PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

186

Title *

Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Jacob Krüger, Gül Çalıklı, Dmitri Bershadskyy, Robert Heyer, Sarah Zabel, Siegmar OttoPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Empirical studies in software engineering are often conducted with open-source developers or in industrial collaborations. Seemingly, this resulted in few experiments using financial incentives (e.g., money, vouchers) as a strategy to motivate the participants’ behavior; which is typically done in other research communities, such as economics or psychology. Even the current version of the SIGSOFT Empirical Standards does mention payouts for completing surveys only, but not for mimicking the real-world or motivating realistic behavior during experiments. So, there is a lack of understanding regarding whether financial incentives can or cannot be useful for software-engineering experimentation. To tackle this problem, we plan a survey based on which we will conduct a controlled laboratory experiment. Precisely, we will use the survey to elicit incentivization schemes we will employ as (up to) four payoff functions (i.e., mappings of choices or performance in an experiment to a monetary payment) during a code-review task in the experiment: (1) a scheme that employees prefer, (2) a scheme that is actually employed, (3) a scheme that is performance-independent, and (4) a scheme that mimics an open-source scenario. Using a between-subject design, we aim to explore how the different schemes impact the participants’ performance. Our contributions help understand the impact of financial incentives on developers in experiments as well as real-world scenarios, guiding researchers in designing experiments and organizations in compensating developers.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Software Engineering, Financial Incentives

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2022-02-23 09:30:05

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report