cs (e.g., the h index and altmetrics). If psychology is to achieve consensual cumulative progress and better rates of replication, I propose that upcoming psychologists would do well to understand that success is not equal to fame and that individual career success is not necessarily the same as disciplinary success. Finally, if one is to have a successful and perhaps even famous career in psychological science, a good strategy would be to synthesize intrinsic and extrinsic motives for one’s research.

2c:T473,

Women are sparsely represented among psychologists honored for scientific eminence. However, most currently eminent psychologists started their careers when far fewer women pursued training in psychological science. Now that women earn the majority of psychology Ph.D.’s, will they predominate in the next generation’s cadre of eminent psychologists? Comparing currently active female and male psychology professors on publication metrics such as the h index provides clues for answering this question. Men outperform women on the h index and its two components: scientific productivity and citations of contributions. To interpret these gender gaps, we first evaluate whether publication metrics are affected by gender bias in obtaining grant support, publishing papers, or gaining citations of published papers. We also consider whether women’s chances of attaining eminence are compromised by two intertwined sets of influences: (a) gender bias stemming from social norms pertaining to gender and to science and (b) the choices that individual psychologists make in pursuing their careers.

2d:T437,

Professional decisions about hiring, tenure, promotion, funding, and honors are informed by assessments of scholarly impact. As a measure of influence, citations are produced by experts but accessible to nonexperts. The h index is the largest number h such that an individual has published at least h works cited at least h times apiece. This is easy to understand and calculate, as or more reliable and valid than alternative citation measures, and highly robust to missing or messy data. Striving for a large h index requires both productivity and influence, which provides healthy incentives for researchers striving for eminence through scientific impact. A number of factors that can influence h are discussed to promote the mindful use of what might otherwise be an ambiguous or misleading measure. The h index adds a transparent, objective component to assessments of scholarly impact, and even academic eminence, that merits at least two cheers.

2e:T409,

Our procedures for creating excellent departments of psychology are based largely on selection—hiring and promoting the best people. I argue that these procedures have been successful, but I suggest the implementation of policies that I believe will further improve departments in the behavioral and brain sciences. I recommend that we institute more faculty development programs attached to incentives to guarantee continuing education and scholarly activities after the Ph.D. degree. I also argue that we would do a much better job if we more strongly stream our faculty into research, education, or service and not expect all faculty members to carry equal responsibility for each of these. Finally, I argue that more hiring should occur at advanced levels, where scholars have a proven track record of independent scholarship. Although these practices will be a challenge to implement, institutions do ossify over time and thus searching for ways to improve our departments should be a key element of faculty governance.

2f:T4e4,

According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people’s affective responses can be influenced by their own facial expression (e.g., smiling, pouting), even when their expression did not result from their emotional experiences. For example, Strack, Martin, and Step