The importance of frameworks for directing empirical questions: reply to Goodie and Fantino (2000)

Abstract

A. S. Goodie and E. Fantino (2000) make two main criticisms of the predictions of M. C. Lovett and C. D. Schunn's (1999) RCCL model. (RCCL is pronounced "ReCyCLe"; it stands for Represent the task, Construct a set of action strategies, Choose from among those strategies according to success rate, Learn new success rates.) In both cases, the authors believe the criticisms reflect a failure to appreciate the difference between broad frameworks and specific mathematical/computational models. In this article, the value of a broad framework, such as RCCL, in directing new empirical analyses and guiding theoretical development is shown. In particular, RCCL expands on existing work to reveal how variability and change in mental representations influence base-rate sensitivity. The authors also address several other issues raised by A. S. Goodie and E. Fantino (2000) and show that qualitative shifts in individuals' choice behavior are present in their original data--a key prediction of RCCL that does not appear in previous accounts.