Exploratory experiments in programmer behavior

  • Ben Shneiderman
Article

Abstract

The techniques of cognitive psychological experimentation can help resolve specific issues in programming and explore the broader issues of programmer behavior. This paper describes the methodological questions of such experimentation and presents two exploratory experiments: a memorization task and a comparison of the arithmetic and logical IF statements infortran.

Key words

Programming programmers psychological experimentations human factors cognitive psychology memorization conditional branching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Shneiderman, “Experimental Testing in Programming Languages, Stylistic Considerations and Design Techniques,” inProceedings of the National Computer Conference (AFIPS Press, Montvale, New Jersey, 1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. D. Bransford and J. J. Franks, The abstraction of linguistic ideas,Cognitive Psychol. 2, 331–350 (1971).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. J. Barclay, The role of comprehension in remembering sentences,Cognitive Psychol. 4, 229–254 (1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. G. Chase and H. A. Simon, Perception in chess,Cognitive Psychol. 4, 55–81 (1973).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. A. Simon and K. Gilmartin, A simulation of memory for chess positions,Cognitive Psychol. 5, 29–46 (1973).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Shneiderman and R. Mayer, “Towards a Cognitive Model of Programmer Behavior,” Technical Report No. 37, Department of Computer Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana (1975).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Shneiderman, R. Mayer, D. McKay, and P. Heller, “Experimental Investigations of the Utility of Flowcharts in Programming,” Technical Report No. 36, Department of Computer Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana (1975).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Weissman, “Psychological Complexity of Computer Programs: An Initial Experiment,” Technical Report CSRG-26, Computer Systems Research Group, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (1973).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Weissman, “A Methodology for Studying the Psychological Complexity of Computer Programs,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, (1974); available as Technical Report, Computer Science Research Group, CSRG-37.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. D. Gannon and J. J. Horning, The impact of language design on the production of reliable software,IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1(2) (1975).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Miller, “Programming by Non-programmers,” IBM Research Report RC 4280 (1973).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Miller, “Naive Programmer Problems with Specification of Transfer-of-Control,” inProceedings of the National Computer Conference (AFIPS Press, Montvale, New Jersey, 1975).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. I. Organick and L. P. Meissner,FORTRAN IV, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1974).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information,Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S.A. Standard Basic FORTRAN, ANSI Standard X3.10 (American National Standards Institute, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. D. McCracken,A Simplified Guide to FORTRAN Programming (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Shneiderman
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations