An experimental evaluation of a de-biasing intervention for professional software developers

Context: The role of expert judgement is essential in our quest to improve software project planning and execution. However, its accuracy is dependent on many factors, not least the avoidance of judgement biases, such as the anchoring bias, arising from being influenced by initial information, even when it's misleading or irrelevant. This strong effect is widely documented. Objective: We aimed to replicate this anchoring bias using professionals and, novel in a software engineering context, explore de-biasing interventions through increasing knowledge and awareness of judgement biases. Method: We ran two series of experiments in company settings with a total of 410 software developers. Some developers took part in a workshop to heighten their awareness of a range of cognitive biases, including anchoring. Later, the anchoring bias was induced by presenting low or high productivity values, followed by the participants' estimates of their own project productivity. Our hypothesis was that the workshop would lead to reduced bias, i.e., work as a de-biasing intervention. Results: The anchors had a large effect (robust Cohen's d = 1.19) in influencing estimates. This was substantially reduced in those participants who attended the workshop (robust Cohen's d = 0.72). The reduced bias related mainly to the high anchor. The de-biasing intervention also led to a threefold reduction in estimate variance. Conclusion: The impact of anchors upon judgement was substantial. Learning about judgement biases does appear capable of mitigating, although not removing, the anchoring bias. The positive effect of de-biasing through learning about biases suggests that it has value.

[1]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[2]  Morton B. Brown,et al.  Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances , 1974 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[4]  N. Weinstein Unrealistic optimism about future life events , 1980 .

[5]  Joshua Klayman,et al.  Debias the environment instead of the judge: an alternative approach to reducing error in diagnostic (and other) judgment , 1993, Cognition.

[6]  R. Buehler,et al.  Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. , 1994 .

[7]  R. Wilcox Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing , 1997 .

[8]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .

[9]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. , 1999 .

[10]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility , 2000 .

[11]  F. Strack,et al.  The Semantics of Anchoring , 2001 .

[12]  C. J. M. Jansen,et al.  On Round Numbers: Pragmatic Aspects of Numerical Expressions , 2001, J. Quant. Linguistics.

[13]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Implications of Attitude Change Theories for Numerical Anchoring: Anchor Plausibility and the Limits of Anchor Effectiveness , 2001 .

[14]  D. Ariely,et al.  “Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences , 2003 .

[15]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort , 2004, J. Syst. Softw..

[16]  Dag I. K. Sjøberg,et al.  The impact of customer expectation on software development effort estimates , 2004 .

[17]  Steve M. Easterbrook,et al.  Anchoring and adjustment in software estimation , 2005, ESEC/FSE-13.

[18]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  Forecasting of software development work effort: Evidence on expert judgement and formal models , 2007 .

[19]  R. Bratvold,et al.  Efficacy of Bias Awareness in Debiasing Oil and Gas Judgments , 2007 .

[20]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  A Systematic Review of Software Development Cost Estimation Studies , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[21]  Johanna Peetz,et al.  Finishing on time: When do predictions influence completion times? , 2010 .

[22]  Paul D. Ellis,et al.  The essential guide to effect sizes : statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results , 2010 .

[23]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Before you make that big decision... , 2011, Harvard business review.

[24]  A. Furnham,et al.  A literature review of the anchoring effect , 2011 .

[25]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  The Impact of Irrelevant and Misleading Information on Software Development Effort Estimates: A Randomized Controlled Field Experiment , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[26]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  From origami to software development: a review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  Software Development Estimation Biases: The Role of Interdependence , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[28]  Rand Wilcox Chapter 10 – Robust Regression , 2012 .

[29]  Alexander Todorov,et al.  People Claim Objectivity After Knowingly Using Biased Strategies , 2014, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[30]  Ruchika Malhotra,et al.  A systematic review of machine learning techniques for software fault prediction , 2015, Appl. Soft Comput..

[31]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Debiasing Decisions , 2015 .

[32]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  Numerical anchors and their strong effects on software development effort estimates , 2016, J. Syst. Softw..

[33]  G. Oliver,et al.  BET 2: Poor evidence on whether teaching cognitive debiasing, or cognitive forcing strategies, lead to a reduction in errors attributable to cognition in emergency medicine students or doctors , 2017, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[34]  Patrick Mair,et al.  Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package , 2020, Behavior research methods.