Effects of Personality Traits on Pull Request Acceptance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examine the influence of personality traits of developers on the pull request evaluation process in GitHub. We first replicate Tsayet al.’s work that examined the influence of social factors (e.g., ‘social distance’) and technical factors (e.g., test file inclusion) for evaluating contributions, and then extend it with personality based factors. In particular, we extract the Big Five personality traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) of developers from their online digital footprints, such as pull request comments. We analyze the personality traits of 16,935 active developers from 1,860 projects and compare their relative importance to other non-personality factors from past research, in the pull request evaluation process. We find that pull requests from authors (requesters) who are more open and conscientious, but less extroverted, have a higher chance of approval. Furthermore, pull requests that are closed by developers (closers) who are more conscientious, extroverted, and neurotic, have a higher likelihood of acceptance. The larger the difference in personality traits between the requester and the closer, the more positive effect it has on pull request acceptance. Finally, although the effect of personality traits is significant and comparable to technical factors, we find that social factors are still more influential on the likelihood of pull request acceptance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".