AIM: This study explores whether personality-based role assignments (Pilot, Navigator, Solo) can raise intrinsic motivation in pair programming, focusing on designing a framework and process extension for the resource-constrained environment of very small entities (VSEs). METHOD: We employed a mixed-methods design across three quasi-experimental datasets (n = 73 participants), applying linear mixed-effects (LME) modeling to assess motivational outcomes and thematically analyzing (n = 25) interviews for socio-psychological insights. FINDINGS: Openness strongly correlates with Pilot roles; Extraversion & Agreeableness favor Navigator roles; and Neuroticism aligns more comfortably with Solo roles-each yielding substantial boosts in intrinsic motivation (up to 60-65%). Twelve qualitative themes underscore the influence of mentorship, pairing constellations, and flow disruptions on developer experiences. IMPLICATIONS: Building on these results, we propose the role-optimization motivation alignment (ROMA) framework, mapped to the ISO/IEC 29110 Software Basic Profile and Agile Guidelines, with practical tasks (T1-T7) to facilitate systematic role-trait alignments in small agile teams. Although our data primarily involve Gen-Z undergraduates, the recurring patterns suggest broader applicability, further supported by a separately published application for ongoing generalizability. CONCLUSION: Personality-driven role optimization may significantly enhance collaboration and developer satisfaction in VSEs, though further studies in professional settings and investigations into AI-assisted or distributed pair programming are warranted.

Department of Information Technology University of Economics Prague Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J. Agile software development methods: review and analysis. 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08439 http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08439

Aghaee S, Blackwell AF, Stillwell D, Kosinski M. Personality and intrinsic motivational factors in end-user programming. 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2015. pp. 29–36.

Arisholm E, Gallis H, Dyba T, Sjøberg DI. Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2007;33(2):65–86. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2007.17. DOI

Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Piotrowski M. Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;87(1):43–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43. PubMed DOI

Beck K, Beedle M, Van Bennekum A, Cockburn A, Cunningham W, Fowler M, Grenning J, Highsmith J, Hunt A, Jeffries R, Kern J, Marick B, Martin RC, Mellor S, Schwaber K, Sutherland J, Thomas D. Manifesto for Agile software development. 2001. https://agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/manifesto.html. [1 December 2022]. https://agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/manifesto.html

Belshee A. Promiscuous pairing and beginner’s mind: embrace inexperience [agile programming]. Agile Development Conference (ADC’05); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2005. pp. 125–131.

Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. Leeds, England: Leeds Books; 1975.

Bird CM. How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qualitative Inquiry. 2005;11(2):226–248. doi: 10.1177/1077800404273413. DOI

Bowman NA, Jarratt L, Culver KC, Segre AM. Pair programming in perspective: effects on persistence, achievement, and equity in computer science. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2020;13(4):731–758. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2020.1799464. DOI

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. DOI

Braun V, Clarke V. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology. 2022;9(1):3.

Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2019;11(4):589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. DOI

Brooks FP. No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Computer. 1987;20(4):10–19. doi: 10.1109/MC.1987.1663532. DOI

Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research. 2013;42(3):294–320. doi: 10.1177/0049124113500475. DOI

Chong J, Hurlbutt T. The social dynamics of pair programming. 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2007. pp. 354–363.

Corr PJ, DeYoung CG, McNaughton N. Motivation and personality: a neuropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2013;7(3):158–175. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12016. DOI

Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sixth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2022.

Cruz S, da Silva FQ, Capretz LF. Forty years of research on personality in software engineering: a mapping study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;46(2):94–113. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.008. DOI

Demir Ö, Seferoglu SS. The effect of determining pair programming groups according to various individual difference variables on group compatibility, flow, and coding performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2021;59(1):41–70. doi: 10.1177/0735633120949787. DOI

DeYoung CG. Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality. 2015;56(3):33–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004. DOI

DiDomenico SI, Ryan RM. The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: a new frontier in self-determination research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2017;11:145. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00145. PubMed DOI PMC

Dweck CS. From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review. 2017;124(6):689–719. doi: 10.1037/rev0000082. PubMed DOI

Falessi D, Juristo N, Wohlin C, Turhan B, Münch J, Jedlitschka A, Oivo M. Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments. Empirical Software Engineering. 2018;23(1):452–489. doi: 10.1007/s10664-017-9523-3. DOI

Feldt R, Angelis L, Torkar R, Samuelsson M. Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers. Information and Software Technology. 2010;52(6):611–624. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.01.001. DOI

Feldt R, Zimmermann T, Bergersen GR, Falessi D, Jedlitschka A, Juristo N, Münch J, Oivo M, Runeson P, Shepperd M, Turhan B. Four commentaries on the use of students and professionals in empirical software engineering experiments. Empirical Software Engineering. 2018;23:3801–3820.

Felipe DA, Kalinowski M, Graziotin D, Natividade JC. Psychometric instruments in software engineering research on personality: status quo after fifty years. Journal of Systems and Software. 2023;203(1):111740. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111740. DOI

Forsyth DR, Elliott TR. Group dynamics and psychological well-being: the impact of groups on adjustment and dysfunction. In: Kowalski RM, Leary MR, editors. The Social Psychology of Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Interfaces of Social and Clinical Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999. pp. 339–361.

Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, Van den Broeck A, Aspeli AK, Bellerose J, Benabou C, Chemolli E, Güntert ST, Halvari H. The multidimensional work motivation scale: validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2015;24(2):178–196. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892. DOI

Gallis H, Arisholm E, Dyba T. An initial framework for research on pair programming. Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003 (ISESE 2003); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2003. pp. 132–142.

Galván-Cruz S, Muñoz M, Mejía J, Laporte CY, Negrete M. Building a guideline to reinforce agile software development with the basic profile of ISO/IEC 29110 in very small entities. New Perspectives in Software Engineering: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Process Improvement (CIMPS 2020); Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing; 2021. pp. 20–37.

Graziotin D, Lenberg P, Feldt R, Wagner S. Psychometrics in behavioral software engineering: a methodological introduction with guidelines. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 2021;31(1):1–36. doi: 10.1145/3469888. DOI

Graziotin D, Wang X, Abrahamsson P. Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering. PeerJ. 2014;2:e289. doi: 10.7717/peerj.289. PubMed DOI PMC

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903. DOI

Hannay JE, Arisholm E, Engvik H, Sjøberg DI. Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2009a;36(1):61–80. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2009.41. DOI

Hannay JE, Dybå T, Arisholm E, Sjøberg DI. The effectiveness of pair programming: a meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology. 2009b;51(7):1110–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001. DOI

Hayes AF, Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures. 2007;1(1):77–89. doi: 10.1080/19312450709336664. DOI

ISO/IEC DIS 29110-5-1-2 . Systems and software engineering—life cycle profiles for very small entities (VSEs)—Part 5-1-2: Software engineering: management and engineering guidelines: generic profile group: basic profile. London: International Organization for Standardization; 2023.

ISO/IEC DIS 29110-5-4 . Systems and software engineering—life cycle profiles for very small entities (VSEs)—software engineering—Part 5-4: Agile software development guidelines using the basic profile of ISO/IEC 29110. London: International Organization for Standardization; 2024.

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1(2):112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224. DOI

Katira N, Williams L, Wiebe E, Miller C, Balik S, Gehringer E. On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, March 3–7, 2004; Norfolk Virginia USA. 2004. pp. 7–11.

Kuusinen K, Petrie H, Fagerholm F, Mikkonen T. Flow, Intrinsic motivation, and developer experience in software engineering. International Conference on Agile Software Development; Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 104–117.

Laporte CY, Munoz M, Miranda JM, O’Connor RV. Applying software engineering standards in very small entities: from startups to grownups. IEEE Software. 2018;35(1):99–103. doi: 10.1109/MS.2017.4541041. DOI

Latham GP. Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012.

Lenberg P, Feldt R, Wallgren LG. Behavioral software engineering: a definition and systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software. 2015;107(3):15–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.084. DOI

Marzi G, Balzano M, Marchiori D. K-Alpha calculator—Krippendorff’s alpha calculator: a user-friendly tool for computing Krippendorff’s alpha inter-rater reliability coefficient. MethodsX. 2024;12(1):102545. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102545. PubMed DOI PMC

Mbanaso UM, Abrahams L, Okafor KC. Research philosophy, design and methodology. Research Techniques for Computer Science, Information Systems and Cybersecurity; Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023. pp. 81–113.

McCrae RR, Costa PT., Jr . The five-factor theory of personality. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, editors. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. Third Edition. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 159–181.

Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2013;4(2):133–142. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x. DOI

Nettle D. The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist. 2006;61(6):622–631. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622. PubMed DOI

O’Connor C, Joffe H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2020;19:1–13. doi: 10.1177/1609406919899220. DOI

O’Connor RV, Laporte CY. An innovative approach to the development of an international software process lifecycle standard for very small entities. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach (IJITSA) 2014;7(1):1–22. doi: 10.4018/IJITSA. DOI

Penke L, Denissen JJ, Miller GF. The evolutionary genetics of personality. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology. 2007;21(5):549–587. doi: 10.1002/per.629. DOI

Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Linear mixed-effects models: basic concepts and examples. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus; New York, NY: Springer; 2000. pp. 3–56.

Plonka L, Sharp H, Van der Linden J, Dittrich Y. Knowledge transfer in pair programming: an in-depth analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2015;73(9):66–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.001. DOI

Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality. 2007;41(1):203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001. DOI

Riemann R, Kandler C. Construct validation using multitrait-multimethod-twin data: the case of a general factor of personality. European Journal of Personality. 2010;24(3):258–277. doi: 10.1002/per.760. DOI

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1):68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. PubMed DOI

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications; 2017.

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic motivation inventory. Self-Determination Theory. 2024. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ [15 December 2024]. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/

Salleh N, Mendes E, Grundy J. The effects of openness to experience on pair programming in a higher education context. 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2011. pp. 149–158.

Salleh N, Mendes E, Grundy J. Investigating the effects of personality traits on pair programming in a higher education setting through a family of experiments. Empirical Software Engineering. 2014;19(3):714–752. doi: 10.1007/s10664-012-9238-4. DOI

Schleiger E, Mason C, Naughtin C, Reeson A, Paris C. Collaborative intelligence: a scoping review of current applications. Applied Artificial Intelligence. 2024;38(1):2327890. doi: 10.1080/08839514.2024.2327890. DOI

Schmitt N, Cortina JM, Ingerick MJ, Wiechmann D. Personnel selection and employee performance. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ, editors. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 12. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2003. pp. 77–105.

Seaman C, Hoda R, Feldt R. Qualitative research methods in software engineering: past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2025;51(3):1–6. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2025.3538751. DOI

Sfetsos P, Stamelos I, Angelis L, Deligiannis I. An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Engineering. 2009;14(2):187–226. doi: 10.1007/s10664-008-9093-5. DOI

Sjøberg DI, Anda B, Arisholm E, Dyba T, Jorgensen M, Karahasanovic A, Koren EF, Vokác M. Conducting realistic experiments in software engineering. Proceedings International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering; Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2002. pp. 17–26.

Smite D, Mikalsen M, Moe NB, Stray V, Klotins E. From collaboration to solitude and back: remote pair programming during COVID-19. International Conference on Agile Software Development; Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. pp. 3–18.

Tan J, Wu L, Shanshan M. Collaborative dialogue patterns of pair programming and their impact on programming self-efficacy and coding performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023;55(3):1060–1081. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13412. DOI

Valovy M, Buchalcevova A. Blockchain-driven research in personality-based distributed pair programming. Forthcoming in Proceedings of the 5th Asia Conference on Information Engineering (ACIE 2025), January 10–12, 2025; Phuket, Thailand: 2025.

Valový M. Motivational differences among software professionals. IDIMT-2022 Digitalization of Society, Business and Management in a Pandemic; September 7–9, 2022; Prague, Czech Republic. 2022. pp. 437–444.

Valový M. Effects of pilot, navigator, and solo programming roles on motivation: an experimental study. In: Mejia J, Muñoz M, Rocha Á, Hernández-Nava V, editors. New Perspectives in Software Engineering. CIMPS 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Vol. 576. Cham: Springer; 2023a. pp. 84–98.

Valový M. Psychological aspects of pair programming: a mixed-methods experimental study. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2023b. pp. 210–216.

Valový M, Buchalcevova A. The psychological effects of AI-assisted programming on students and professionals. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2023. pp. 385–390.

Vanhanen J, Lassenius C. Effects of pair programming at the development team level: an experiment. 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering; Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2005. p. 10.

Vinson NG, Singer J. A practical guide to ethical research involving humans. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering; London: Springer London; 2008. pp. 229–256.

Williams L, Kessler RR. Pair programming illuminated. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional; 2003.

Williams L, Layman L, Osborne J, Katira N. Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. AGILE, 2006 (AGILE’06); Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2006. p. 10.

Williams L, McCrickard DS, Layman L, Hussein K. Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. Agile 2008 Conference; Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2008. pp. 445–452.

Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A. Experimentation in software engineering. Vol. 236. Berlin: Springer; 2012.

Zieris F, Prechelt L. PP-ind: a repository of industrial pair programming session recordings. Context. 2020a;50:9. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2002.03121. DOI

Zieris F, Prechelt L. Explaining pair programming session dynamics from knowledge gaps. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering; 27 June 2020–19 July 2020; Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2020b. pp. 421–432.

Zuill W, Meadows K. Mob programming: a whole team approach. Agile 2014 Conference; Orlando, Florida: 2014.