User Personas Improve Social Sustainability by Encouraging Software Developers to Deprioritize Antisocial Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sustainable software development involves creating software in a manner that meets present goals without undermining our ability to meet future goals. In a software engineering context, sustainability has at least four dimensions: ecological, economic, social, and technical. No interventions for improving social sustainability in software engineering have been tested in rigorous lab-based experiments, and little evidence-based guidance is available. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions—stakeholder maps and persona models—for improving social sustainability through software feature prioritization. Method: We conducted a randomized controlled factorial experiment with 79 undergraduate computer science students. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups and asked to prioritize a backlog of prosocial, neutral, and antisocial user stories for a shopping mall's digital screen display and facial recognition software. Participants received either persona models, a stakeholder map, both, or neither. We compared the differences in prioritization levels assigned to prosocial and antisocial user stories using Cumulative Link Mixed Model regression. Results: Participants who received persona models gave significantly lower priorities to antisocial user stories but no significant difference was evident for prosocial user stories. The effects of the stake-holder map were not significant. The interaction effects were not significant. Conclusion: Providing aspiring software professionals with well-crafted persona models causes them to de-prioritize antisocial software features. The impact of persona modelling on sustainable software development therefore warrants further study with more experience professionals. Moreover, the novel methodological strategy of assessing social sustainability behavior through backlog prioritization appears feasible in lab-based settings.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".