Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.19926

Developers' Experience with Generative AI -- First Insights from an Empirical Mixed-Methods Field Study

Charlotte Brandebusemeyer·Tobias Schimmer·Bert Arnrich
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

With the rise of AI-powered coding assistants, firms and programmers are exploring how to optimize their interaction with them. Research has so far mainly focused on evaluating output quality and productivity gains, leaving aside the developers' experience during the interaction. In this study, we take a multimodal, developer-centered approach to gain insights into how professional developers experience the interaction with Generative AI (GenAI) in their natural work environment in a firm. The aim of this paper is (1) to demonstrate a feasible mixed-method study design with controlled and uncontrolled study periods within a firm setting, (2) to give first insights from complementary behavioral and subjective experience data on developers' interaction with GitHub Copilot and (3) to compare the impact of interaction types (no Copilot use, in-code suggestions, chat prompts or both in-code suggestions and chat prompts) on efficiency, accuracy and perceived workload whilst working on different task categories. Results of the controlled sessions in this study indicate that moderate use of either in-code suggestions or chat prompts improves efficiency (task duration) and reduces perceived workload compared to not using Copilot, while excessive or combined use lessens these benefits. Accuracy (task completion) profits from chat interaction. In general, subjective perception of workload aligns with objective behavioral data in this study. During the uncontrolled period of the study, both higher cognitive load and productivity were perceived when interacting with AI during everyday working tasks. This study motivates the use of comparable study designs, in e.g. workshop or hackathon settings, to evaluate GenAI tools holistically and realistically with a focus on the developers' experience.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Charlotte Brandebusemeyer, Tobias Schimmer, Bert Arnrich. 2025-12-22. Developers' Experience with Generative AI -- First Insights from an Empirical Mixed-Methods Field Study. https://doi.org/10.1145/3786583.3786870

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC↗