sign in sign up
<<
Home , Comparative psychology, Neuroscientist

BUSINESS NAME The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative

Division 6, American Volume 25, Issue 2 Fall/Winter, 2010 Psychological Association

Editor A Message From Division 6 President Gordon Burghardt David J. Bucci, PhD Dartmouth College As incoming president of Division 6 I was not totally aware of what would be entailed. Now that I am in the thick of helping plan the APA convention program, facilitating the operation of our various Division President committees such as Membership, Fellows, Awards, Gordon Burghhardt, PhD Students, and others, I see that I, along with many other Div. 6 members, take for granted the ‗gift‘ we have as one of the oldest APA divisions and the sup- port and resources available to us from APA. None- theless, there are problems that we need to discuss both within and across the many APA Divisions. In Inside this issue: this and future newsletter essays I want to raise is- sues, present proposals, and try to elicit some feed- back and dialogue that can be discussed within our Message from 1, 4- division listserv [email protected] or through President 5 personal exchanges at [email protected]. In any event, vigorous conversations seem to be needed.

Membership Crisis & the Scientific Imperative APA council, but only one seat due to our small Division 6 2-3 The Division Services office of APA is concerned membership. Still, our impact on the field, as Officers about the health of all divisions, as many APA mem- shown by articles and research blurbs in the APA bers are not affiliating with any division and those Monitor and the flagship American Psychologist, belie remaining in divisions are rapidly aging and member- our small numbers. We need to make sure our colleagues realize that our work is at the core of Historian‘s 6-7 ship numbers are shrinking. The data are quite strik- ing. About two thirds of Division 6 members are 60 material on diverse topics covered in numerous Column or older! Also, membership has declined 13% in the ‗chapters‘ in basic courses. This is not last five years. Thus, it is important for Division 6 that true of the topics covered by many other divisions. In fact, the future health of psychology as a science Comparative Evolu- new members be recruited to both extend and en- 8-9 and practice is, I assert, dependent on the health of tionary Psychology: rich our field and to enhance our role and influence our research areas. While often recognized as such Forging Forward in APA councils and policy. Todd Shackelford, Mem- bership Committee chair, is working hard on recruit- outside of psychology, it is often not so recognized ment of new members and Division Services is plan- within psychology. This was made crystal clear to ning a major membership drive across all divisions me when I attended, as editor of the JCP, a ‗meet Encourage Your 10 the editors‘ session for the graduate student or- Colleagues and early in 2011. Division 6 is one of the oldest divisions of APA, ganization within APA at the San Francisco APA Students to Join convention in 2009. Division 6 in spite of name changes along the way. We repre- sent the basic science area of psychology in two im- It is also clear that rigorous and innovative portant areas: behavioral and compara- science is being stressed more and more by grant- Defending Animal 11 tive psychology. Each of these areas has major subdi- ing agencies, insurance companies, etc. and that Cognition Research visions and have historically been well-supported by therapies and social statements need to be supple- federal research. Two major journals are associated mented by rigorous research and scholarship. It is with the Division: and Journal telling that the American Anthropological Associa- of Comparative Psychology. Both journals are, signifi- tion just removed ‗science‘ from its mission state- ment, so as, apparently, not to offend those who cantly, APA journals and not divisional journals, which have lower status and receive less support than the see their role in anthropology as non-scientific frontline APA journals. We have representation on (continued on page 4) Page 2 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Division Officers & Committees 2010-2011

President: Gordon Burghardt, PhD Phone: (607) 777-4383 Department of Psychology e-mail: [email protected] University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 Past Early Career Representative: Kimberly Chris- Phone: (865) 974-3300 tian, Ph.D. e-mail: [email protected] Unit on the Genetics of Cognition and Behavior NIMH/MIH Past-President: Mark Bouton, Ph.D. 35 Convent Drive, Rm 1C1006 Department of Psychology Besthesda, MD 20892 University of Vermont Phone: (301) 402-6757 Burlington, VT 05405 Email: [email protected] Phone: (802) 656-4164 e-mail: [email protected] Current Student Representative: Sheri Browning Departments of Psychology President-Elect: Mauricio Papini University of Tennessee Mauricio R. Papini, PhD 1404 Circle Dr. Professor of Psychology Knoxville, TN 37996-0900 817-257-6084 Phone: (865) 974-3300 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Secretary/Treasurer: Mary Cain, Ph.D. Past Student Representative: Drina Vurbic Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Kansas State University The University of Vermont Manhattan, KS 66506 John Dewey Hall Phone: (785) 532-6884 Burlington, VT 05405 e-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Council Representative: Jeff Alberts, Ph.D. Awards Committee Chair: Matthew Cooper, PhD Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Indiana University Austin Peay Building Bloomington, IN 47405 University of Tennessee Phone: (812) 855-0470 Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 email: [email protected] Phone: (865)-974-3328 Email: [email protected] Current Member-at-Large: Mary Meagher, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Awards Committee Past Chair: D. Cody Brooks, Texas A&M University Ph.D. College Station, TX 77843 Department of Psychology Phone: (979) 845-2564 Dennison University e-mail: [email protected] Granville, OH 43023 Phone (740) 587-5683 Email: [email protected] Current Member-at-Large: Michael J. Beran, Ph.D. Language Research Center, Georgia State University Membership & Growth Committee Chair: Todd K. University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303 Shackelford, PhD Phone: (404)-413-5285 Department of Psychology Email: [email protected] Oakland University 112 Pryale Hall Past Member-at-Large: Lisa Savage, Ph.D. Rochester, Michigan 48309-4401 Department of Psychology Phone: (248) 370-2285 Binghamton University Email: [email protected] Binghamton, NY 13902 Volume 25, Issue 2 Page 3

Division Officers & Committees 2010-2011 (continued from page 2)

Membership & Growth Committee Past Chair: Past Newsletter Editor/Website Past Manager: Jonathan Crystal, Ph.D. Eric P. Wiertelak,PhD Department of Psychological and Sciences Department of Psychology Indiana University Macalester College 1101 East Tenth Street Saint Paul, MN 55105. Bloomington, IN 47405 Phone: (651) 696-6111 Phone: (812)-856-2246 email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Listserv Manager: Suzanne McDonald, PhD Program Committee Chair: Jesse Purdy, PhD Atkinson Faculty of Liberal & Professional Studies Department of Psychology 4700 Keele Street Southwestern University York University P. O. Box 770 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 Georgetown, TX, 78627-0770 Email: [email protected] Phone: (512) 863-1985 Email: [email protected] Division Historian/ Archivist: Gary Greenberg, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Program Committee Past Chair: Jeansok Kim, Ph.D. Wichita State University Department of Psychology 4447 N. Malden St. T-471 Health Sciences Center Chicago, IL 60640 University of Washington Phone: (773) 728-6159 Seattle, WA 98195-7270 e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (206) 616-2685 Email: [email protected] Editor of Behavioral Neuroscience: Mark S. Blum- berg, Ph.D. Fellows Nominating Committee Chair: Charles Department of Psychology Snowdon, PhD University of Iowa Department of Psychology E11 Seashore Hall University of Wisconsin Madison University of Iowa 510 Psychology Iowa City, Iowa 52242 1202 West Johnson St. Phone: (319) 335-2424 Madison, WI 53706-1611 Email: [email protected] Phone: (608) 262.1041 Email: [email protected] Editor of the Journal of Comparative Psychology: Fax: (608) 262.4029 Gordon M. Burghardt, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Fellows Nominating Committee Past Chair: Mark University of Tennessee Stanton, Ph.D. Knoxville, TN 37996 Department of Psychology Phone: (865) 974-3300 132A Wolf Hall e-mail: [email protected] University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 Phone: (302) 831-0175 Email: [email protected] Fax: (302) 831-3645

Current Newsletter Editor/Website Manager: David Bucci, Ph.D. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: (603) 646-3439 Page 4 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

President’s Message (continued from page 3)

humanists or social activists for which ‗science‘ sources are needed. Such resources are not is an obstacle. I view such proposals as warning going to come from our division dues or the signs that antagonism to science comes from APA central office. We need to be proactive. the left as well as the right. While such anti- One way is to obtain foundation and other science rhetoric has not been enshrined in support outside the APA. This may eventually APA yet, I have heard intimations to the effect be worthwhile, but I have a challenge for my that ‗you have APS and APA needs to colleagues. As mentioned above, our member- be a more inclusive umbrella.‘ ship is aging. This is certainly not a good thing Such fears may not be unfounded even in in the long run, but it does mean that our Division 6 areas as not many years ago there membership has many experienced senior fac- were movements to censor scientific studies of ulty and researchers. Many of us also may have behavior with the Science for the People at- the time and resources to promote the division tacks on E. O. Wilson and in gen- and help fund a legacy that will allow us to eral that were supported, if not instigated, by jumpstart renewed growth by making member- leading at Harvard and elsewhere. ship in the division more rewarding and valu- Neuroscience research is still being still at- able for younger people, who are often enticed tacked by animal rights activists, whose outra- and channeled into more narrowly focused geous acts at leading psychology research insti- professional societies. tutions, such as the University of Iowa, have At the APA meeting in San Diego I met largely gone unsolved and unpunished. Parent with a representatives of the APA Foundation and lay groups have attacked the on the process for establishing an endowment science behind immunizations and behavioral fund, which can be used for all kinds of Division interventions. Industry groups have vilified 6 activities including student support, providing research and researchers studying the possible grants and awards to members, subsidizing toxicity and behavioral/hormonal consequences travel expenses, and so forth. The APF handles of common chemicals used in animal caging and all investments, tax filings, charitable registra- human plastic products. Studies of habitats and tions, accounting, etc. This saves divisions not space requirements to prevent more species only lots of hassles but also lots of money. from going extinct or saving those already en- Several divisions have already established funds dangered are often questioned. Hunting and with the APF. The funds have averaged a 12% fishing impact behavior, reproduction, and se- return, though did suffer a loss in 2008. Basi- lection in many ways that certain quarters, cally, our money will be well managed and safe. including within government agencies, too of- The bad news is that we have to make ten ‗refudiate.‘ It is not only creationists, intelli- some rather steep financial commitments. In gent design proponents, and climate change brief, the process is as follows. In order to deniers who are out to manipulate science, us up the APF needs us to commit to obtaining attack researchers, or, if necessary, deny the from members $100,000. This is to come from relevance of science to understanding and re- current members who are committed enough solving problems that we face. to the organization to donate funds. The good All this means that research in our fields news is that only 20% or $20,000 is necessary often confronts public policy and politics in to get the fund established. Then we have a full ways few of us ever thought would concern us five subsequent years to reach the 100K when we entered the field. By bringing in more amount. Elizabeth Straus, Executive Director of young people into the Division we will be able the APF, suggested that if we had several peo- to be more effective in dealing with such issues. ple commit to contributing $10,000 over 5 Members should encourage not only their years ($2000/yr) we could reach the goal. young colleagues, but also graduate students, All contributions are tax deductible. If we to become involved in division activities and do not reach the 20K needed to establish the membership. So here are some proposals for (continued next page) discussion. fund we will not proceed, of course. If we reach the threshold, I will then contact the APF American Psychological Foundation and start the process with them. So no money For us to really work well as an organiza- changes hands until that time. tion fostering research, supporting colleagues, The question now is how many of us are and rewarding excellence it is clear that re- (continued on page 5) Volume 25, Issue 2 Page 5 willing to commit to this endeavor? I will commit $5000 im- research program talks by authors of the 2009 best paper mediately to get things rolling on the way to the first 20K. All awards for both Behavioral Neuroscience and the Journal of Com- donors receive information from the APF, including invest- parative Psychology. ment principles, before executing an agreement with them. We negotiate an agreement with the APF as to what happens Final Word to the funds if we establish a fund, but do not reach the 100K Many thanks for reading this and being attentive to Division goal in 5 years. So please, think about what you can do to help 6 activities. I hope many of you will attend the APA meeting in us get started with the initial 20K and down the line as well. Washington, DC next August, even if you are not on our pro- You can contact me privately or make comments on our gram, and attend our sessions, including the event at the Na- listserve about this initiative. I would consider it a signal ac- tional Zoo. We have fine social events as well. complishment of my presidency if we can get this started, if I hope the holidays go well for everyone and that 2011 will not completed, during my term in office. With your support I be a fine one for each of us personally and also our field. Al- am willing to devote time to make it happen. But, I especially though the coming political winds may be disruptive and de- need help from those of you nearing or entering retirement structive, our firm foundation should weather any storms. and looking for ways to make a difference with your re- sources accumulated from a lifetime in psychology doing what you love. Helping a small organization in which even a modest donation will have a great and more individualized impact than donations to a larger entity should be considered a plus. I will Awards Nomination Deadline certainly encourage our Division website to keep posted in Extended!! perpetuity a list of all donors, highlighting ‗Charter Donors‘ to our fund, if we can get the fund established.

Thoughts please! The Milner and Morgan Awards have received few nominations this year. The awards committee needs your The APA Convention help with award nominations. Please nominate your col- There may be other ways of revitalizing our division. leagues, former students, and former mentors! Send nomi- Other divisions, such as Division 3, have generated proposals nations for these awards to Matthew Cooper by January 14, including about the annual APA convention that merit atten- 2011 via email ([email protected]) or regular mail tion as well. Having started to attend the convention again recently, after a long hiatus, I have been very impressed with (Department of Psychology, 312 Austin Peay Building, Uni- the great depth and diversity of presentations and increased versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0900). In your ease of navigating to sessions, especially those sponsored by nomination please include the name of your nominee, the other divisions, but highly relevant to our members. Obvi- award for which you are nominated them, and a brief state- ously we all have diverse interests, but I have usually found ment of support. more sessions that I want to attend than it is possible to go to! I also have met leaders in research areas that I would not The Brenda A. Milner Award recognizes the author of run into at typical society conferences. an outstanding paper in the field of behavioral neuroscience Scheduling overlap has been somewhat of a problem, or comparative psychology. The nominee must be a mem- however, as APA puts together the programs submitted by the divisions, as well as the central office, and intelligent coor- ber of Division 6 and within five years of having received dination has not always prevailed. APA is aware of these con- their Ph.D. at the time of award nomination. The paper cerns, and Jess Purdy, Program Chair, and I are striving to must be currently in press or have been published within make sure that these problems will be minimized this year. the same five year window. The paper may be co-authored, Last August we had symposia on Machine in the but the applicant must be the senior author and the paper Brain; Comparative Psychology of Learning; Sugar, Sex, and must represent original work of the applicant. Please in- Stress (hormones and ); Spatial Memory of Fear and clude a copy of the paper if it is not yet published or readily Reward; Hippocampus Research; and Recent Advances in the available. Recent recipients include Jessie Peissig, Michael Neurobiology of Associative Memory as well as the Hebb Beran, Kimberly Christian, Nichole Avena, and Bradley Award Address by , Mark Bouton‘s Presi- dential Address, and a poster session among other events. Sturz. (Nonmembers may apply for Division 6 membership This year the program is up to have a somewhat more at the time of their nomination). behavior and comparative focus, and we are planning to have a special ape research event for Divi- The Clifford T. Morgan Distinguished Service to sion 6 members at the National Zoo. Symposia are planned Division 6 Award recognizes members of Division 6 who on recent technological advances in studying behavior, espe- have made sustained and exceptional contributions to the cially in the field, comparative , and Division in both scholarly work and service. Recent recipi- progress in captive studies of nontraditional species (in con- ents include Karen Hollis, Nancy Dess, Sangeeta Panicker, junction with the National Zoo). In addition to the Hebb Award address there will be a senior Fellow‘s lecture and and Eric Wiertalak. Page 6 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Historian’s Column Gary Greenberg,

psychology, strongly influenced by early 20th century Func- tionalists (e.g., , John Dewey), believed be- havior allowed organisms to adapt to their environments (i.e., Darwinism); behavior itself was not an evolved phe- Comparative Psychology and nomenon, though the organism was. Thus, as organisms changed through , new or different behavioral (To appear in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learn- potentials arose. Ethologists, on the other hand, under- ing, Springer) stood behavior itself to be an evolved process, the route being genes –> , or inherited behaviors. In later Definition years this one-way route, from genes to behavior, became Comparative Psychology and Ethology are both sciences which to be known as the Central Dogma of Molecular . study animal behavior, typically non-human behavior, though both Additionally, while comparative psychology tended to have often studied humans. Comparative Psychology is a sub- engage primarily in laboratory research, ethology empha- discipline of psychology and ethology of biology. Both can trace their sized the significance and importance of studying behavior th roots to the late 19 century. Depending on which history one reads outside the laboratory, in the natural settings. the first comparative psychologist was Pierre Flourens, a protégé of These two fundamentally different approaches to the Baron Cuvier or George John Romanes, a friend and student of study of behavior lead to a serious intellectual and theo- . Flourens‘ book title represented the first use of the retical ―war‖ around the 1950s. Ethology advocated the term, Comparative Psychology (Psychologie Comparée, 1864) and pre- position that behavior was a biological phenomenon, deter- dated Romanes‘ Animal (1882). Both proposed a science mined, and not merely influenced by the organism‘s geno- which would compare animal and human behavior, Romanes postu- type; much animal behavior was thus believed to be in- lating the existence of a gradient of mental processes and intelligence stinctive. Indeed, Lorenz, whose mentor was Oskar Heni- from the simplest animals to man - the comparative approach much roth, and Tinbergen spelled out the full of what in use today. Romanes strengthened his proposal by a vast collection instinctive behavior was. The clearest statement of this is of anecdotal accounts of clever behavior in dozens of animal species. found in Tinbergen‘s book, The Study of (1951), Though perhaps best known today for the fallacies of his anecdotal Comparative , on the other hand, tended to method and for his easy assignment of human mental faculties to take an epigenetic approach, stressing the importance of animals----Romanes nevertheless succeeded in development, experience, and other psychological proc- establishing his idea of a gradient of mental processes across the ani- esses. The differences were summarized in an important mal kingdom as a basic premise of early comparative psychology. paper by Daniel Lehrman (1953), which today still repre- Ethology too has a mixed parentage. Isidore Geoffroy-Saint-Hillaire sents one of the best critiques of instinct theory. While first used the term in 1859, though Oskar Heinroth, a late 19th cen- healthy, the ensuing debates settled little. It was an impor- tury German was one of the first to apply the methods of tant 1966 book by Robert Hinde (Animal behaviour: A syn- comparative morphology to animal behavior; he is thus considered to thesis of ethology and comparative psychology) that seemed be one of the founders of ethology. to resolve the differences between these two opposing Both disciplines had many adherents in the early and middle views. Indeed, a later 1981 book by the ethologist S. A. parts of 20th century: Comparative Psychology in the United States Barnett (Modern ethology: The science of animal behavior) under the influence of the learning psychologists (e.g., , was able to discuss the discipline without resorting to ), the behaviorists (e.g., Zing-Yang Kuo, John Wat- instinct explanations. son, B. F. Skinner), and the epigeneticists (e.g., T. C. Schneirla, Daniel Lehrman, Ethel Tobach, Gilbert Gottlieb); while Ethology became Important Scientific Research and Open Questions firmly established after WWII in Europe under the influence of biolo- The two disciplines historically sparred over the na- gists such as William Thorpe, Nikko Tinbergen, and . ture-nurture issue: Was behavior a biological or a psycho- The latter two, in fact, were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine logical phenomenon? Endless debates over this issue have (there is no separate prize for behavioral research) in 1972 for their yet to see it formally resolved. Contemporary reports of animal behavior studies (they shared this prize with , the discovery of a gene for a behavior are routinely re- an early 20th century biologist). tracted following failures to replicate such findings - but the search continues. This is as true in psychology as it is Theoretical Background in biology, though many in both camps understand Given the biological roots of both comparative psychology and ethology, evolution was seen to an important role in behavioral (continued on page 7) origins by both disciplines, though in different ways. Comparative Volume 25, Issue 2 Page 7 behavior to be a biopsychosocial phenomenon. The signifi- the result of genetic and biological determinism. To many oppo- cance of both psychological and biological development, long nents of sociobiology, psychology was not a biological science at ignored, is now seen to be crucial to a full understanding of all, but a uniquely psychological science (e.g., Greenberg, 2007). behavioral origins. And, though studied now for well over 100 The intellectual sparks flew for years, well into the end of years, there are still new developments to be found in the the 20th century which witnessed the appearance of a still new area of learning. iteration of ethology, Evolutionary Psychology. This approach focuses primarily on human behavior and posited that we owe Current Status our universal nature to evolutionary adaptations faced by our While Comparative Psychology grew in America, ethol- Pleistocene ancestors that we have inherited in our genomes. A ogy remained somewhat stagnant in Europe. Many still identi- good source for reviewing the tenets and the research con- fied with the discipline, though it was clear that they had aban- ducted in this field is The Handbook of evolutionary psychology doned the hard nosed biological determinism of the classical (Buss, 2005). With evolutionary psychology, instincts are once ethologists. Beginning in 1944 with the initiation of the Ameri- again in vogue. As with ethology and sociobiology, evolutionary can Psychological Association‘s divisional structure, compara- psychology is not without its critics (e.g, Honycutt & Lickliter, tive psychology had a home in Division 6, Physiological Psy- 2003). It is not the application of evolution to behavior that is at chology and Comparative Psychology. In the 1990s, in an ef- question, but the manner in which it is understood to apply to fort to attract new members, the division entered into discus- behavioral origins. Evolutionary Psychology, though seen by sion of a name change - the important point for the present many to be seriously flawed, is a rather popular orientation in discussion was the retention of ―comparative psychology‖ in the contemporary behavioral sciences. After all, what serious the new name adopted at the 1995 APA meeting, Behavioral in 2010 can object to the significance of evolution to Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology. While member- psychology? ship in Division 6 was falling, Comparative Psychology as a There has also been new life breathed into ethology and field of study remained healthy as illustrated by the appear- sociobiology. The sociobiological idea of the genetic basis of ance of several comparative psychology societies in the clos- human has recently been somewhat retracted by one of ing years of the 20th century: The Southwestern Comparative its earliest proponents, E. O. Wilson. While this is comforting Psychology Association (founded in 1983 by Michael Domjan, news to many non-reductionistic comparative psychologists and Del Thiessen, Steve Davis and Gary Greenberg); the Com- other animal behaviorists, it doesn‘t sit well with all students of parative Cognition Society (founded in 1994 by Ron Weisman, behavior (Marshall, 2010) attesting to the staying power of the Mark Bouton, Marcia Spetch and Ed Wasserman; and the classical ideas of ethology. In a recent analysis Salzen (2010) International Society for Comparative Psychology (founded in makes a case for interpreting the ideas of ethology in modern 1983 by Ethel Tobach and Gary Greenberg). An even earlier neuroscientific terms. There is in fact a discipline known as group, the International Society for Developmental Psychobi- ―,‖ which describes animal behavior in terms of ology, was founded in 1967 by George Collier, Norman how the works. As a comparative psychologist, I Spear, Bryon Campbell, John Paul Scott and others. The an- take comfort in the staying power of my discipline. Its history nual and biennial meetings of these societies attract animal has been long, though not nearly as tumultuous as that of ethol- behavior researchers from several disciplines across the ogy. globe; their membership is also international. There are, of course, several other such societies in countries around the Barlow, G.W. (1989). Has sociobiology killed ethology or revitalized it? world. In P. P. G. Bateson and P. H. Klopfer (Eds). Perspectives in ethology. Vol- The picture was not so rosy for ethology which seemed ume 8. Whither ethology? (pp. 1-45). New York: Plenum Press. to languish in the same period. This was likely because, ―The Buss, D. M. (Ed.) (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. simple truth is that ethology never did deliver as a science of Greenberg, G. (2007). Why psychology is not a biological science: Gil- comparative behavior...‖ (Plotkin, 2004, p. 105). Indeed, in bert Gottlieb and probabilistic epigenesis. European Journal of Develop- 1989 ethology was declared:...dead, or at least senescent. That mental Science, 1, 111-121. is, if you think of ethology in the narrow sense – the study of Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process. Chicago: University of Chicago animal behavior as elaborated by Konrad Lorenz, Nikolas Press. Tinbergen, and Karl von Frisch. It has been quiescent for Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz‘s theory of instinct. some time. No exciting ideas were emerging, and data gather- Quarterly Review of Biology, 28, 337-363. Lickliter, R. & Honeycutt, H. (2003). Developmental dynamics: toward a ing on key issues had lost its direction... [Barlow, 1989, p. 2]. biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. Psychological bulletin, 129, However, the biological study of animal behavior has st 819-835. thrived well into the 21 century. Ethology was reborn in the Lustig, A., Richards, R. J. & Ruse, M. (Eds.) (2004). Darwinian heresies. early 1970s as a new science, that of Sociobiology (Wilson Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1975), the goal of which was to biologicize the social sciences. Marshall. M. (2010). Sparks fly over origin of altruism. New Scientist, No. But this blatant attempt at understanding animal and human 2780, October 2, 8-9. behavior as a purely biological phenomenon was met with Salzen, E. (2010). Whatever happened to ethology? The case for the scathing criticism (Hull, 1988; Lustig, Richards & Ruse, 2004) in psychology. History and , 12, from numerous quarters. The main point of contention cen- Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer- tered around the continuing nature/nurture issue and the sity Press. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: question of whether behavior, especially human behavior, was Harvard University Press. Page 8 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Comparative Evolutionary Psychology: Forging Forward

Jennifer Vonk, University of Southern Mississippi Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University

Recently, comparative psychology has witnessed an explosion of ary psychologists have incorporated advances in cognitive research into previously ―discouraged‖ topic areas such as conscious- science, , , ness and metacognition in non-humans as phylogenetically distant linguistics, cultural anthropology, sociobiology, and ethol- from humans as cephalopods (Mather, 2008), (Foote & Crystal, ogy, and yet work from an overarching theoretical frame- 2007), and pigeons (Sutton & Shettleworth, 2008). Freed from the work. The basic processes of natural selection and sexual shackles of strict , comparative psychologists have had selection can explain both human and non-human mating license to explore topics that were previously restricted to humans, practices (Buss, 1989, 1994), sex differences in spatial and sometimes, human‘s closest living relative – the chimpanzee. abilities (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995), attractiveness Indeed, empirical investigations of were historically (Burke & Sulikowski, 2010) investment in offspring restricted to chimpanzees, rhesus macaques, pigeons, and the white (Alvergne, Faurie, & Raymond, 2009), and so on. Com- (hearty species that thrived in laboratories). When other species parative psychologists, while unequivocally but sometimes were probed for cognitive abilities, often studies focused on only a only implicitly accepting evolutionary theory, have not single or a few members of that species; , the African grey parrot always placed their work within the same overarching (Pepperberg, 2002), Betty, the New Caledonian Crow (Weir, Chap- framework, and sometimes take esoteric side trips, inves- pell & Kacelnik, 2002), Kanzi, the bonobo (Savage-Rumbaugh & tigating questions that, while interesting, do little to ex- Lewin, 1994) and so on (although studies with these species have plain the forces giving rise to various traits or behaviors in since been extended to other members of their species). different populations. For instance, why should elephants exhibit mirror self-recognition (Plotnik, deWaal, & Reiss, Although we applaud efforts in the field to expand the species of 2006)? study and the questions and topics under investigation, much would be gained by returning to the lessons of methodological behaviorists Although both comparative and evolutionary psy- and logical positivists, who fought to place psychology among the chologists are interested in the mechanisms underlying sciences. We see the trend in animal research, particularly with re- psychological capacities and behavioral traits exhibited by gards to cognitive research, as striving to highlight similarities with various species and specific human and non-human popula- human traits and abilities. That is, the focus has been on cognitive tions, and the evolutionary forces that gave rise to such continuity, and equally interesting discontinuities have sometimes traits and behaviors, these two fields have taken some- been lost in the shuffle (see also Vonk & Povinelli, 2006). The ap- what disparate trajectories, rather than culminating in a proach of seeking evidence for human-like traits in non-human spe- single field of study. We propose that much would be cies has sometimes been deemed the ―Holy Grail‖ approach to com- gained if the fields were merged into a new science of parative psychology (Povinelli & Vonk, 2004). We propose that, in- Comparative Evolutionary Psychology. The goals would re- stead, investigators focus on species‘ ecological and social environ- main— the new science would explore the ultimate and ments and ask what abilities and traits make sense within that con- proximate causes of behavior in humans and their close text. We should certainly consider whether existing capacities are and distant relatives, and the relatively newfound apprecia- similar to or different from traits with closely or distantly related tion for an eclectic approach to empirical questions and species; it is precisely such considerations that allow us to speculate methodologies would be retained. However, a return to as to the evolutionary forces at work behind the emergence of these strict adherence to the objectivity of the past is needed if traits. However, researchers should not be motivated by the desire we are to move forward with any kind of credibility as an to find evidence for particular patterns of behaviors simply because impartial science. This means that we must embrace the those behaviors exist in other organisms, particularly humans, and very nature of evolution—an appreciation for both conti- especially if there is no ecologically-relevant to find such be- nuity and discontinuity, even in closely-related species haviors in the species in question. Instead, we should look to see such as humans and other great apes. In doing so, we may what behaviors and abilities the animal does exhibit— have to abandon holy grail type pursuits and be open to not design our tasks with a predetermined goal in question or ―stack finding evidence for abilities that our closest relatives have the deck‖ to find evidence for traits that have not yet appeared in that we do not, and vice versa. We may also find evidence natural environments. An unbiased approach is more likely to illumi- for human-like abilities in distantly-related species. We nate both parallel and convergent evolutionary processes. must adopt more open-minded approaches to our studies, such that we do not grasp firmly on to ―preferred hy- On that note, comparative psychologists could take heed from potheses‖ that fit dogma, but rather are willing to formu- evolutionary psychologists who have remained focused on the larger late new theories and hypotheses that emerge from a goals of identifying the mechanisms underlying both human and non- consideration of an animal‘s evolutionary history. human behavior at both the ultimate and proximate levels. Evolution- (continued page 9) Volume 25, Issue 2 Page 9

In our forthcoming volume, the Oxford Handbook of Com- to abandon the idea that other species are most valuable when parative Evolutionary Psychology, we have brought together an they most closely approximate humans (cf. Savage-Rumbaugh & exemplary group of contributors who embrace this approach Lewin, 1994). By doing so, we can better appreciate the diversity to science, although they have presented diverse viewpoints of life on this planet, and we will be better positioned to under- on these and other timely issues in the field. Contributors stand the processes of evolution—as they apply to both the discuss cognitive specializations in cephalopods (Mather), behavior and psychology of organisms. Thus, comparative evolu- cetaceans (Jaakola), reptiles (Wilkinson & Huber), corvids (van tionary psychology can be a single united field for the study of Horik, Clayton & Emery), canines (Miklosi & Topal) and pri- evolved traits in all species. mates (Cartmill & Maestripieri), as well as humans (Dunbar & Sutcliffe; Sell). We selected for inclusion several ―hot topic‖ Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2009). Father–offspring resem- areas in the field today in which researchers are tackling chal- blance predicts paternal investment in humans. Animal Behaviour, 78, 61- lenging issues by working with multiple species and various 69. methodologies. For instance, forays into the field of memory, Boyd, R., & Richerson, P.J. (1985). Culture and evolutionary process. Chi- cago: The University of Chicago Press. particularly episodic memory and metacognition, return us to Burke, D., & Sulikowski, D. (2010). A new viewpoint on the evolution of the century-old query: is man alone in pondering his own sexually dimorphic human faces. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 573-585. existence and reflecting on his past? Contributions from Raby Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolu- and Clayton; Smith, Coutinho, Boomer, and Beran; Crystal; tionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, and Feeney and Roberts update the reader on the many excit- 12, 1-49. ing developments and controversies in this area. Building on Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. the seminal work of Vygotsky (1978) and Boyd and Richerson New York: Basic Books. (1985), Tomasello (2000) has suggested that human culture is Foote, A.L., & Crystal, J.D. (2007). Metacognition in the rat. Current Biology, 17, 551-555. the foundation for uniquely human cognition, such as the full Mather, J.A. (2008). Cephalopod : Behavioral evidence. suite of theory of and co-operation. The volume in- Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 17, 37-48. cludes a section of the most up to date research on prosocial- Pepperberg, I.M. (2002). Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey ity (Silk & House), cooperation (Warnken & Melis), culture parrots. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 83-87. (Hopper & Whiten; Mesoudi & Jensen), (Subiaul), Plotnik, J.M., DeWaal, F.B.M., & Reiss, D. (2006). Mirror self recognition and morality (Sheskin & Santos) in both humans and non- in an Asian elephant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, humans (Boesch). Communication has also been a central 17053-17057. area of study for centuries. Without the ability to communi- Povinelli, D.J., & Vonk, J. (2004). We don‘t need a microscope to explore the chimpanzee‘s mind. Jointly published in Mind and Language, 19, 1-28, cate, many other abilities would be meaningless, or useless. and S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational animals (2006). New York: Much public interest has centered on the question of whether Oxford University Press. any other species has a language that comes close to that of Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Lewin, R., (1994). Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of humans. Such questions are addressed by Lyn and Pepperberg the Human Mind. Wiley. regarding apes and parrots, respectively. Cartmill and Maes- Sutton, J. E., & Shettleworth,S. J. (2008). Memory without aware- tripieri address the gestural communication in apes, and ness: Pigeons do not show metamemory in delayed matching-to- Zuberbuhler reviews the work on communication, sample. Journal of : Animal Behavior Processes,34, focusing largely on studies conducted in the wild. Cocroft 266-282. Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, provides insight into the fascinating world of social insects and MA: Harvard University Press. how communication serves vital functions for these species— Vonk, J., & Povinelli, D.J. (2006). Similarity and difference in the concep- in sub-serving mating behaviors. Barrett, and Radenovich and tual systems of : The unobservability hypothesis. In Andrews lead off the volume with thoughtful essays on where E.Wasserman and T. Zentall (Eds.), Comparative cognition: Experimental the field should and could go while Cheney and Seyfarth and explorations of animal intelligence (pp. 363-387). New York: Oxford Uni- Shettelworth close out the volume with provocative contribu- versity Press.. tions summarizing the past, present, and future of comparat Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, P.M., (1995). Magnitude of sex differ- ive evolutionary psychology. ences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA. These extraordinary scientists epitomize the approach to Weir, A.A.S., Chappell, J., & Kacelnik, A. (2002). Shaping of hooks in comparative evolutionary psychology that we advocate. Most New Caledonian crows. Science 297, 981 work with a variety of species and many adopt both field and laboratory studies, adopting multifaceted approaches to their questions of interest. To advance both fields together, we suggest that more progress will be made if researchers are MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT open to methodologies and approaches of those in closely related disciplines and who work from different perspectives. IBNS 20th Annual Meeting To practice this open-minded perspective, we suggest dissem- Sheraton Steamboat Resort bling the barriers that arose with the construction of false dichotomies between nature/nurture, behaviorism/nativism, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA field/laboratory, ideographic/nomographic, and human/non- May 24-29, 2011 human research, and most importantly, perhaps, a willingness http://www.ibnshomepage.org Page 10 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Encourage Your Colleagues and Students to Join Division 6!

Division 6 members are devoted to studying the biology of behavior. Their focus is on behavior and its re- lation to , learning, memory, cognition, , and . Behavioral neuroscientists study the brain in relation to behavior, its evolution, functions, abnormalities, and repair, as well as its interac- tions with the immune system, cardiovascular system, and energy regulation systems. Comparative psycholo- gists study the psychology and behavior of humans and other animals, with special interest in similarities and differences that may shed light on evolutionary, ecological, and developmental processes.

Established in 1944, when APA initiated its divisional structure, Division 6, using the name ― and Comparative Psychology,‖ was among the original divisions included in APA‘s reorganiza- tion. The first three Division presidents were Donald G. Marquis, Donald B. Lindsley, and Clifford T. Mor- gan. Among the many distinguished earlier psychologists elected president of Division 6 are Frank Beach, , , James Olds, and Frances Graham. The Division‘s participation in the annual meetings and contributions to journals has been consistently high. Current members remain dedicated to enhancing knowledge of the nervous system and its mediation of behavior across species. The forums for achieving this commitment include meetings, publications, and involvement with APA‘s Science Directorate and Governing Board.

A comprehensive history of Division 6 has been written by Don Dewsbury: Dewsbury, D.A. (1996). A History of Division 6 (Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychol- ogy): Now you see it, now you don‘t, now you see it. In D.A. Dewsbury (Ed.) Unification through division: Histories of the divisions of the American Psychological Association (pp. 41-65). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Please encourage your colleagues and students to join us in Division 6! You can direct them to the membership section of our Division website: http://www.apa.org/divisions/div6/mbrinfo.html. There they can download an application, which they can send via email (or postal mail or fax) to Todd K. Shackelford, Division 6 Membership Chair.

There are many why your colleagues and students might wish to join our Division. Here are 10 of them: Share professional knowledge Make new friends in the field Receive the latest journals and newsletters in the field Get published Enhance skills Collaborate with colleagues—Co-publish, Co-present, Co-chair, etc. Advocate for psychologists‘ input into social policy Engage in the new division social networking sites (Beginning in 2011) Be recognized with awards, grants, Fellows status Find and/or be a mentor

Thank you for your support of Division 6!

Page 11 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist Defending Animal Cognition Research, and Keeping in the Barn Michael J. Beran

As has no doubt happened with many of you, my email The moral of the Clever Hans story is twofold: the inbox has filled these past few weeks with messages from main point, and one that bears repeating loudly and fre- colleagues and non-scientist friends asking about misconduct quently, is that we must carefully design today‘s paradigms and animal cognition research. Frustrating as it is to re- for assessing animal behavior and cognition so that they do spond to those questions, more concerning issues arise from not offer the same kinds of cues to animals that were there media speculations wondering whether animal cognition for Hans. Frankly, some researchers seem to have forgot- research will be damaged by recent events. With funding as ten (or never realized) this important point. Papers now tight as it is for comparative psychologists and animal cogni- appear more and more frequently in which investigators tion researchers, the last thing we need is the perception present animals with discrete choices, and they record the that our methodologies are weak, that our analyses are choices themselves. There are some attempts made to flawed, or that our interpretations are exaggerated. It is one avoid the most blatant cues, with the wearing of hats or thing to reassure everyone that the field remains strong, but sunglasses, or never making eye contact with the animals. another to convince them of that fact. This set me to think- This is good, but it is not enough. If the person scoring the ing about current practices in animal cognition research, and response knows the correct answer, and the animal subject what we might try to improve so that its reputation remains can see that person, cuing is possible, and I would argue strong. Obviously, ethical conduct in research is critical. that the data cannot be trusted completely. It is crucial This goes without saying, but it also goes without saying that that at least some trials be given in which the person scor- most in our field already conduct themselves ethically. So, I ing the response cannot know whether it is correct or not, am not going to discuss that issue. Instead, I want to focus or that the animal subject making the response cannot see on the mistakes that even highly ethical researchers can still an experimenter who does know the correct choice and make, and how those mistakes can threaten our science. records the response of the animal. Short of this, concerns Much of this is old news for those of you reading this article, could be raised about the data, and reviewers should be but it is offered as a call to arms to renew our commitment more stringent in requiring these controls. But, more and to the ideas below, and to promote them to any of our col- more frequently, they are not. Papers are published with- leagues who do animal cognition research but who may not out these controls, and even more concerning is that it have a background in experimental and comparative psychol- seems as if some students are not even aware of this need. ogy. As members of Division 6, we bear the burden of pro- I recently experienced this multiple times when listening to tecting the integrity of behavioral, neuropsychological, and students outline their plans for a research project contain- cognitive research with animals, and I believe this requires ing no controls for the potential cuing of animals. And, addressing the concerns I raise below. even worse, students sometimes struggle to understand the One thing that has slowly begun to rear its ugly head need for such controls, making the mistake of assuming that again in animal cognition research is the potential for inad- if someone else also codes the video-recorded trials for vertent cuing of the animals that we test. So-called Clever reliability, cuing must not have been occurring. Having Hans effects have been front-and-center in the conscious- someone else score video recorded test sessions is a good ness of comparative psychologists for the last century, but it thing for ensuring that we are correctly interpreting re- seems that recent years have led to more lax attempts to sponses made by animals, but it offers no protection from control for those effects in the broader animal cognition the cuing of those animals and should not be mistaken for community. Although I am sure nearly all of you know the such a control. story, to remind you, Clever Hans was a horse with appar- ently amazing skills for judging quantities, performing math The second and perhaps less considered lesson from problems, and other complicated feats. His performance Clever Hans is the need for replication. As I mentioned, was extraordinarily high, and initially was confirmed by many Hans initially was given the stamp of approval from a panel respected comparative psychologists. However, more care- of experts who agreed that his performance was real. It ful examination of exactly what Hans was doing showed that took a second examination, by Oscar Pfungst, to show the his cleverness was not his arithmetic, but rather his acute world what was really going on with Hans, and why he was behavioral observations of the people around him. For ex- really ‗clever.‘ Today, replication is sometimes undervalued ample, he modified his behavior on the basis of how people both in the publication record and certainly by the funding responded to his foot tapping. When they knew the answer, agencies. When big events such as retractions occur, it and gave even the smallest of cues (through postural shifts may suddenly be viewed as highly valuable for others to go or other often unconscious movements), he used those to back and re-test previous findings, but in general this is not change his behavior and produce what appeared to be intelli- true. At best, we value giving the same tests to new spe- gent responses. But, if the examiner did not know the an- cies, in an effort to broaden our phylogenetic map for swer, no cues were present, and Clever Hans failed. (continued on page 12) Volume 25, Issue 2 Page 12 some behavioral/cognitive capacity. But testing the same spe- This brings me to one final issue – the increased sense that ani- cies in a new lab, with roughly the same methodology, often is mal cognition research should strive to confirm that animals are viewed as a less valuable contribution to science. Even worse, cognitive and not simply associative in their responding. This if the replication fails, it may not be published, or if it is, it is feels like a goal dangerously close to that of assuming we are published in a different (and, usually less prestigious) journal, proving the alternate hypothesis by rejecting the null hypothesis. where it may be ignored as the original work continues to be To argue that evidence of animal cognition discounts associative cited as evidence that ―species X does this.‖ There are, of processes is misguided. Our goal should be to ask what capaci- course, exceptions to this, with some areas generating years- ties animals might have that are not accounted for by associative long efforts by multiple labs to better understand a species‘ learning alone, but this does not mean that animals never learn capacity for a given behavior, largely driven by failures to rep- associatively. Of course they do, as do we. The problem is that licate each other‘s work. But, if one were to look through a we sometimes design clever experiments, collect exciting data, year‘s worth of articles on animal cognition in any journal, and but then bypass a critical assessment of those data in terms of make a list of what capacities were claimed, only a minority of what mechanisms might have produced them. Instead, we either those claims would be tested subsequently by new teams in ascribe those data to some empty construct that allows us to new labs. There are good ―practical‖ reasons for this of generate the most eye-catching title for our paper, or we skip course, not the least of which is that such replications are any consideration of simpler explanations before moving on to highly unlikely to be part of a funded research program, and more complicated ones. It may seem passé in some corners of are also ―costly‖ because of their lowered ―value‖ in terms of animal cognition research to invoke the law of parsimony, in innovativeness. large part because that law has come to be incorrectly assumed What we should be focusing on is the idea of conceptual rep- as synonymous with ―associative‖ explanations rather than cog- lication. A conceptual replication involves repeating a previ- nitive ones. But, this completely misses the point of the law. It ous study in an attempt to show the same capacity even has no theoretical perspective, it takes no a priori position on though you use a different methodology. This is necessary what animals can or cannot do, and it does not require that any because replicating a potentially flawed study using the identi- time associative and cognitive explanations compete that the cal methodology does not increase confidence in the interpre- associative explanation must win out. To the contrary, if asso- tation of those data. I would argue that conceptual replica- ciative, non-cognitive models of some behavior are exceedingly tions in particular become more important as a function of whereas the cognitive processes are not, the law of how highly complex the cognitive process is under investiga- parsimony demands that the cognitive explanation be taken as tion. For example, in human cognition, the idea of ―false the more likely one. But, much work must be done to get to ‖ is strongly supported by the fact that they can be this point; methodologies must control for simpler associative generated in so many different circumstances (e.g., eyewitness processes that could otherwise explain away results that one testimony, serial list memory, etc.). We should strive for the promotes as reflecting cognition. Here, too, we must be careful same outcome in our field, in that new methods for probing and err on the side of caution, especially as we improve our complex cognitive abilities such as theory of mind, metacogni- efforts at minimizing cuing and as we increase our efforts at tion, inequity aversion, rational decision-making, self-control, exact and conceptual replications. It will be damaging for our causal understanding, and others would show consistency field if the broader scientific community and the public at large across testing paradigms. For example, if rhesus macaques lose confidence in our objectivity and conservatism as they ob- are metacognitive, they should be so in multiple kinds of tests, serve failed replications and confused efforts to classify the not just one. And, small changes to a procedure that is pre- mechanisms that underlie animal behavior. A return to parsi- sented as a test for a higher-order cognitive capacity should mony, more careful methodological design, and conservatism in not lead to large changes in performance. If it does, we promoting cognitive capacities--prior to conceptual replications should reconsider the mechanisms supporting the observed that support such promotion--will strengthen our field, and behaviors. The hope, however, is that conceptual replications demonstrate our resolve to remain objective, ethical scientists. can provide converging evidence of the cognitive processes I call on members of Division 6 to take the lead in these efforts. that are being sought in animal behavior.

Back Issues of The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist are available online at http://www.apa.org/divisions/div6/newsletter.html Volume 25, Issue 2 Page 13

Editor: David J. Bucci, PhD Phone: 603-646-3439 Fax: 603-646-1419 E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.apa.org/ divisions/div6/

Division 6 LISTSERV

Division 6 maintains an email reflector to keep members up to date with the latest information on research funding, employment The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist is the official news- opportunities, and other items of letter of APA Division 6 — Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology — and general interest. If you have is published 3 times a year. Mailing addresses used are those appearing on the official recently changed your email APA roster and a separate Division roster. Corrections and changes of address address, you may need to re- should be sent directly to the APA Directory Office, 1400 North Uhle St., Arlington, subscribe to the reflector. To update your current address or VA 22201, and to the newsletter editor (see below). As the official newsletter of to join the list for the first time, Division 6, BNCP publishes official business, committee reports, news items, job follow these simple instructions: announcements, information on technical issues, topics of current interest, and infor- mation about the professional activities of Division 6 members. News items and arti- Send precisely the following 4- cles should be submitted to the Editor at the address below (preferably by email). word message: Paid advertisements are not officially endorsed by Division 6. The Editor welcomes comments and suggestions for ways in which BNCP can better serve the needs of SUBscribe div6 John Doe the members. The preferred method of submission is by email. Send correspondence and submissions to David J. Bucci via e-mail at [email protected]. Postal Change John Doe to your first and last name; the system will mail should be sent to David J. Bucci, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain find the subscriber‘s email Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. Other contact information: address in the message Phone: (603) 646-3439; FAX: (603) 646-1419. automatically. Put nothing else in the message. Mail the 4-word message to the following address:

[email protected]

See http://listserv.apa.org for more information