Imageability ratings made on a 1-7 scale and reaction times for 3,000 monosyllabic words were obtained from 31 participants. Analyses comparing these ratings to 1,153 common words from Toglia and Battig (1978) indicate that these ratings are valid. Reliability was assessed (alpha = .95). The information obtained in this study adds to that of other normative studies and is useful to researchers interested in manipulating or controlling imageability in word recognition and memory studies. These norms can be downloaded from www.psychonomic.org/archive/.

The concept of distinctiveness suggests that memory for a given item will benefit to the extent to which that item is unique. For example, the von Restorff effect (see, e.g., Wallace, 1965) refers to better memory performance for items that are made "different" from others during encoding (e.g., by underlining them, presenting them in a different color, etc.). In addition, Hunt and Elliott (1980) demonstrated that items with distinctive word forms (e.g., phlegm) were recalled at a higher rate than were items not orthographically distinctive (e.g., primate). More recently, Hirshman and Jackson (1997) reported that words with inconsistent orthographic-to-phonological mappings (e.g., plaid ) were recalled at a higher rate than were words with more consistent orthographic-to-phonological mappings (e.g., plump). In these studies, the unique attributes differentiated particular items from others during encoding, and they may have been reactivated during retrieval to facilitate memory for them.However, as a theoretical construct, distinctiveness can seem to be circular (see Schmidt's, 1991, discussion); it has been addressed both as an empirical phenomenon and as an explanatory tool. That is, distinctive items are remembered well, and items remembered well are considered distinctive. Our view is that models of word recognition can help show what might make one class of items more distinctive than another. Although these models have not been designed to explain memory performance, they provide a useful framework. For example, in the triangle model (e.g., Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996), distributed representations for words exist on three levels: (1) orthography, (2) phonology, and (3) semantics. The same grapheme and phoneme units are used to process all words, but each unique word is associated with a unique pattern of activation among the units. Thus tuck, buck, and duck share two of three grapheme and phoneme units, and would likely interfere with each other more than words sharing fewer units. In localist models (e.g., that of Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001), words in the lexicon will be inhibited more by similar words than by dissimilar words. In both the triangle model and localist models, connections exist between orthography and phonology, both of Three experiments examined the role of three distinctive perceptual factors in recognition and recall memory. Using a subject-paced presentation rate, the first two experiments (recognition and recall) examined (1) the number of phonological-to-orthographic neighbors, (2) phonological-to-orthographic consistency, and (3) orthographic-to-phonological consistency. The third experiment (recall) reexamined the number of phonological-to-orthographic neighbors, using an experimenter-paced presentation rate of 2 sec per item. In both recognition and recall memory tasks, the number of phonological-toorthographic neighbors influenced memory performance, whereas the two types of consistency did not. The results indicate that having fewer ph...

The 2 studies using different populations and definitions of alcohol dependence converged on similar results. The ACIQ was found to be a robust battery for measuring attachment and clinical issues displayed by both patient populations and high school students only predicted to develop alcohol dependence. The results were further discussed in terms of how they move us toward Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approaches to diagnosis and treatment, paying attention to important individual differences in attachments, and clinical issues.

The Attachment and Clinical Issues Questionnaire (ACIQ; M. A. Lindberg & S. W. Thomas, 2011), was developed over an 18-year period containing 29 scales. The purpose of the present study was to test (a) the validity of the attachment scales in terms of how they predict to whom one turns in times of stress and for affective sharing, and (b) how the attachment scales compared with the Experiences in Close Relationship Questionnaire (ECR) in terms of concurrent, convergent, and discriminant evidence. The relevant secure scales of the ACIQ predicted to whom one turned in study 1, and study 2 demonstrated good convergent evidence with the ECR, but superior concurrent evidence in predicting partner satisfaction, and superior discriminant evidence in differentially correlating with mother and father warmth. Thus, the ACIQ passed essential validity and psychometric tests and was a more robust measure than the ECR with these defining characteristics of attachment.

Four studies created malingering and response bias scales for a new test battery, the Attachment and Clinical Issues Questionnaire (ACIQ). In the first calibration study, a new approach to identifying fake good and fake bad respondents was outlined. In Study 2, this scale was cross validated in a within-subjects design that also found only weak correlations between the scales of the ACIQ and measures of social desirability. The third study developed a method violator scale (one who responds randomly to the content of the scales due to carelessness, low IQ, etc.). It was tested by Monte Carlo and empirical studies. The fourth study combined the two cross validation studies to offer clear cutoffs for the practitioner. These studies successfully led to the creation of malingering and response bias scales for the ACIQ and also introduced new methods that could be adapted to other instruments.