Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models.

Rouse, William B., Morris, Nancy M.·1986·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To place the arguments advanced in this paper in alternative points of view with regard to mental models are reviewed. Use of the construct in areas such as neural information processing, manual control, decision making, problem solving, and cognitive science are discussed. Also reviewed are several taxonomies of mental models. The available empirical evidence for answering questions concerning the nature and usage of mental models is then discussed. A variety of studies are reviewed where the type and form of humans' knowledge have been manipulated. Also considered are numerous transfer of training studies whose results provide indirect evidence of the nature of mental models. The alternative perspectives considered and the spectrum of empirical evidence are combined to suggest a framework within which research on mental models can be viewed. By considering interactions of dimensions of this framework, the most salient unanswered questions can be identified.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1986-11
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
349-363
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349
OpenAlex
W3185189058
Cited by
1,218
References
6
FWCI
12.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.