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

746

Title *

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

Authors *

Dmitri Bershadskyy, Jacob Krüger, Gül Çalıklı, Siegmar Otto, Sarah Zabel, Jannik Greif, Robert HeyerPlease 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 *

2024

Picture

Abstract *

<p>In software-engineering research, many empirical studies are conducted with open-source or industry developers. However, in contrast to other research communities like economics or psychology, only few experiments use financial incentives (i.e., paying money) as a strategy to motivate participants' behavior and reward their performance. The most recent version of the SIGSOFT Empirical Standards mentions payouts only for increasing participation in surveys, but not for mimicking real-world motivations and behavior in experiments. Within this article, we report a controlled experiment in which we tackled this gap by studying how different financial incentivization schemes impact developers. For this purpose, we first conducted a survey on financial incentives used in the real-world, based on which we designed three incentivization schemes: (1) a performance-dependent scheme that employees prefer, (2) a scheme that is performance-independent, and (3) a scheme that mimics open-source development. Then, using a between-subject experimental design, we explored how these three schemes impact participants' performance. Our findings indicate that the different schemes can impact participants' performance in software-engineering experiments. Due to the small sample sizes, our results are not statistically significant, but we can still observe clear tendencies. Our contributions help understand the impact of financial incentives on participants 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 Experimentation, Financial Incentives, Experiment, Empirical Software Engineering

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 *

Computer science

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

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

2024-03-20 07:44:51

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY