Destructive Criticism in Software Code Review Impacts Inclusion
Sanuri Dananja Gunawardena, Peter Devine, Isabelle Beaumont, Lola Piper Garden, Emerson R. Murphy-Hill, Kelly Blincoe
Abstract
The software industry lacks gender diversity. Recent research has suggested that a toxic working culture is to blame. Studies have found that communications in software repositories directed towards women are more negative in general. In this study, we use a destructive criticism lens to examine gender differences in software code review feedback. Software code review is a practice where code is peer reviewed and negative feedback is often delivered. We explore differences in perceptions, frequency, and impact of destructive criticism across genders. We surveyed 93 software practitioners eliciting perceived reactions to hypothetical scenarios (or vignettes) where participants are asked to imagine receiving either constructive or destructive criticism. In addition, the survey collected general opinions on feedback obtained during software code review as well as the frequency that participants give and receive destructive criticism.
We found that opinions on destructive criticism vary. Women perceive destructive criticism as less appropriate and are less motivated to continue working with the developer after receiving destructive criticism. Destructive criticism is fairly common with more than half of respondents having received nonspecific negative feedback and nearly a quarter having received inconsiderate negative feedback in the past year. Our results suggest that destructive criticism in code review could be a contributing factor to the lack of gender diversity observed in the software industry.
CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing; • Software and its engineering → Collaboration in software development; • Social and professional topics → Gender.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4257199d-a33d-4ff5-a470-75158666b493Cited by top-tier papers5
- "STILL AROUND": Experiences and Survival Strategies of Veteran Women Software DevelopersSterre van Breukelen, Ann Barcomb, Sebastian Baltes, Alexander SerebrenikICSE 2023 · 25 citations
- A case study of implicit mentoring, its prevalence, and impact in ApacheZixuan Feng, Amreeta Chatterjee, Anita Sarma, Iftekhar AhmedFSE 2022 · 17 citations
- Barriers for Students During Code Change ComprehensionJustin Middleton, John-Paul Ore, Kathryn T. StoleeICSE 2024 · 7 citations
- ToxiShield: Promoting Inclusive Developer Communication through Real-Time Toxicity FilteringMd Awsaf Alam Anindya, Showvik Biswas, Anindya Iqbal, Jaydeb Sarker et al.FSE 2026 · 1 citation
- The Landscape of Toxicity: An Empirical Investigation of Toxicity on GitHubJaydeb Sarker, Asif Kamal Turzo, Amiangshu BosuFSE 2025 · 1 citation
Builds on1
Related papers
- Effective Teaching through Code Reviews: Patterns and Anti-patternsAnita Sarma, Nina ChenFSE 2024 · 1 citation
- Do Words Have Power? Understanding and Fostering Civility in Code Review DiscussionMd Shamimur Rahman, Zadia Codabux, Chanchal K. RoyFSE 2024 · 6 citations
- The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review DiscussionsIsabella Ferreira, Jinghui Cheng, Bram AdamsCSCW 2021 · 51 citations
- Competencies for Code ReviewPavlína Wurzel Gonçalves, Gül Çalikli, Alexander Serebrenik, Alberto BacchelliCSCW 2023 · 11 citations
- Gender and Participation in Open Source Software DevelopmentHana Frluckaj, Laura Dabbish, David Gray Widder, Huilian Sophie Qiu et al.CSCW 2022 · 39 citations
