Far too often, psychologists stay isolated in their particular area—we identify as a cognitive psychologist or a clinical psychologist, but rarely as both; we attend clinical psychology conferences or cognitive ones, but there is little overlap in attendance; we recruit graduate students in one area or the other, but seldom advise across areas. Yet, so much of the exciting work happens at the intersection between areas and disciplines, as we integrate (and beg, borrow, and steal!) theories, paradigms, and methods from across fields to create a novel synthesis. This has been especially true in the marriage between clinical and cognitive science, and the results have taught us a great deal about how thinking changes along the continuum from mental health to mental illness.The aim of this special issue is to bring together reviews of cutting-edge research that illustrate how advances in cognitive science have improved our understanding of the etiology and maintenance of psychopathology, while also highlighting the many questions that remain unanswered. Authors were asked to consider how the application of cognitive science theories, methods, and paradigms has increased understanding of the etiology and maintenance of a particular clinical domain in light of the evidence related to distal and proximate risk and vulnerability. They were also asked to consider gaps in our understanding, such as the limited evidence for causal relationships between cognitive changes and onset of psychopathology. Beyond etiology, authors were encouraged to discuss how cognitive science has altered the ways we prevent, assess, diagnose, and treat each clinical domain, and they were asked to envision how these advances might alter clinical practice over the next 5, 10, and 20 years. Recognizing that we have far more questions than answers at this stage, we also asked authors to consider how to remove the barriers to making more rapid progress; that is, what methodological, theoretical, and infrastructure advances are needed to optimize the contributions that cognitive science can make to reducing the burden of mental illness? Along these lines, to make salient one obvious example of a gap in our knowledge that is hindering progress, all authors were asked to discuss what we currently know (and more importantly, don’t know) about the ways individual differences and identities, such as demographic characteristics tied to race and ethnicity, age, sex, and so forth, interact with cognitive processes to alter the expression of and outcomes for a given clinical domain.The authors rose to the challenge. They wrote about a wide variety of cognitive processes and clinical problem areas, and their papers make clear not only the tremendous progress that has occurred in this subfield, but also the long way that the marriage between clinical and cognitive science has to go to fulfill its promise.