The American Journal of Psychology Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: University of Illinois Press

Journal description

AJP was founded in the interest of general experimental psychology and is devoted to the basic science of the mind. The Journal publishes reports of original experimental reserach, theoretical presentations, combined theoretical and experimental analyses, historical commentaries, shorter notes and discussions, and reviews of books in the area.

Current impact factor: 1.09

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2009 Impact Factor 0.636

Additional details

5-year impact 1.14
Cited half-life >10.0
Immediacy index 0.11
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.43
Website American Journal of Psychology website
Other titles The American journal of psychology, AJP
ISSN 0002-9556
OCLC 1408768
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

University of Illinois Press

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo for non-profit archives and repositories
    • 3 years embargo for personal websites and commercial websites
  • Conditions
    • Pre-prints can only be posted on institutional repository
    • Some journals have own pre-print policy, please check with journal directly
    • Post-print must be on authors personal website and commercial websites after 3 years embargo
    • Post-print must be on non-profit archives and non-profit repositories after 12 months embargo
    • Set statement to accompany pre-print and post-print (see policy)
    • Must link to journal home page
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • This policy only applies to University of Illinois Press owned titles: American Journal of Psychology, American Music, History of Present, Journal of Aesthetic Education, Journal of Animal Ethics, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Music and the Moving Image, Plurist
  • Classification

Publications in this journal

  • The American Journal of Psychology 08/2015; 128(2):133-4.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study adapted a procedure used by Luo and Craik (2009) to examine whether developmental differences exist in the ability to use controlled retrieval processes to access the contextual details of memory representations. Participants from 3 age groups (mean ages 9, 12, and 25 years) were presented with words in 3 study contexts: with a black-and-white picture, with a color picture, or alone without a picture. Six recognition tests were then presented that varied in the demands (high or low) placed on the retrieval of specific contextual information. Each test consisted of a mixture of words that were old targets from 1 study context, distractors (i.e., previously studied words from a different context), and completely new words. A high-specificity and a low-specificity test list was paired with each test question, with high and low specificity being determined by the nature of the distractors used in a test list. High-specificity tests contained words that were studied in similar contexts: old targets (e.g., words studied with black-and-white pictures) and distractors (e.g., words studied with color pictures). In contrast, low-specificity tests contained words that were studied in dissimilar contexts: old targets (e.g., words studied with black-and-white pictures) and distractors (e.g., words previously studied without a picture). Relative to low-specificity tests, the retrieval conditions of high-specificity tests were assumed to place greater demands on the controlled access of specific contextual information. Analysis of recollection scores revealed that age differences were present on high-but not low-specificity tests, with the performance of 9-year-olds disproportionately affected by the retrieval demands of high-specificity tests.
    The American Journal of Psychology 07/2015; 128(1):43-59.

  • The American Journal of Psychology 03/2015; 128(1):125-125.

  • The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(1):115-122. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0115
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: people often encounter language in contexts that provide meanings that go beyond previous experience. for example, people recover metaphorical meanings that displace literal meanings for the same words. for such cases, researchers have addressed the question of whether contextual support allows people to truncate or eliminate consideration of meanings that precede specific contexts. the article reviews 3 domains in which this question has prompted research: recovery of metaphorical meanings, understanding of noun-noun combinations, and assimilation of actions within fantastic narrative worlds.
    The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(2):135-145. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.2.0135
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Parallel and automatic processing is evidenced in visual search by what is commonly called popout. an object of search (a target) that differs widely from all other display objects on some simple visual dimension is commonly called a singleton; an example is search for a red circle when all other displayed circles are green. a singleton attracts attention to the degree that it is salient, and highly salient singletons produce search that is almost independent of display size. the present research examines the way this attraction of attention can be diverted by the presence of singletons on 1 or 2 nontarget perceptual dimensions (e.g., search for a red circle among green ones, when one of the green circles is larger than the others, and another might be green but square). the results establish that distraction occurs rarely but strongly, that 2 distractors produce more distraction than 1, and that the degree of distraction depends not only on salience but also on dimension similarity. these findings occurred in 2 different tasks: the observer either reported the orientation of a Gabor embedded in the target or reported the presence and absence of the target.
    The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(2):253-265. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.2.0253
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been claimed that dreams are the royal road to the unconscious mind. The present work argues that dreams and associated brain states such as memory, attention, flow, and perhaps even consciousness itself arise from diverse conflicts over control of time in the brain. Dreams are the brain’s offline efforts to distill projections of the future, while memory represents the vestiges of the past successes and survived failures of those and other conscious projections. Memory thus acts to inform and improve the prediction of possible future states through the use of conscious prospects (planning) and unconscious prospective memory (dreams). When successful, these prospects result in states of flow for conscious planning and déjà vu for its unconscious comparator. In consequence, and contrary to normal expectation, memory is overwhelmingly oriented to deal with the future. Consciousness is the comparable process operating in the present moment. Thus past, present, and future are homeomorphic with the parts of memory (episodic and autobiographical) that recall a personal past, consciousness, and the differing dimensions of prospective memory to plan for future circumstances, respectively. Dreaming (i.e., unconscious prospective memory), has the luxury to run multiple “what if” simulations of many possible futures, essentially offline. I explicate these propositions and their relations to allied constructs such as déjà vu and flow. More generally, I propose that what appear to us as a range of normal psychological experiences are actually manifestations of an ongoing pathological battle for control within the brain. The landscape of this conflict is time. I suggest that there are at least 3 general systems bidding for this control, and in the process of evolution, each system has individually conferred a sequentially increasing survival advantage, but only at the expense of a still incomplete functional integration. Through juxtaposition of these respective brain systems, I endeavor to resolve some fundamental paradoxes and conundrums expressed in the basic psychological and behavioral processes of sleep, consciousness, and memory. The implication
    The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(1):1-14. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined the relationship between bilinguals’ second language (L2) proficiency and their performance on a Stroop switching task, in which a color word (e.g., GREEN) appeared in a congruent ink color (e.g., green) or an incongruent ink color (e.g., red). Participants either read aloud the color word in the word-reading trials or named the ink color in the color-naming trials. Bilinguals who varied in L2 proficiency received 2 pure blocks, consisting of word-reading trials and color-naming trials, respectively, and 1 mixed block, consisting of intermixed word-reading and color-naming trials in an alternating-runs pattern. Comparing performance in nonswitch trials in the mixed block and the pure block provides a measure of global switch costs, whereas differences on switch trials and nonswitch trials in the mixed block reflect local switch costs. Bilinguals with higher L2 proficiency showed a marginally smaller Stroop effect in color naming, a smaller local switch cost in word reading (but not in color naming), and a smaller word-reading versus color-naming task set asymmetry in local switch costs. The latter result was consistent with the language switching finding that the L1/L2 switch cost asymmetry decreased as a function of bilinguals’ L2 proficiency. Overall, the current findings support the facilitative role of L2 proficiency in bilinguals’ task set switching: Those with higher L2 proficiency have better task set shifting and reconfiguration and updating abilities when they switch from a more difficult task set (color naming) to an easier task set (word reading) in a task-switching paradigm.
    The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(1):89-106. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0089
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Work in cognitive and educational psychology examines a variety of phenomena related to the learning and retrieval of information. Indeed, Alice Healy, our honoree, and her colleagues have conducted a large body of groundbreaking research on this topic. In this article we discuss how 3 learning principles (the generation effect, deliberate practice and feedback, and antidotes to disengagement) discussed in Healy, Schneider, and Bourne (2012) have influenced the design of 2 intelligent tutoring systems that attempt to incorporate principles of skill and knowledge acquisition. Specifically, this article describes iSTART-2 and the Writing Pal, which provide students with instruction and practice using comprehension and writing strategies. iSTART-2 provides students with training to use effective comprehension strategies while self-explaining complex text. The Writing Pal provides students with instruction and practice to use basic writing strategies when writing persuasive essays. Underlying these systems are the assumptions that students should be provided with initial instruction that breaks down the tasks into component skills and that deliberate practice should include active generation with meaningful feedback, all while remaining engaging. The implementation of these assumptions is complicated by the ill-defined natures of comprehension and writing and supported by the use of various natural language processing techniques. We argue that there is value in attempting to integrate empirically supported learning principles into educational activities, even when there is imperfect alignment between them. Examples from the design of iSTART-2 and Writing Pal guide this argument.
    The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(2):159-72. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.2.0159

  • The American Journal of Psychology 02/2015; 128(1):125-128. DOI:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0125