Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., Anderson, J. H. (1990) Factors influencing. the learning of classical mechanics.American Journal of Physics,48, 1074–1079
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions mintroductory mechanics.American Journal of Physics,50, 66–71
Cooke, N. J.. &Breedin, S. D. (1994). Constructing naive theories of motion an the fly.Memory & Cognition.22, 474–493.
Fischoff, B. (1982) For those condemned to study the past Hcurisvcs and biases mhindsight. In D. Kahnemaa, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds),Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases (pp. 335–351) Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Hallovn, I. A., &Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion,American Journal of Physics,53, 1056–1065.
Hoinacki, S. K. (1988). Consistency in naive physical reasoning Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center
Kaiser, M. K., Proffiti, D. R., &McCloskey, M. (1986) Development of intuitive theories of motion: Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces.Developmental Pcychylogy,22, 67–71.
McCloskey, M. (1983) Naive theories of motion In D. Gentner & A L. Stevens (Eds),Mental models (pp 299–324) Hillsdale, NJ Eribaum.
McCloskey, M., &Kohl, D (1983). Naive physics. The curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Merreon, & Cognition,9, 146–156
Ranney, M. (1944) Relative consistency and subjects’ “theories” in domains such as nave physics: Common research difficulties illustrated by Cooke and 8reedm.Meemory & Cognition,22, 494–502.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
—-Accepted by previous editor, Margaret Jean Intons-Peterson
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooke, N.J., Breedin, S.D. Naive misconceptions of Cooke and Breedin’s research: response to Ranney. Mem Cogn 22, 503–507 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200873
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200873