Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility

The effects of memory for unattended events-for example, events that occur while a person is asleep, anesthetized, or selectively attending to other ongoing events, as in a speechshadowing task-are rarely revealed in tests of retention that require remembering to be deliberate or intentional. Might such effects become evident in tests that do not demand awareness of remembering? Results of the present shadowing study, involving the recognition and spelling of previously unattended homophones. suggest an affirmative answer to this question.

In January 2014, Psychological Science introduces several significant changes in the journal's publication standards and practices, aimed at enhancing the reporting of research findings and methodology. These changes are incorporated in five initiatives on word limits, evaluation criteria, methodological reports, open practices, and "new" statistics. The scope of these five initiatives is sketched here, along with the reasoning behind them. 1 Revising Word LimitsResearch Articles and Research Reports are the journal's principal platforms for the publication of original empirical research; together they account for more than 80% of all submissions to Psychological Science. Previously, Research Articles and Research Reports were limited to 4,000 and 2,500 words, respectively, and these word limits included all of the main text (introductory sections, Method, Results, and Discussion) along with notes, acknowledgments, and appendices.Going forward, the new limits on Research Articles and Research Reports are 2,000 and 1,000 words, respectively. As before, notes, acknowledgments, and appendices count toward these limits, as do introductory material and Discussion sections. However, the Method and Results sections of a manuscript are excluded from the word limits on Research Articles and Research Reports. The intent here is to allow authors to provide a clear, complete, self-contained description of their studies, which cannot be done with restrictions on Method and Results. But as much as Psychological Science prizes narrative clarity and completeness, so too does it value concision. In almost all cases, a fulsome account of the method and results can be achieved in 2,500 or fewer words for Research Articles and 2,000 or fewer words for Research Reports.

A recent study demonstrated that observers' ability to identify targets in a rapid visual sequence was enhanced when they simultaneously listened to happy music. In the study reported here, we examined how the emotion-attention relationship is influenced by changes in both mood valence (negative vs. positive) and arousal (low vs. high). We used a standard induction procedure to generate calm, happy, sad, and anxious moods in participants. Results for an attentional blink task showed no differences in first-target accuracy, but second-target accuracy was highest for participants with low arousal and negative affect (sad), lowest for those with strong arousal and negative affect (anxious), and intermediate for those with positive affect regardless of their arousal (calm, happy). We discuss implications of this valence-arousal interaction for the control of visual attention.

Universityundergraduates undertook a seriesof manual tasks (e.g., shaping objects out of clay) and later recalled the experiences they had while doing so from either a field or an observer vantage point. In the former case, the subjects mentally reinstated the original task environment as if they were seeing it again through their own eyes; in the latter condition, the original task environment was envisioned from the perspective of a detached spectator. Analysis of the subjects' recollectionsrevealedmarked differencesin the contents of field and observer memories. For instance, whereas field memories afforded richer accounts of the affective reactions, physical sensations, and psychological states that the subjects experienced as they performed the tasks, observer memories included more information about how the subjects looked, what they did, or where things were. Discussion focuses on prospects for future researchwhose aim would be to investigate the forensic and clinical implications of the field/observer distinction.

Persons with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) spontaneously recalled the traumatic event that led to their condition from either a field or an observer vantage point. In the former case, participants recollected the event as if they were seeing it again through their own eyes; in the latter case, the event was recalled from the perspective of a detached spectator. Analysis of the two types of recollections revealed marked differences in their contents. Whereas field memories afforded richer accounts of the affective reactions, somatic sensations, and psychological states that participants experienced during the focal trauma, observer memories contained more information about participants' physical appearance and actions and the spatial layout of the traumatic scene. Observer trauma memories were also experienced as less emotional and anxiety provoking than field trauma memories. The discussion focuses on the clinical implications of these findings and prospects for future research on traumatic memory.

Events that originate through internal mental operations such as reasoning, imagination, and thought may be more colored by or connected to one's current mood than are those that emanate from external sources. If so, then a shift in mood state, between the occasions of event encoding and event retrieval, should have a greater adverse impact on one's memory for internal than for external events. To investigate this inference, a series of studies was conducted that relied on a continuous music technique to modify mood, and on the generate/read procedures devised by Slamecka and Graf (1978) to distinguish internal from external events. Considered collectively, the results suggest that internal events are less likely than external events to be recalled after a shift in mood state. Discussion centers on both the empirical limitations and theoretical implications of the present results, as well as on prospects for future research.

Memory for the intensity of past physical pain depends critically on the intensity of present pain. When their present pain intensity was high, patients with chronic headaches of myofascial origin rated their maximum, usual, and minimum levels of prior pain as being more severe than their hourly pain diaries indicated. When their present pain intensity was low, the same patients remembered all 3 levels of prior pain as being less severe than they actually had been. The results show that pain produces systematic distortions of memory similar to those associated with alterations of affect or mood, and suggest a resolution to a conspicuous conflict in the current pain literature.