Steingroever, Wetzels, and Wagenmakers (2014) conducted a detailed investigation of 3 popular reinforcement-learning models for the Iowa gambling task using 2 model comparison techniques: a post hoc fit criterion and a simulation method. However, these 2 methods yield inconsistent results regarding which model should be preferred as a description of underlying psychological processes. Here, we describe the benefits of each method in an attempt to develop a more balanced view of how to utilize these model comparison techniques, and we outline the risks of focusing on a single method to make inferences about the overall utility of a model. Also, we make several suggestions about how applied research should evaluate candidate cognitive models, and we offer guidelines for future research aimed at identifying "good" models for decomposing and explaining participants' performance.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.