Liz, This rule applies only if the authors are actually different people. How do I know that, you may reasonably say? Well, you don't necessarily. In this case though, if you did know that B. Foorman and B. R. Foorman were the same author, you would not distinguish them in text with initials. However, whatever initials you do use to distinguish authors should be those that are in your own reference list. The fact that an author may publish using different formats of his or her name isn't relevant to this rule; the point here is to get your reader to the right place in your own reference list. We couldn't reasonably ask people to know an author's preferred or even most common format of their name across journals--though this is why we encourage authors to adopt one format and stick with it across publications--so going with the form of the name used in the publication read is the reasonable guideline. One day I expect we will have a unique author ID that will make this hair splitting unnecessary--there are a few attempts to do that going on. Until then, we do our best to be clear on authorship.

Angela, I'm going to answer in a roundabout way. First, remember the main purpose of an abstract is for someone to decide from it whether to read the article. That means that for published work, the abstract is usually seen in an abstract database rather than with the article. That means that the reader usually doesn't have access to the reference list when reading an abstract. Thus, a reference citation is of limited use in an abstract (can't be cross-referenced to the reference list) and they are usually not provided. There is a partial exception. If the study extends or replicates previous research, note that in the abstract and cite the author's last name and the year of the relevant report.

Hi, Seppo, Per the rule above, they are ordered alphabetically by the first author, and if there is more than one author with the same surname, then by the author's initials. You have the correct order in your example. It is the first author's name, not the coauthors that determines the order. When you cite in text, if you need to cite more than one of these authors in the same parentheses, you order them in the same order as they appear in the reference list and you include the initials of the first authors.

Hi, Laura, Order them where? In your reference list or text? If the former, then you have them in the correct order. See your Publication Manual, Rule 6.25, under the Order of several works by the same first author section. "References with the same first author and different second or third authors are arranged alphabetically by the surname of the second author or, if the second author is the same, the surname of the third author, and so on." In text, you follow the order of the reference list. So this would be (Kubik & Hecker, 2005; Kubik, Hecker, & Righthand, 2002).

Hi, Laura, The good news is that the rule on number of authors is simpler than you're making it. Having to count the number of authors in each citation would be a chore! It literally just means that one-author entries precede multiple-author entries, regardless of how many authors there might be. For the rule on ordering the references, you'd look to the bullet point immediately below the one you're citing. "References with the same first author and different second or third authors are arranged alphabetically by the surname of the second author or, if the second author is the same, the surname of the third author, and so on." Thus, in you first comment, your first example is incorrect, the second is correct, and the third correct. In your second comment, your second entry should be first, as C precedes K, and your first should be second, as K precedes T.

Typepad HTML Email Hi, Casey, No need do anything different in this case from the usual citation. You would just cite them as Williams & Williams, xxxx in the text and by name and initial in the reference list. It does get a bit more involved if you have more than one reference in your list by both authors and the lead author changes. That does call for an extra step to distinguish with author and reference you’re pointing to. If that’s your situation, take a look at this post: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2014/01/when-to-use-author-initials-for-text-citations.html

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. APA Style does not come on vacation! Your instincts would generally be correct. Note that you use numbers for exact time, dates, ages, etc. but you use words for approximations of numbers of days, months, and years (see 4.31 e. the exception). In most cases like the one above, the language is probably for an approximation rather than specifically being used to pinpoint a specific time.

Technically, I guess that would be correct. But it looks like a situation where it is worth it to come up with a workaround to begin the sentence some other way, even if it's as repetitive as something like "A percentage of ...."

Hi, Wensi: The correct choice is Option 2, as the word begins the sentence. Rule 4.32 stipulates to use words to express any number that begins a sentence. It begins the sentence. That's the rule that applies. If you rewrote the sentence so "two" wasn't the first word, that format would still be correct (except for capitalization, of course). To say that a number is a measurement of "something," while true enough, applies to a number by its very definition; thus, there would never be a point to making these kinds of distinctions, so you Option 1 isn't correct. And I can't envision a situation where you'd ever use your Option 3. Thirteen > 10 and it is not the first word in that sentence. Hope that helps.

Hi, Gloria, Many individual teachers and institutions make some changes to what they ask their students to do based on their individual needs or preferences. Thus, if we're responding to a student query about style, we always tell them to check for their own guidelines first. The person who does the grading is the final arbiter :). The danger you run is not making clear that you've modified the existing style. If you do that, then you can certainly define what you're doing as APA Style with modifications. Having said that--and perhaps this is no surprise, as I did just post this blog entry--I would proceed cautiously with changes, especially if the reason is that a document "looks boring." "Boring" for these students going into a behavioral science profession translates to professional and standard. My background is actually law, where there is very little wiggle room for format variation and the costs of making changes to, say, a writ or a brief because you don't like the way it looks don't bear thinking about. Bluebook is a much more rigid framework than APA Style, but an object lesson at one end of the continuum. So, change, sure, if there's actually a good reason. That's how this style was born and all styles evolve. I can't help but add that I would be wary though, especially about any changes to reference format or headings (yes, I did see headings was one of your prospective changes), and make clear to your students that there is an institutional style that is taking precedence over standard APA Style. In their future academic and professional lives they should be aware there is a difference and be prepared to adjust.

Hi, Elaine. Are all the primary authors E. C. Kansa and is S. W. Kansa always secondary? Then option 1 is correct. The rule is for works by different *first* authors with the same surname, it is not necessary if the order won't be affected by the initials.

Sorry for the delay in the answer, Phoebe. See Guideline 6.27. "If the reference list includes different authors with the same surname and first initial, the authors' full first names may be given in brackets. So, to extrapolate, your example would be Cooper, C. R. [Catherine] (2001) in the reference list. That's the same situation as in the example above (albeit with only one author in that case). Though you're correct that a reader could distinguish the references by the other authors, the format is still followed. So the bracket format you're seeing is correct.

If you're talking about an approximation, it would be "about three million dollars." If you specifically mean that amount, it would be $3,000,000.

Hi, Gary, Yes, when expressing specific dates, use numerals (4.31e). The exception is if you are approximating number of days, months, etc. So it is "about three months ago" but April 3, 2013.

Hi, Jana, Thanks for contacting us. One reminder: any currency below 10 is given as a numeral if it is an *exact* amount. Thus, "I paid $2," but "I paid about two dollars." While the Publication Manual does not directly address using symbols with currency, I think we can safely extrapolate from specific instructions on symbols and mathematical operators. For example, use the written-out form of a variable in prose but the symbol in conjunction with all mathematical operators and, for percentages, use the symbol only when it is preceded by a numeral; otherwise, spell out the word percentage (p. 119). So I think your analysis is spot on.

Hi, Rob, You are correct. For additional information, take a look at the Publication Manual (6th ed.) at p. 182. My colleague Tyler did a post about just this topic. Take a look: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/12/how-to-cite-different-groups-of-authors-with-the-same-lead-author-and-publication-date.html

Hi, Jana: I think possible part of your question is missing (there's a reference to a "first question" that I'm not seeing), but based on this, I'm extrapolating that you're asking if the initials are correctly placed for the in-text citation? Yes! You are correct. See Section 6.14 on p. 176. You are also correct about the second point. Only the first authors need to be distinguished. The purpose of the style point is to enable the reader to find the correct citation in the reference list quickly, and only the first is germane here. Though if you had two references with two authors in the same order and also completely different people, I would extrapolate that you'd use initials. But don't worry. I've never seen that happen in 20 years of editing.

Hi, Natalie, Take a look at Rule 6.25. The order is one-author entries by the same author are arranged first and by year of publication. References with the same first author and different second or third authors are arranged alphabetically by the surname of the second author (or if the second author is the same, the third, and so on). In your list, as the first citation is one author and Fodor comes before Foss alphabetically, the order is correct. Hope that helps.

Antonia, My apologies! I somehow never saw this comment. I'm afraid there's not really an answer to your question specifically addressed anywhere in the Style manual. The options would be to research until you found the names (and raising the question of what to do if they were different authors who happened to have the same names). This is the sort of issue that an author id would resolve, if that ever becomes an industry standard. In the meantime, I think one would have to distinguish in text.

Interesting you should ask. I was just trying to remember that myself yesterday. The rule is "if two or more publisher locations are given in the book, give the location listed first or, if specified, the location of the publisher's home office" (p. 187).

Good eye for catching that! We have fixed it in later printings of the 6th edition.