scores on the PRT. Moreover, members of general academic honors groups consistently outperformed non-honors students, although their formal training in psychology was generally n o more extensive. These findings are consistent with another report (Gutman, 1979), which suggested that better students may "know" more psychology and be better able to intuit research results than students with poorer academic standing. The finding that Psi Chi psychology honors students did significantly better than all of the other students tested is not surprising and indicates that formal training in psychology enhances one's knowledge of the subject matter (see Lamal, 1971)).In sum, the results of this study suggest that much of what personality textbooks purport to teach undergraduates about research findings in the area may already be known to them through common, informal experiences. The extent to which research findings in other areas, such as social psychology and developmental psychology, are commonsensical has yet to be determined. But, as teachers of psychology, perhaps we should not be overly concerned with assessing what undergraduates already know (or misconceive) to be true or false about psychology. It would seem to be more important to help them to appreciate the complexities of human behavior that are rarely captured in simple true-false statements.References Brown, L. T. (1983). Some more misconceptions about psychology among introductory psychology students. Teaching of Psychol-ogy, 10, 207-210. Brown, L. T . (1984). Misconceptions about psychology aren't always what they seem. Teaching of Psychology, 1 l , 75-78. Gordon, M. E., Kleiman, L. S., & Hanie, C. A. (1978). Industrialorganizational psychology: Open thy ears o house of Israel. American Psychologist, 33, 893-905. Gutman, A. (1979). Misconceptions of psychology and performance in the introductory course. Teaching of Psychology, 6, 159-161. Lama], P. A. (1979). College students' common beliefs about pb!chology.

We want to congratulate Rilling (June 1996) on his contribution to the history of chemical transfer experiments and the idea of the biochemical engram in psychology. However, we would like to add just two points.First, chemical transfer has not been totally forgotten, even within the field of invertebrate learning. Abramson's (1990) primer includes a planaria transfer experiment, presented as part of tradition and present ~lcfices.Second, Rilling' s (1996) description of James McConuell as being connected to the 1960s counterculture seems to be mistaken. Even as the 1960s recede in memory, there are enough memory engrams (and documents) to show that McConnell was actually opposed to the radical movements of the time and was recognized as a leading conservafive, or even a reactionary, voice in the application of psychology (Beit-Hallahmi, 1974). "We should reshape our society so that we all would be trained from birth to want to do what society wants us to do" (McConuell, 1970, p. 74). This was clearly McConneU's reaction to the upheavals of the 1960s, and it must be regarded as an expression of extreme authoritarianism. It is likely that McConnell's reactionary rhetoric was fed by what he, among others during the 1960s, regarded as the threat of a total breakdown of culture and society. Rilling (1996) came close to characterizing McConnell as a .reactionary. He referred to McConnell's "antidemocratic rhetoric" and presented the relevant evidence, in the form of such rhetoric, but still did not draw the clear conclusion. We should remember McConuell as somebody who was creative, brilliant, flamboyant, and unconventional, but never countercultural.