Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Dec;27(6):1218-1229.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01747-2.

A framework for building cognitive process models

Affiliations
Review

A framework for building cognitive process models

Jana B Jarecki et al. Psychon Bull Rev. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

The term process model is widely used, but rarely agreed upon. This paper proposes a framework for characterizing and building cognitive process models. Process models model not only inputs and outputs but also model the ongoing information transformations at a given level of abstraction. We argue that the following dimensions characterize process models: They have a scope that includes different levels of abstraction. They specify a hypothesized mental information transformation. They make predictions not only for the behavior of interest but also for processes. The models' predictions for the processes can be derived from the input, without reverse inference from the output data. Moreover, the presumed information transformation steps are not contradicting current knowledge of human cognitive capacities. Lastly, process models require a conceptual scope specifying levels of abstraction for the information entering the mind, the proposed mental events, and the behavior of interest. This framework can be used for refining models before testing them or after testing them empirically, and it does not rely on specific modeling paradigms. It can be a guideline for developing cognitive process models. Moreover, the framework can advance currently unresolved debates about which models belong to the category of process models.

Keywords: Cognitive model; Cognitive process model; Computational model; Definitions; Marr’s levels.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Increasing citation frequency of publications using the term “process model”. Source: Web of Knowledge, accessed May 2019. The solid line shows the proportion of citations of articles that include the terms “process model” AND “cognitive science” AND “judgment and decision making” relative to citations including the latter terms but excluding “process model.” The dotted lines depict the respective proportions for articles that include the term “agent-based model,” “formal model,” or “computational model” instead of “process model.” Cognitive science and judgment and decision making were operationalized as “cognitive,” “psychology,” AND “judgment and decision making” OR “decision making”
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The framework for cognitive process models. The schema shows the requirements for process models: conceptual scope defining a hierarchy between the intermediate stage and the input–output level (see text), intermediate stage, compatibility, separability, and testability. Input and output are necessary for both input–output and process models. The solid lines denote the interrelatedness of the components. For details, see the text
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Checklist to construct cognitive process models. For further details, see text

References

    1. Achinstein P. Theoretical models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 1965;XVI(62):102–120. doi: 10.1093/bjps/XVI.62.102. - DOI
    1. Anderson JR. Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1991;14(3):471–485. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00070801. - DOI
    1. Ayal S, Hochman G. Ignorance or integration: The cognitive processes underlying choice behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2009;22(4):455–474. doi: 10.1002/bdm.642. - DOI
    1. Berg N, Gigerenzer G. As-if behavioral economics: Neoclassical economics in disguise? History of Economic Ideas. 2010;18(1):133–166. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1677168. - DOI
    1. Bergert FB, Nosofsky RM. A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2007;33(1):107–129. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.107. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources