Abstract
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).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
