Modern cognitive psychology has strictly adhered to the experimental methodology of the natural sciences. Often, contributions in Theory & Psychology have addressed shortcomings and possible remedies of this predominant approach and its emphasis on `effects'. My comment contrasts this approach with the generative theories (cognitive simulation models) developed in cognitive science about 30 years ago and still not widely accepted in psychology. I characterize these generative theories, and discuss their weaknesses and their advantages over the usual way of theorizing in cognitive psychology. I hope to convince at least some readers that (a) in order to proceed in this manner, you need not buy a ready-made `cognitive architecture', and (b) that this approach results in a much more rigorous theorizing (although still well controllable as a scientific endeavor).
Anderson, J.R. , & Lebiere, C. (1998). Atomic components of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Bransford, J.D. , & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Leaming and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
3.
Bransford, J.D. , & Johnson, M.K. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W.G. Chase (Ed.), Verbal information processing. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Carpenter, P.A. , & Just, M.A. (1999). Computational modeling of high-level cognition versus hypothesis-testing. In R.J. Stemnberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 245-294). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Clark, H.H. , & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6.
Cooper, R. , & Fox, J. (1998). COGENT: A visual design environment for cognitive modeling. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 30, 553-564.
7.
Feldman, J.A. , & Ballard, D.A. (1982). Connectionist models and their properties. Cognitive Science, 6, 205-254.
Gigerenzer, G. , & Goldstein, D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.
10.
Janetzko, D. (1998). Tracking cognitive representations. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. See also HYPERLINK http://cogweb.iig.uni-freiburg.de/KT
11.
Lewin, K. (1927). Gesetz und Experiment in der Psychologie. Symposion, 1, 375-421.
12.
McClelland, J.L. (1999). Cognitive modeling: Connectionist. In R.A. Wilson & F.C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 137-141). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Mitchell, D.C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375-409). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Newell, A. , & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
Reichle, E.D. , Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D.L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157.
17.
Richman, H.B. , & Simon, H.A. (1989). Context effects in letter perception: Comparison of two theories. Psychological Review, 96, 417-432.
18.
Rumelhart, D.E. , & McClelland, J.L. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Schneider, W. (1988). Sensitivity analysis in cognitive modeling. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20, 282-288.
20.
Simon, H. , & Wallach, D. (1999). Cognitive modeling in perspective. Kognitions-wissenschaft, 8, 1-4.
21.
Strube, G. (in press). Cognitive modeling: Research logic in cognitive science. In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
