Psychology behind successful marital programming

Links table

Abstract and 1. Introduction

2 search settings

3 ways

3.1 tools and 3.2 quantitative analysis

3.3 Theme analysis

4 results

4.1 Quantitative results

4.2 qualitative results

5 Discussion and 5.1 Answer to search questions

5.2 Friendship threats and 5.3 restrictions and generalization

6 conclusion, declarations, and references

6 Conclusion

This initial study identified the psychological aspects of marital programming, analyzing ways to increase the fundamental motivation of students, improve marital programming practice in educational environments, and exploit them in conjugation psychology.

Experimental navigator roles are more stimulating than both members who are simultaneously. The areas of improving the conjugation include the complexity of the task, linking the towers, comments, practicing soft and social skills, psychological aspects, visions of the dizziness, and following the features of the “ideal programming”.

With further progress for theoretical institutions on conjugation psychology in software engineering and the development of artificial smart conjugation programs, additional research towards the experimental study of human cooperation and artificial intelligence should be directed.

Thanks and appreciation

This work was supported by the internal grant financing plan (F4/61/2023) run by the University of Prague for the economy and business.

Reference

[1] Falof, Marcel. “Experimental Performing: Design of Study and Initial Results.” In the facts of a psychological group 33 in favor of programming (PPIG’22), 2022: 107-112

[2] Falof, Marcel. “Effects of experimental roles, navigation and individual programming on the motivation.” New views of software engineering: the incidents of the eleventh international conference on improving the software process (CIMPS 2022). Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022: 84-98.

[3] Arishmlm, Eric, Hans Gallis, Maze Dibo, and Djend Ike Sgberg. “The assessment of marital programming with regard to the complexity of the system and the experience of programming.” IEEE transactions on software engineering 33.2 (2007): 65-86.

[4] Bird, Cindy M. “How did you stop fear and learned to love copying.” Specific investigation 11, no. 2 (2005): 226-248.

[5] Brown, Virginia, and Victoria Clark. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Specific research in psychology 3, no. 2 (2006): 77-101.

[6] Feter, Robert, Leverris Anjiris, Richard Turkar, and Maria Samuelson. “Links between characters, views, and the positions of software engineers.” Information technology and programs 52, no. 6 (2010): 611-624.

[7] Graziotin, Daniel, Per Lenberg, Robert Feldt, and Stefan Wagner. “Psychological measurements in behavioral software engineering: a systematic introduction with instructions.” ACM transactions on software engineering and methodology (TOSEM) 31, no. 1 (2021): 1-36.

[8] Guest, Greg, Arwin Bons, and Laura Johnson. “How many interviews are enough? Experience with data saturation and change.” Roads of the field 18, no. 1 (2006): 59-82.

[9] Hanai, Joe E, Eric Archolm, Harald Ingevik, and Daj Eke Sgberg. “The effects of the personality on the programming of the husband.” IEEE transactions on software engineering 36, no. 1 (2009): 61-80.

[10] Hanai, Joe E. “The effectiveness of marital programming: twin analysis.” Information and Program Technology 51.7 (2009): 1110-1122.

[11] Katira, Neha, Lauri Williams, Eric Weby, Carol Miller, Susan Balik, Ed Gerenger. “When you understand the compatibility of the programmers for students.” The facts of the thirty -five SigCse technical symposium on computer science education. 2004.

[12] Latham, Gary P. P. Date: History, Theory, Research, and Exercise. Hakim, 2012.

[13] Linberg, Bear, Robert Felett, Lars Gourane and Green. “Behavioral software engineering: definition and review of systematic literature.” Journal of Systems and Software 107 (2015): 15-37.

[14] Sash, Rin. The effect of reactions on the motivation of software engineers. Open University (UK), 2013.

[15] Ryan, Richard M. Personality Magazine and Social Psychology 43.3 (1982): 450.

[16] Ryan, Richard M. , Edward l. Disi. “The theory of self -determination.” The basic psychological needs of motivation, development and wellness (2017).

[17] The theory of self -determination. 2022. Inventory of the fundamental motivation. (January 2023). Recovered on January 12, 2023 from http://Selfdterminology

[18] Vanhanin, Gary, and Casper Lasinius. “The effects of marital programming at the development team level: experience.” At the International Symposium on Experimental Software Engineering, (2005), p. 10p. IEEE, 2005.

[19] Williams, Lori, and Robert R. Kisler. Lifting pair programming. Edison Wesley, a professional, 2003.

[20] Williams, Lori, Lucas Lehman, Jason Osborne, Neha Katira. “Check the programmer’s compatibility of the student’s husband.” Agile 2006 (Agile’06). IEEE, 2006

---