Darwin’s. Even those comparative researchers who acknowledge that there might be something qualitatively different about the human mind have largely attributed the discontinuity to particular domain-specific faculties—such as language or social-communicative intelligence—and have denied that there might be a more profound, domain-general discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. The evidence clearly suggests otherwise: Only humans make fire, fashion wheels, draw maps, diagnose each other’s illnesses, risk their lives for ideals, punish strangers for breaking the rules, explain the world in terms of unseen causes, plan for hypothetical scenarios, take others’ welfare into account and teach each other how to do all the above. The evolution of all these uniquely human abilities begs for explanation. It is possible that each of our uniquely human kinds of cognition results from a separate, domain-specific innovation. And it is possible that they all somehow arise from language. But it seems much more likely to us that some central cognitive capability co-evolved with and continues to subserve all our uniquely human abilities. According to our hypothesis (Penn, Holyoak, and Povinelli, 2008), this central cognitive capability was the ability to reason about higher-order relations and the core innovation that gave rise to the human mind was our brain’s ability to approximate the relational capabilities of a physical symbol system. We are not sure that our hypothesis is correct; but we are sure of this: It is time for comparative psychologists to move beyond a faith-based belief in the “mental continuity” between all species and to invest as much effort in identifying the differences between human and nonhuman minds as they have invested in identifying the similarities. Only then will comparative psychology be able to take its rightful place at the roundtable of cognitive science. References Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, John Murray. Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(2): 109-178.
Evolution of Human Sex Differences
Charles Darwin, while offering a brilliant analysis of species development and change, struggled to understand human distinctions of race, class, and gender. In Darwin’s analysis, these distinctions arose from sexual selection processes. For example, he explained the presumably superior beauty of the aristocracy as due to upper class men successfully competing for and choosing the most attractive women from all social classes. Like Darwin, contemporary evolutionary psychologists explain men’s universally greater size and strength along with their tendencies toward psychological aggressiveness and competitiveness as due to sexual selection mechanisms of male competition and female choice. Modern evolutionary thinking has progressed beyond such a simple analysis, in part because evidence from comparative studies of primates questions whether human sex differences originated in sexual selection. The human male-female size difference is low in magnitude compared with other primate species, and species with low dimorphism have a large variety of behavioral patterns and social structures (Plavcan & van Schaik, 1997). In addition, both female and male size are products of multiple selection pressures. Such findings call for more complex evolutionary accounts of humans’ physical and psychological sex differences. Our evolutionary analysis of sex differences takes into account humans’ considerable behavioral flexibility in response to local circumstances. This characteristic feature of humans reflects their evolution in diverse environments with changeable conditions that impinged in differing ways on survival and reproductive outcomes (Wood & Eagly, 2002, in press). For example, in the late Pleistocene era, climate appears to have been highly variable. Also, humans and their ancestors engaged in extensive niche construction, meaning that their activities altered the environments in which they lived. Accommodating to such changes required behavioral flexibility, enabled by an evolved capacity for innovating and sharing information through social learning, yielding a cumulation of culture. Humans’ flexibility is evident in their various novel solutions to the problems of reproduction and survival, including tolerance for a wide range of foods, ecologies, and living arrangements. Given these selection pressures on human ancestors, sex differences in behavior arise flexibly from a biosocial interaction in which sociocultural and ecological forces interact with humans’ biology as defined by female and male physical attributes and reproductive activities (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Specifically, women bear and nurse children, and men possess greater size, speed, and upper-body strength. Given these attributes, a division of labor arises such that certain activities are more efficiently accomplished in certain societies by one sex than the other. For example, women are limited in their ability to perform certain tasks incompatible with childcare (e.g., requiring speed, uninterrupted activity). Therefore, women in foraging, horticultural, and agricultural societies generally eschew tasks such as hunting large animals, plowing, and conducting warfare. Nonetheless, under certain social conditions that lessen these constraints, women have taken on roles of warriors and hunters. Recently, the division of labor and gender hierarchy have become less pronounced, reflecting the declining importance of physical sex differences due to lowered birthrates and decreased importance of size and strength for high status roles. The resulting political and social changes give women access to a greater range of social roles and have altered female psychology. References Plavcan, J. M., & van Schaik, C. P. (1997). Interpreting hominid behavior on the basis of sexual dimorphism. Journal of Human Evolution, 32, 345–374. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origin of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Executive Director's Column Teaching the Science of the Origins of Life
|
JILL DENNER |
| Heather Kelly testifying before Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) and Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies. |
This process usually kicks off in February with the release of an Administration’s official budget request, but as is typical for new Administrations following an election year, a detailed fiscal year 2010 budget was not available in February this year. In anticipation of President Obama’s detailed request, both Congress and outside advocacy communities have been developing their own projections for the level of support needed at the VA to care for veterans and invest in the VA research program.
Although it can be tempting to stereotype the denizens of Capitol Hill as unduly partisan on all issues these days, veterans’ health and wellbeing is one priority area that traditionally brings Democrats and Republicans together. A commitment to veterans also brings the government relations staff of APA’s four directorates – Science, Practice, Education and Public Interest – together. Throughout the budget and appropriations process, APA staff who cover the intramural VA research program, veterans’ healthcare, training for VA psychologists, and concerns of special veteran populations look for opportunities to weigh in on these issues with members of Congress and their staff. We also work with other organizations through coalitions, such as the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research Coalition, meeting with key Hill offices, sending letters to relevant committees, talking with VA researchers across the country, hosting briefings on Capitol Hill, developing an independent fiscal year 2010 budget request, and writing official testimony for Congress (see the full written text of APA’s testimony).
All of these activities culminated in a powerful opportunity for APA’s Science Directorate to make its case for increasing VA research – in the span of five minutes. Along with fifteen other groups, APA was invited to testify before the House subcommittee during a special “Public Witness” hearing. Drawing upon my background both as a clinical psychologist and the daughter and granddaughter of career military officers, I made a case for investing in the VA’s research program and renovating existing VA research facilities. My colleagues and I will continue pushing for these funding increases throughout the appropriations process in the hopes of getting to a great punch line – a fiscal year 2010 budget for cutting-edge VA intramural research that translates directly into improved care for our nation’s veterans. We appear to be on our way already – at the official budget rollout on May 7, the Administration proposed $580 million for VA research, representing an increase in funding larger than any of the stakeholder groups and congressional committees had even considered possible.
Heather O’Beirne Kelly, PhD is a Senior Legislative & Federal Affairs Officer in the APA Science Directorate’s Government Relations Office. She covers psychological science issues at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, and National Science Foundation, and coordinates the APA Executive Branch Science Fellowship program. Follow her advocacy updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/heatherkellyphd.
Capitol Hill Poster Session Showcases NIH-Funded Behavioral and Social Science Research
By Pat Kobor
Staff from the American Psychological Association (APA), Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), and other scientific and advocacy organizations recently organized a combined poster session and reception on Capitol Hill, called National Institutes of Health: Improving the Nation’s Health through Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Held on April 28, the reception drew 43 posters from 19 of the NIH institutes, centers, and offices that fund behavioral science. In addition to federal scientists and research administrators, some NIH units brought in extramural scientists to discuss their research in person.
 |
| Over 200 congressional staffers, scientists and policymakers attended the April 28th poster session in the Cannon Caucus Room on Capitol Hill. Over 60 staff from the National Institutes of Health were on hand to discuss behavioral and social science research. |
More than 200 people attended the event, including congressional staff from both the House and Senate, representatives of advocacy organizations in the Washington area, as well as NIH staff. U.S. Representatives Tim Murphy (R-PA) and David Price (D-NC) also took in the posters and talked with NIH leaders, which included the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Tom Insel, and the Acting Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Alan Guttmacher.
 |
| U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) discusses presentations by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute with Karina Davidson, PhD, of Columbia University, and Gbenga Odedegbe, M.D., NYU Medical Center. |
The event was targeted to congressional staff who might not know much about behavioral and social sciences research, or the extent to which it is supported by NIH. In an essay in the program introducing the event, Christine Bachrach, Acting Director of the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences wrote “Behavioral research is an integral part of the NIH Mission: NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. An astounding 47% of all deaths have a preventable behavioral cause, including tobacco, poor diet and physical inactivity and sexual behaviors. NIH-funded behavioral and social scientists are working to improve the health of our nation by studying how biology, behavior and the social and physical environments dynamically interact and impact our health. Their research contributes to reducing tobacco use and smoking-related diseases, developing effective behavioral treatments for mental health disorders, preventing type II diabetes, and much more.”
 |
| U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) stops at a poster sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, “Transforming the Understanding and Treatment of Mental Illness through Research.” Keisha Shropshire, MPH, of NIMH explains the research. |
Every event that occurs in Congressional space must have a Congressional sponsor. For this event, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) was the working sponsor, helping with logistical details such as security clearances. Other sponsors who helped publicize the event to their congressional colleagues included Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). Thirty outside organizations sponsored the event – that is, they made contributions so the event could take place. In addition to APA and COSSA, those organizations included the Association of American Medical Colleges, Research! America, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Educational Research Association, American Sociological Association, Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research, Population Association of America, Society for Research in Child Development, and Society for Behavioral Medicine.
As the posters are made available, they will be posted on the websites of the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research and the Coalition for the Advancement of Health Through Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.
The following organizations provided posters for the event: The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and National Center for Research Resources.
Psychologists Elected to American Academy of Arts & Sciences
In April the American Academy of Arts and Sciences announced the election of 212 new fellows and nineteen foreign honorary members. Among those elected were fourteen psychologists:
 |
Nancy E. Adler |
 |
Judy Sprague DeLoache |
 |
Nancy Kanwisher |
 |
Jon Alexander Krosnick |
 |
Barbara Landau |
 |
Andrew N. Meltzoff |
 |
J. Anthony Movshon |
 |
David Premack |
 |
Robert Rosenthal |
 |
Dan I. Slobin |
 |
Philip E. Tetlock |
 |
Claes von Hofsten |
 |
James V. Wertsch |
 |
Timothy D. Wilson |
The full list of new fellows and members can be found at the Academy website. APA congratulates all of the newly elected scientists and scholars.
Psychologists Elected to National Academy of Science
On April 28, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences announced the election of 72 new members in “recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.” The group includes two psychologists:
 |
David E. Meyer |
 |
Shelley E. Taylor |
APA congratulates Dr. Meyer and Dr. Taylor along with all the other honorees. The complete list of scientists elected to the National Academy this year can be found here.
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
Academic Research Infrastructure Program: Recovery and Reinvestment (ARI-R²)
(NSF 09-562)
CISE Cross-Cutting Programs: FY 2010 (NSF 09-558)
Informal Science Education (ISE) (NSF 09-553)
Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS): Core Programs (NSF 09-557)
Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI-R²) (NSF 09-561)
Research Coordination Networks in Biological Sciences (RCN) (NSF 09-554)
Social-Computational Systems (SoCS) (NSF 09-559)
Urban Long-Term Research Area (ULTRA) Exploratory Awards (ULTRA-Ex)
(NSF 09-551)
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
Recovery Act Limited Competition: Academic Research Enhancement Award (R15)
(RFA-OD-09-007)
(multiple institutes)
Application deadline: September 24, 2009
Recovery Act 2009 Limited Competition: Enabling National Networking of Scientists and Resource Discovery (U24) (RFA-RR-09-009)
(National Center for Research Resources)
Application deadline: June 15, 2009
Recovery Act Limited Competition: NCMHD Community Participation in Health Disparities Intervention Research Planning Phase (R24)
(RFA-MD-09-006)
(National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities)
Application deadline: June 30, 2009
Recovery Act Limited Competition: NCMHD Exploratory Centers of Excellence (P20)
(RFA-MD-09-007)
(National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities)
Application deadline: July 1, 2009
Recovery Act Limited Competition: NCMHD Dissertation Research Award to Increase Diversity (R36)
(RFA-MD-09-008)
(National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities)
Application deadline: June 30, 2009
NIH Small Research Grant Program (Parent R03)
(PA-09-163)
(multiple institutes)
NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Program (Parent R21)
(PA-09-164)
(multiple institutes)
Notice of Intent to Publish a Request for Applications for The Human Connectome Project (U54) (NOT-MH-09-010)
(multiple institutes)
Translational Tools for Clinical Studies of CAM Interventions (SBIR [R43/R44])
(RFA-AT-09-004)
(National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine)
NCMHD Exploratory Centers of Excellence (P20) (RFA-MD-09-005)
(National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities)
NLM Applied Informatics Grants (G08) (RFA-LM-09-001)
(National Library of Medicine)
Microbicide Innovation Program (MIP V) (R21/R33) (RFA-AI-09-021)
(NIAID, NIMH, Office of Research on Women's Health)
Developmental Projects in Complementary Approaches to Cancer Care and Treatment (R21) (PA-09-167)
(NCI, NINR)
Developmental Projects in Complementary Approaches to Cancer Care and Treatment (R03) (PA-09-168)
(NCI)
Factors Affecting Cognitive Function in Adults with Down Syndrome (R01)
(RFA-HD-09-028)
(NICHD)
Research on Teen Dating Violence (R01) (PA-09-169)
(NICHD, NIAAA, NIDA, Office of Research on Women's Health)
Research on Teen Dating Violence (R21) (PA-09-170)
(NICHD, NIAAA, NIDA, Office of Research on Women's Health)
Nutrition Obesity Research Centers (P30) (RFA-DK-09-006)
(NIDDK)
Translational Research for the Prevention and Control of Diabetes and Obesity (R18)
(PAR-09-176)
(NIDDK, NICHD, OBSSR)
Planning Grants for Translational Research for the Prevention and Control of Diabetes and Obesity (R34)
(PAR-09-177)
(NIDDK, NICHD, OBSSR)
Modeling the Scientific Workforce (U01) (RFA-GM-10-003)
(NIGMS)
Rapid Assessment Post-Impact of Disaster (R03) (PAR-09-171)
(NIMH)
Rapid Assessment Post-Impact of Disaster (R21) (PAR-09-172)
(NIMH)
Pilot Intervention and Services Research Grants (R34) (PAR-09-173)
(NIMH)
Collaborative R01s for Clinical and Services Studies of Mental Disorders, AIDS and Alcohol Use Disorders (R01) (PAR-09-153)
(NIMH, NIAAA)
Women's Mental Health in Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period (R01)
(PA-09-174)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)
Women's Mental Health in Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period (R21)
(PA-09-175)
(NIMH, NICHD, NIDA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Career Development Grants in Occupational Safety and Health Research (K01)
(PAR-08-070)
(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)
NIOSH Small Research Grant Program (R03) (PAR-09-138)
(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)
NIOSH Exploratory and/or Developmental Grant Program (R21) (PAR-09-139)
(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)
Administration for Children and Families
Self-Sufficiency Research Clearinghouse (HHS-2009-ACF-OPRE-PD-0082)
Health Resources and Services Administration
MCH Autism Intervention Research (HRSA-09-217)
(Maternal and Child Health Bureau)
Department of Defense
DoD Gulf War Investigator-Initiated Research Award (W81XWH-09-GWIRP-IIRA)
(Army)
Deep Learning (DL) (DARPA-BAA-09-40)
(DARPA)
NRL Broad Agency Announcement (BAA-N00173-01)
(Navy)
- Adversarial Modeling And Decision Support (55-09-01)
- Artificial Intelligence Technologies (55-09-05)
Reorganization and Plasticity to Accelerate Injury Recovery (REPAIR)
(DARPA-BAA-09-27)
(DARPA)
Sciences Addressing Asymmetric Explosive Threats [Predict/Prevent Research Area]
(ONR BAA 09-022)
(Navy)
Department of Education
Reading for Understanding Research Initiative (CFDA 84.305F)
The U.S.-Russia Program: Improving Research and Educational Activities in Higher Education (ED-GRANTS-050809-001)
Department of Homeland Security
DHS Scientific Leadership Awards for Minority Serving Institutions Granting Bachelor Degrees (DHS-09-ST-062-002)
Department of Justice
Research on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
(OJJDP-2009-2228)
(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)
Fundamental Research to Improve Understanding of the Accuracy, Reliability, and Measurement Validity of Forensic Science Disciplines
(NIJ-2009-2229)
(National Institute of Justice)
Social Security Administration
Financial Literacy Research Consortium (FLRC) (SSA-ORP-09-1)
Mentorship Program for HIV/AIDS Behavioral Scientists
The APA Office on AIDS is seeking qualified mentors and mentees to participate in a two-year, distance-learning mentorship program designed to prepare doctoral-level behavioral and social scientists for careers as independent researchers in the area of HIV/AIDS and communities of color. The deadline for application materials is June 1, 2009.
This one-year-old program called Cyber Mentors, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), utilizes state-of-the-art, distance-learning technologies (e.g., webcasts, online classrooms) to assist mentees to achieve three major goals:
1) develop and implement a career development plan focused on building the capacity to conduct independent research in the area of HIV/AIDS and communities of color;
2) conceptualize, draft, and submit a high-quality research application for an appropriate NIH funding mechanism; and,
3) establish a mutually supportive network of professional colleagues with common research interests.
Click Here for Mentor Application Information
Click Here for Mentee Application Information
For additional information, contact John Anderson, APA Office on AIDS via email or phone: 202-336-6051.
Committee on Human Research: Call for Nominations
The Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is seeking nominations for a newly established APA continuing committee: Committee on Human Research (CHR).
The mission of this seven-member Committee is to facilitate research with human participants that complies with prevailing ethical principles and governmental regulations, and to examine issues regarding the formulation and implementation of such principles and regulations. Its purview encompasses such topics as confidentiality, decisional capacity, diversity of research populations, research dissemination, cross-disciplinary standards, international collaborations, and resource and data sharing. The new committee will also engage in educational and advocacy efforts in the realm of human research protections. One member of CHR will be selected from a slate developed jointly with the APA Ethics Committee and will serve as an active liaison to the Ethics Committee.
For further information including nomination instructions, please visit the committee web page or contact Sangeeta Panicker.
2010 APA Distinguished Scientific Awards Program: Call for Nominations
The American Psychological Association invites nominations for its scientific awards program for 2010.
The Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award honors psychologists who have made distinguished theoretical or empirical contributions to basic research in psychology.
The Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology honors psychologists who have made distinguished theoretical or empirical advances in psychology leading to the understanding or amelioration of important practical problems.
The Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology recognizes excellent young psychologists. For the 2010 program, nominations of persons who received doctoral degrees during and since 2000 are being sought in these five areas:
- animal learning and behavior, comparative
- psychopathology
- health
- developmental
- cognition/human learning
These categories should be interpreted broadly. APA encourages nominations of psychologists who are female and from underrepresented groups.
The deadline for submitting 2010 nominations is June 1, 2009. For more information visit the awards program web page.
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 web site or contact Rachel Martin via email or phone: (202) 336-5918.
Apply Now for an APA Advanced Training Institute
Applications are still being accepted for two of this summer’s APA Advanced Training Institutes (ATI). These intensive training programs expose new and established faculty, post-doctoral fellows, advanced graduate students, and other researchers to state-of-the-art research methods. More information can be found on the Science Directorate web site.
Non-Linear Methods for Psychological Science
June 9-13, 2009
University of CincinnatiExploratory Data Mining in Behavioral Research
July 20-24, 2009
University of Southern California
Applications are being accepted until seats are filled for these ATIs. Applications are available on the Science Directorate web site and must be submitted electronically through the program’s web site. For more information, contact the APA Science Directorate via email or phone (202) 336-6000.
F. J. McGuigan Dissertation Award: Call for Submissions
The American Psychological Foundation is seeking applications for the F.J. McGuigan Dissertation Award, which supports dissertation research on the human mind that adopts a materialistic empirical and theoretical approach. The research may address any aspect of mental function (e.g., cognition, affect, motivation) and should utilize behavioral and/or neuroscientific methods.
Award Amount: $2,000
Application Deadline: June 1, 2009
For more information, including eligibility requirements, see the full announcement or contact Emily Leary.
© 2009 American Psychological Association
Science Directorate
750 First Street, NE • Washington, DC • 20002-4242
Phone: 202-336-6000 • TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123
Fax: 202-336-5953 • E-mail
PsychNET® | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security | Advertise with us