Naive misconceptions of Cooke and Breedin's research: response to Ranney

Nancy J. Cooke, Sarah D. Breedin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


In this paper, we respond to Ranney's (1994) comment on our paper on naive physics (Cooke & Breedin, 1994). In his comment, Ranney criticizes our methods and analyses, as well as our claims of theoretical inconsistency. In response to Ranney, we show that mast of his criticisms can be traced to several misconceptions. Some of these misconceptions seem to stem from his drawing of inappropriate similarities between his own research and ours. Specifically, ftanney seems to hall faun' misconceptions about our research: (1) the belief that trajectory responses in our study were relevant to our claims about theoretical consistency, (2) tie belief that aggregation of theoretical variations weakens claims of inconsistency, (3) the belief that the method of written reports is inferior to the method of structured interviews, and (4) the belief that our proposal of on-the-fly theorizing is at odds with temporal consistency and nonimpetus beliefs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)503-507
Number of pages5
JournalMemory & Cognition
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 1 1994
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)


Dive into the research topics of 'Naive misconceptions of Cooke and Breedin's research: response to Ranney'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this