An Eye for Trust: An Exploration of Developers' Trust Perceptions Through Urgency and Reputation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08713v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 19:05:27 GMT
• Title: An Eye for Trust: An Exploration of Developers' Trust Perceptions Through Urgency and Reputation
• Abstract summary: This study explores how urgency and reputation influence developers' perceptions of code trustworthiness.<n>Our research revealed that the priority assigned to a code patch significantly influenced developers' code review behavior.<n>Despite noticeable changes in code review behavior, our participants surprisingly overlooked the substantial influence of urgency and reputation on their decisions to review and reuse code changes.
• Score: 1.6332728502735252
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code reuse is a widespread practice across software development projects, suggesting an inherent trust in the reused code. Yet, there is a lack of a fundamental understanding of developers' trust and how various factors mold their trust-based cognitive processes. Drawing from the psychology of compliance and trust, we present the results of the first controlled experiment (n=37) which uses eye tracking to explore how urgency (represented by code priority level) and reputation (represented by the experience level of the code's author) influence developers' perceptions of code trustworthiness. Our research revealed that the priority assigned to a code patch significantly influenced developers' code review behavior, impacting their evaluation time, cognitive load, and perceived quality. However, the decision to incorporate and implement the code was not affected . Eye tracking data revealed that there were variations in overall visual code scanning and the distribution of attention across identical code patches labeled as written by senior vs. junior developers. Yet, there were no significant performance differences. Moreover, our participants nominate code functionality, quality, and comprehensibility as primary factors in code evaluation. Despite noticeable changes in code review behavior, our participants surprisingly overlooked the substantial influence of urgency and reputation on their decisions to review and reuse code changes. This study takes the next step toward a better understanding of trust in software engineering and may inform future research about code review platforms and guidelines, code reuse, and automated code generation.

Related papers

• On Automated and Explainable Provenance of AI-Generated Code [56.818202904805446]
  We argue that the next generation of CodeGenAI tools must be built on a foundation of explainable provenance.<n>We describe a research program combining large-scale empirical studies with post-hoc causal and interpretability techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T14:50:31Z)
• From Generic to Personalized: Exploring Persona-Aware Code Review Explanations [9.60671538959012]
  We explore the potential of personified code review explanations.<n>Our results suggest that preferences for explanation styles vary across problem-solving styles, experience levels, and roles.<n>Based on these findings, we outline a vision for inclusive, human-centered AI-assisted code review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T23:33:01Z)
• When Do Intrinsic Rewards Work for Code Reasoning? A Comprehensive Study [77.64957118012423]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has driven substantial progress in large language model reasoning.<n>Recent work addresses this by deriving rewards from a model's own signals, such as majority voting or confidence-based scores.<n>We present a systematic empirical study of intrinsic reward methods for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-18T19:15:50Z)
• A Causal Perspective on Measuring, Explaining and Mitigating Smells in LLM-Generated Code [49.09545217453401]
  Propensity Smelly Score (PSC) is a metric that estimates the likelihood of generating particular smell types.<n>We identify how generation strategy, model size, model architecture and prompt formulation shape the structural properties of generated code.<n> PSC helps developers interpret model behavior and assess code quality, providing evidence that smell propensity signals can support human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T19:18:28Z)
• Code Review as Decision-Making -- Building a Cognitive Model from the Questions Asked During Code Review [2.8299846354183953]
  We build a cognitive model of code review bottom up through thematic, statistical, temporal, and sequential analysis of the transcribed material.<n>The model shows how developers move through two phases during the code review; first an orientation phase to establish context and rationale, then an analytical phase to understand, assess, and plan the rest of the review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T14:04:16Z)
• RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agents [50.81206098588923]
  RedCode is a benchmark for risky code execution and generation. RedCode-Exec provides challenging prompts that could lead to risky code execution. RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T13:30:06Z)
• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• Towards debiasing code review support [1.188383832081829]
  This paper explores harmful cases caused by cognitive biases during code review. In particular, we design prototypes covering confirmation bias and decision fatigue. We show that some techniques could be implemented in existing code review tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T15:58:14Z)
• Code Revert Prediction with Graph Neural Networks: A Case Study at J.P. Morgan Chase [10.961209762486684]
  Code revert prediction aims to forecast or predict the likelihood of code changes being reverted or rolled back in software development. Previous methods for code defect detection relied on independent features but ignored relationships between code scripts. This paper presents a systematic empirical study for code revert prediction that integrates the code import graph with code features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T15:54:29Z)
• CONCORD: Clone-aware Contrastive Learning for Source Code [64.51161487524436]
  Self-supervised pre-training has gained traction for learning generic code representations valuable for many downstream SE tasks. We argue that it is also essential to factor in how developers code day-to-day for general-purpose representation learning. In particular, we propose CONCORD, a self-supervised, contrastive learning strategy to place benign clones closer in the representation space while moving deviants further apart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T20:39:08Z)
• The Mind Is a Powerful Place: How Showing Code Comprehensibility Metrics Influences Code Understanding [10.644832702859484]
  We investigate whether a displayed metric value for source code comprehensibility anchors developers in their subjective rating of source code comprehensibility. We found that the displayed value of a comprehensibility metric has a significant and large anchoring effect on a developer's code comprehensibility rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-16T14:27:45Z)
• Deep Just-In-Time Inconsistency Detection Between Comments and Source Code [51.00904399653609]
  In this paper, we aim to detect whether a comment becomes inconsistent as a result of changes to the corresponding body of code. We develop a deep-learning approach that learns to correlate a comment with code changes. We show the usefulness of our approach by combining it with a comment update model to build a more comprehensive automatic comment maintenance system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T16:49:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.