The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 307–316 | Cite as

Using Computers to Teach Behavior Analysis

  • Eliot Shimoff
  • A. Charles Catania


When it is impractical to provide behavior analysis students with extensive laboratory experience using real organisms, computers can provide effective demonstrations, simulations, and experiments. Furthermore, such computer programs can establish contingency-shaped behavior even in lecture classes, which usually are limited to establishing rule-governed behavior. We describe the development of computerized shaping simulations and the development of software that teaches students to discriminate among reinforcement schedules on the basis of cumulative records.

Key words

computer software simulations shaping reinforcement schedules cumulative records 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Catania, A. C. (1988). Problems of selection and phylogeny, terms and methods of behaviorism. In A. C. Catania & S. Harnad (Eds.), The selection of behavior: The operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner (pp. 472–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Catania, A. C., Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 119–150). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eckerman, D. A., Hienz, R. D., Stern, S., & Kowlowitz, V. (1980). Shaping the location of a pigeon’s peck: Effect of rate and size of shaping steps. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 299–310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Galbicka, G., Kautz, M. A., & Jagers, T. (1993). Response acquisition under targeted percentile schedules: A continuing quandary for molar models of operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 171–184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hyten, C. (1989). A review of CMS Software’s Psychology On A Disk. The Behavior Analyst, 12, 227–232.Google Scholar
  7. Karp, H. J. (1995). Rat lab for fun and profit. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 147–154.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthews, B. A., Catania, A. C., & Shimoff, E. (1985). Effects of uninstructed verbal behavior on nonverbal responding: Contingency descriptions versus performance descriptions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 155–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Mulick, J. A. (1992). Review of Behavior On A Disk from CMS Academic Software: Instructional programs for teaching teachers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 301–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Nevin, J. A. (1969). Signal detection theory and operant behavior: A review of Green and Swets’ Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 475–480.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Shimoff, E., Matthews, B. A., & Catania, A. C. (1986). Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 149–157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Truax, C. B. (1966). Reinforcement and non-reinforcement in Rogerian therapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Maryland Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations