The impact of stressors on the relationship between personality traits, knowledge collection behaviour and programmer creativity intention in software engineering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual and contextual factors have a profound impact on an individual's creativity. In the first part of this research, we concluded that, for a programmer's creativity intention, individual factors including big 5 personality traits and knowledge collection behaviour play a key role. However, it is important to bring contextual factors into the model to provide a holistic understanding. Hence, the objective of the present research is to expand the earlier work by (i) identifying the software engineering occupational stressors relevant to programmers, and (ii) examining their impact as moderators for the relationship between individual factors (i.e., big five personality traits and knowledge collection behaviour) and the creativity intention of the programmer. To analyse the moderating impact of 6 stressors, the survey questionnaire was used to collect data from 294 programmers working in software companies in Pakistan. The data were analysed using the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – Partial Least Square (PLS) technique. The findings revealed that in the presence of a moderate level of stress, the relationship between knowledge collection behaviour and creativity intention was strengthened. Furthermore, stressors interacted differently with different personality traits. An overarching statement could be that most of the stressors positively moderated the relationships between different personality traits and creativity intentions. However, contrary to the prior research, the majority of the stressors negatively affected the impact of the openness to experience trait on creativity intention. The research significantly contributes to the body of knowledge of behavioural software engineering. The findings of this research are novel and intriguing in many aspects and will benefit software organizations to increase innovation, by increasing programmers’ creativity through mitigating stress. The study is also one of the few studies which have attempted to understand the interaction between individual and contextual factors with a programmer's creativity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it