Mechanisms of source confusion and discounting in short-term priming 2: Effects of prime similarity and target duration.

Quantitative theories with free parameters often gain credence when they closely fit data. This is a mistake. A good fit reveals nothing about the flexibility of the theory (how much it cannot fit), the variability of the data (how firmly the data rule out what the theory cannot fit), or the likelihood of other outcomes (perhaps the theory could have fit any plausible result), and a reader needs all 3 pieces of information to decide how much the fit should increase belief in the theory. The use of good fits as evidence is not supported by philosophers of science nor by the history of psychology; there seem to be no examples of a theory supported mainly by good fits that has led to demonstrable progress. A better way to test a theory with free parameters is to determine how the theory constrains possible outcomes (i.e., what it predicts), assess how firmly actual outcomes agree with those constraints, and determine if plausible alternative outcomes would have been inconsistent with the theory, allowing for the variability of the data.

A model for the identification of briefly presented words is presented. The model accounts for data from naming and forced-choice experiments in which factors such as similarity of alternatives and stimulus presentation time are varied. The model assumes that counts are accumulated in counters that correspond to words and that a word is chosen as a response when the number of counts in its counter exceeds the maximum of the numbers of counts in other counters by a criterial value. Prior exposure to a word causes its counter to attract more counts than it otherwise would, and this yields priming effects. Ten experiments are presented, and the model provides correct predictions for the data. Implications of the model for research in implicit memory are considered.