Trust Dynamics in AI-Assisted Development: Definitions, Factors, and Implications

Software developers increasingly rely on AI code generation utilities. To ensure that “good” code is accepted into the code base and “bad” code is rejected, developers must know when to trust an AI suggestion. Understanding how developers build this intuition is crucial to enhancing developer-AI collaborative programming. In this paper, we seek to understand how developers (1) define and (2) evaluate the trustworthiness of a code suggestion and (3) how trust evolves when using AI code assistants. To answer these questions, we conducted a mixed method study consisting of an in-depth exploratory survey with (n=29) developers followed by an observation study (n=10). We found that comprehensibility and perceived correctness were the most frequently used factors to evaluate code suggestion trustworthiness. However, the gap in developers' definition and evaluation of trust points to a lack of support for evaluating trustworthy code in real-time. We also found that developers often alter their trust decisions, keeping only 52% of original suggestions. Based on these findings, we extracted four guidelines to enhance developer-AI interactions. We validated the guidelines through a survey with (n=7) domain experts and survey members (n=8). We discuss the validated guidelines, how to apply them, and tools to help adopt them.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-04-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/icse55347.2025.00199
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Cognitive Science and Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.96
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trust Dynamics in AI-Assisted Development: Definitions, Factors, and Implications

Nenad Medvidović, Xinyi Zhou, Lars Lindemann, Philipp Eibl et al.
2 citations
Cognitive Science and Mapping
4.96
article

Trust Dynamics in AI-Assisted Development: Definitions, Factors, and Implications

Nenad Medvidović, Xinyi Zhou, Lars Lindemann, Philipp Eibl, Morteza Ziyadi, Souti Chattopadhyay, Sadra Sabouri
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Software developers increasingly rely on AI code generation utilities. To ensure that “good” code is accepted into the code base and “bad” code is rejected, developers must know when to trust an AI suggestion. Understanding how developers build this intuition is crucial to enhancing developer-AI collaborative programming. In this paper, we seek to understand how developers (1) define and (2) evaluate the trustworthiness of a code suggestion and (3) how trust evolves when using AI code assistants. To answer these questions, we conducted a mixed method study consisting of an in-depth exploratory survey with (n=29) developers followed by an observation study (n=10). We found that comprehensibility and perceived correctness were the most frequently used factors to evaluate code suggestion trustworthiness. However, the gap in developers' definition and evaluation of trust points to a lack of support for evaluating trustworthy code in real-time. We also found that developers often alter their trust decisions, keeping only 52% of original suggestions. Based on these findings, we extracted four guidelines to enhance developer-AI interactions. We validated the guidelines through a survey with (n=7) domain experts and survey members (n=8). We discuss the validated guidelines, how to apply them, and tools to help adopt them.

University of Southern California (US), Amazon (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Cognitive Science and Mapping
4.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.