Theories of analogical thinking have differed in the roles they ascribe to processing goals as a source of constraint on analogical mappings. W e report an experiment that examines the impact of processing goals on subjects' mappings in (a) a task involving generation of plot extensions for soap opera scripts, and (b) an explicit m o p i n g task based on characters in the scripts. The scripts were written so that the mappings for central characters were four-ways ambiguous. Manipulations of subjects' processing goals influenced their preferred m£q)pings, both in the plot-extension and mapping tasks. In the latter task, goal-irrelevant information contributed to the resolution of m ^ p i n g s that were ambiguous on the basis of goal-relevant information alone. T h e qualitative pattern of results was successfully simulated using A C M E , a constraint-satisfaction model of mapping, in which processing goals are assumed to control an inhibitory process of selective attention. Processing goals attenuate the activation level of goal-irrelevant information, reducing or even eliminating its impact on mapping decisions.

There has been extensive discussion about gender gaps in representation and career advancement in the sciences. However, psychological science itself has yet to be the focus of discussion or systematic review, despite our field's investment in questions of equity, status, well-being, gender bias, and gender disparities. In the present article, we consider 10 topics relevant for women's career advancement in psychological science. We focus on issues that have been the subject of empirical study, discuss relevant evidence within and outside of psychological science, and draw on established psychological theory and social-science research to begin to chart a path forward. We hope that better understanding of these issues within the field will shed light on areas of existing gender gaps in the discipline and areas where positive change has happened, and spark conversation within our field about how to create lasting change to mitigate remaining gender differences in psychological science.

Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.