ASSESSMENT OF SEMANTIC NETWORK THEORIES

 ASSESSMENT OF SEMANTIC NETWORK THEORIES

Why would a model be criticized it it can explain about any results.  We can answer this question by considering the following properties of good psychological theories:

1. Explanatory power: The theory can explain why a particular result occurred by-making a statement like "behavior A occurred because...."

2. Predictive power: The theory can predict the results of a particular experiment by making a statement like "Under these circumstances. Behavior B will occur"

3. Falsifiability: The theory or pan of the theory can potentially be shown to be wrong it if a particular experimental results occur. This means that it should be possible to design an experiment that can potentially yield results that would he predicted by the theory, and also that can potentially yield results that are not predicted by the theory.

4. Generation of experiments, Good theories usually stimulate a great deal of research to test the theory, to determine ways of improving the theory, to use new methods suggested by the theory, or study new questions raised by the theory.

When we evaluate the original Collins and Quillian theory against these criteria, we find that although it does explain and predict some results. There are many results it can't explain, such as the typicality effect and the longer reaction times for sentences like "A pig is a mammal." These failures to accurately explain and predict are what led Collins and Loftus to propose their theory.

But Collins and Loftus theory has been criticized for being so flexible that it is difficult to falsify. We can understand why this is a problem by considering the networks.