On the merits of ACT and information-processing psychology: A response to Wexler's review

Wexler (1978) has published a review of my book Language, Memory and Thought (LMT Anderson, 1976) and the ACT theory which the book describes. His comments go far beyond a standard review. He asserts that the book represents what many information-processing psychologists “are most proud of” (p. 327) and that I am “one of the ablest practitioners of the field” (p. 328). However, he concludes that there is little of value in LMT and in my work in general. From this he concludes that there are serious weaknesses in the information-processing approach. While it would be nice if these personally flattering comments are true, there are at least three problems with his argument: most important the logic is shaky. The evaluation of an approach should not be accomplished by evaluating a single practitioner of the approach; rather, the merit of an approach should be evaluated in terms of properties intrinsic to the approach.’ Second, however I am regarded in the field, it is clear that LMT is not representative of information-processing psychology in that it strives for a very global theory which is not typica! of human information processing. Third, as I will argue at length, the negative conclusion about LMT is greviously in error. The generalization of the negative judgment of LMT to the whole of information-processing psychology is the centerpiece of the review. It is such a mistake that 1 want to sever in all further discussion the connection between LMT and information-processing psychology in general. I will consider first why I think his negative judgments about LMT are mistaken and then turn to why I think his judgments about information-processing psychology are