Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-jr2wd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-24T14:55:38.431Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Model comparison, not model falsification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Bradley C. Love*
Experimental Psychology, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, United Kingdom.


Systematically comparing models that vary across components can be more informative and explanatory than determining whether behaviour is optimal, however defined. The process of model comparison has a number of benefits, including the possibility of integrating seemingly disparate empirical findings, understanding individual and group differences, and drawing theoretical connections between model proposals.

Open Peer Commentary
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2011) Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(4):169–88. Available at: ScholarPubMed
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L. & Gureckis, T. M. (2004) SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review 111:309–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mack, M. L., Preston, A. R. & Love, B. C. (2013) Decoding the brain's algorithm for categorization from its neural implementation. Current Biology 23:2023–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed