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.