RESEARCH
(google scholar site)

Although my interests have remained focused on cognitive development, they have expanded in a variety of directions over the years. There are five distinct lines of research that are described below. Note that a * next to a name refers to an undergraduate student coauthor.  Also, please note the copyright notice at the end of this file. 

Development of Scientific Reasoning
     I have a long standing interest in studying the development of scientific reasoning.  Theoretically, I have explored the relation between psychological and philosophical accounts of scientific reasoning. Empirically, I have examined a variety of aspects of scientific reasoning including the acquisition of skills needed to overcome bias in scientific inferences, and the process of conceptual change in children’s understanding of physics phenomena, including gravity, conservation, and simple machines.  My recent work has addressed a dual process account of the development of scientific reasoning. For a recent press release regarding my recent work, please click here.

Shultz, T. Dover, A., & Amsel, E. (1979). The logical and empirical basis of conservation judgments. Cognition, 7, 99-123.

Amsel, E. (1985). Psychologism and the psychology of scientists: A response to Gibson.  New Ideas in Psychology, 3, 265-272.

Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M.  (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Amsel, E., Savoie*, D., Deak*, G., &  Clark*, M.  (1991).  Preschoolers' understanding of gravity. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual cognitive science society meeting (pp.600-605). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amsel, E., Goodman*, G., Savoie*, D., & Clark*, M. (1996). The development of reasoning about causal and noncausal influences on levers.  Child Development, 67, 1624-1646.

Amsel, E., & Brock*, S. (1996). Developmental changes in children’s evaluation of evidence. Cognitive Development, 11, 523-550.

Amsel, E. (2001). Scientific reasoning.  The encyclopedia of American boyhood (pp. 405-412).  Los Angeles CA: ABC-CLIO

Amsel, E. (2004). Theory-evidence coordination: The state of the art.  Contemporary Psychology, 49, 234-236.

Amsel, E., Klaczynski, P. A., Johnston, A., Bench*, S., Close*, J., Sadler*, E., & Walker*, R. (2008). A dual-process account of the development of scientific reasoning: The nature and development of metacognitive intercession skills. Cognitive Development, 23, 452-471.

Amsel, E., & Johnston, A. (2010). Training the preschool scientist-in-waiting.  Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 484-486

Amsel, E., & Johnston, A. (2013). The developing psychology of science education.  Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 195–197
 

The Development of Imaginary Processes
       In another line of research, I have explored the nature and development of forms of reasoning which involve the imagination, including pretend play, counterfactual reasoning, and feelings of regret.  In each of these forms of reasoning, there is a cognitive challenge in  representing reality and its alternative and then coordinating the two representations.  My work on pretend play explores how young children form and distinguish between representations reality and its pretend alternative (for a newspaper account click here) .  In contrast, the work on counterfactual reasoning and feelings of regret examines how children, adolescents, adults, and lawyers use alternatives to reality to make inferences about reality. In recent work, I have addressed the acquisition of conceptual and regulatory skills to use imagination for epistemologically serious (counterfactual) as opposed to fanciful (e.g., pretense) ends and the slow development over age of the latter ability.

Amsel, E., Langer*, R., & Loutzenhiser*, L. (1991). Do lawyers reason differently from psychologists? A comparative design for studying expertise.  In R.J. Sternberg & P. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving:  Mechanisms and processes (pp. 223-250).  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amsel, E., & Smalley*, J. (2000). Beyond really and truly: Children’s counterfactual thinking about pretend and possible worlds. In K. Riggs & P. Mitchell (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 99-134). Brighton, UK: Psychology Press.

Amsel, E., Bobadilla*, W., Coch*, D., & Remy*, R. (1996). Young children’s memory for the true and  pretend identities of objects used in object-substitution pretense. Developmental Psychology, 32, 479-491.

Amsel, E., Trionfi*, G., & Campbell*, R. (2005). Reasoning about make-believe and hypothetical suppositions: Towards a theory of belief-contravening reasoning.  Cognitive Development, 20, 545-575

Bates*, J., & Amsel, E. (2005). Dual process and irrationality: The effect of imagined perspective on gambling judgments & evaluations. Proceedings of the National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR, 2005).

Amsel, E., Robbins*, M., Tumarkin*, T., Foulkes*, S, Janit*, A., &. Smalley*, J.D.  (in preparation).  The card not chosen: The development of counterfactual reasoning about regret.

Trionfi*, G., Wiser, M., & Amsel, E., (in preparation). Imaginings of adults: Continuity with pretense explored.

Teaching and Learning from a Developmental Perspective
       In a relatively new line of research, I have explored the processes of teaching and learning from a developmental perspective. The work addresses young children acquiring literacy skills, high school students learning the core curriculum, and college students understanding their general education classes. The work is tied together by the central insight that teaching and learning is a complex social transaction that depends not only on the actors but the context. In a recent series of studies, I have demonstrated that college students who are able to represent the difference between their own and their professor’s understanding of a discipline (including English, Mathematics, and Psychology) are also better able to grasp the material and achieve in the class.

Amsel, E. & Goodwin, L. (2004). Making meaning together: Family literacy and museums.  Journal of Museum Education [Special issue on Museum and Literacy], 29, 19-23.

Amsel, E. (2006).  On oceans and skies: The depth and breadth problem in science education.  Proceedings of the Second Annual Science Education at the Crossroads Conference.

Dugan, P., & Amsel, E. (2007).  Why the top of Utah needs the DaVinci Academy of Sciences and the Arts (Guest Commentary).  Standard Examiner.  Wednesday, May 23, 2007, p. 11A.

Amsel, E., & Kay, T. (2008).  After Introductory Psychology:  The next course preparing psychology freshmen and sophomores for undergraduate research.  In R. Miller, B. Beins, B. Rycek, M. Ware, E. Balcetis, R. Smith, &  S. Burns (Eds.) Promoting the undergraduate research experience in psychology.

Amsel, E., Johnston, A., Alvarado*, E., Kettering*, J., Rankin*, R., & Ward*, M. (2009).  The effect of perspective on misconceptions in psychology:  A test of conceptual change theory.  The Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 289-296.

Amsel, E. (2009a). Teaching psychology students to think like psychologists.  Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Science Education at the Crossroads Conference. 

Amsel, E.  (2009b).  Three pedagogical themes.  Psychology Teachers Network (a newsletter for the APA Education Directorate). 

Amsel, E., Baird, T., & Ashley, A. (2011).  Misconceptions and conceptual change in undergraduate students learning psychology.  Psychology Learning and Teaching, 10, 3-10

Amsel, E., Johnston, A., & Goodwin*, R. (pending revisions). Literary truth: Students’ understanding of fiction.  Journal of General Education.

Amsel, E., Cheshire, S., Massen, A., Kowalewski, B., & Winniford, J.  2011). Preparing to serve: A program training college students for tutoring and mentoring in public schools

Amsel, E., Ashley, A., Baird, T., & Johnston, A. (2014).  Conceptual change in psychology students’ acceptance of the scientific foundation of the discipline.  Psychology Teaching and Learning, 13, 232-242.

Adolescent Development
   In standard accounts of development, adolescence is a time in which higher cognitive, self, and moral stages are acquired. However, such a view has been challenged from a variety of perspectives.  My own work in the area has examined cognitive, moral, and self development in the context of adolescent risk taking.  Making sense of risk taking seems key to understanding  how adolescents behavior which seems irrational, immoral, and self-defeating can be reconciled with their new found abilities to think rationally, morally, and self-enhancing.

Amsel, E., Constantinople, A., & Zucker*, A.  (1993). Coherence and variation in the development of self.  New Ideas in Psychology, 11, 267-271. 

Amsel, E., Cottrell*, J., Sullivan*, J., & Bowden*, T.  (2005).  Anticipating and avoiding regret as a model of adolescent decision-making.  In J. Jacobs & P. Klaczynski, (Eds.) The development of judgment and decision-making in children and adolescence (pp. 119-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amsel, E., Close*, J., Sadler*, E., & Klaczynski, P. (2009).  Awareness and irrationality: College students' awareness of their irrational judgments on gambling tasks.  The Journal of Psychology, 143, 293-317

Amsel, E. (2011). Hypothetical thinking in adolescence:  Its nature, development, and applications.  In J. Smetana & E. Amsel (Eds.), Adolescence: Vulnerabilities and Opportunities. New York, NY,  Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, L.A., Amsel, E., & Schillo*, J. (2012). Adolescent risk taking: Relations between socio-moral reasoning, intention and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence.

Amsel E., & Moshman, D. (2015). The development of logical and hypothetical reasoning in adolescence. In J. Wright (Editor in Chief) International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Oxford England: Elsevier.

Amsel, E., Shaw, L.A., & Taylor*, K. (in preparation).  Social and emotional perspectives on adolescent risk taking.

Amsel, E., & Lightfoot, C. (Contracted).  Making sense of adolescent risk taking: Issues, implications, and integration.  Contracted with Taylor and Francis to appear in The Developing Mind Series.

Developmental Theory
    I have a long standing interest in developmental theory, particularly exploring the strengths and limits of Piaget's Genetic Epistemology.  My interests address mechanisms of change and whether the Piaget's notion equilibration is sufficient to account for it.  Three edited books have addressed alternative mechanisms of change (Amsel & Renninger, 1997), the role of social communication in the process (Amsel & Byrnes, 2002) and a sympathetic review of the process in accounting for adolescent development (Amsel & Smetana, in preparation)

Amsel, E., & Leadbeater, B. (1980). The legacy of the idea. Genetic Epistemologist, 4, 22-25.

Broughton, J. M., Leadbeater, B., & Amsel, E. (1981). The Jean Piaget Memorial conference.  Teachers College Record, 83, 151-217.

Amsel, E. (1990). The cognitive development of Piaget: A review of "Constructive Evolution". Canadian Psychology, 31, 377-378.

Amsel, E., & Renninger, K. A. (Eds.). (1997). Change and development:  Issues of theory, method and application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Renninger, K.A., & Amsel, E. (Eds.). (1997). Change and development:  An introduction.  In E. Amsel & K. A. Renninger, (Eds.) Change and development: Issues of theory, method and application (pp. 9-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amsel, E. (1999).  Development and culture: Some (thought) experiments.  Contemporary Psychology, 44, 390-392.

Amsel, E., & Byrnes, J. (2002). Symbolic communication and cognitive development:  Conclusions and prospects.  In E. Amsel & J. Byrnes, (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development:  The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 233-258).  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amsel, E. & Smetana, J. (2011). Constructivist processes in adolescent development.  In J. Smetana & E. Amsel (Eds.), Adolescence: Vulnerabilities and Opportunities. New York, NY,  Cambridge University Press.

Amsel, E. (In press).  Conceptual and pedagogical challenges in understanding the whole person.  New Ideas in Psychology