Abstract
Criticism of the authors'functional theory of the McCollough effect (ME) is answered. The critics claim that MEs can be explained as classical conditioning effects. It is not disputed that the association-forming process in MEs shares much in common with classical conditioning, but there are still problems, practical and theoretical, with this account. It also misdirects attention from more important matters. The role of MEs in assuring a proper fit between representation and environment is reasserted, which seems to be the strongest reason for studying these effects. The functional theory aims to model the processes of error correction by means of which valid representation of the environment is maintained. It therefore belongs in a different tradition from that proclaimed by its critics
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
