DECISION-MAKING DYNAMICS IN SECURE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TEAMS: THE ROLE OF AI-SUPPORTED SYSTEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68302/std2026.vol3.132Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Decision Confidence, Secure Software Development, Team Coordination, TrustAbstract
The increasing integration of AI into secure software development is reshaping technical processes and decision-making within teams. While existing research has focused on performance and detection capabilities, less attention has been given to how AI influences the human aspects of decision formation. This study examines how AI-supported security tools affect decision-making dynamics among software developers and security specialists. Using a quantitative survey-based approach, the study explores relationships between trust in AI, transparency, perceived usefulness, team coordination, and decision confidence. The findings show that AI does not directly determine decision outcomes, but operates through socio-cognitive mechanisms, with trust emerging as the central driver of decision confidence. Transparency contributes indirectly by supporting trust, while team coordination strengthens the integration of AI-generated insights into collective decisions. Perceived usefulness functions mainly as a baseline condition for adoption rather than a determinant of outcomes. The study highlights a key implication: AI-supported systems may increase decision confidence without improving decision quality. By framing AI-supported decision-making as a socio-technical process, this research clarifies how AI reshapes not only what decisions are made, but how they are constructed within teams.
Downloads
References
[1] Kaur, R., Gabrijelčič, D., & Klobučar, T. (2023). Artificial intelligence for cybersecurity: Literature review and future research directions. Information Fusion, 97, 101804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101804
[2] Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433–1450. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16274
[3] Binns, R. (2022). Human judgement in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated decision-making. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12358
[4] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[5] Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61, 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2
[6] Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005
[7] Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 627-660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
[8] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
[9] Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
[10] Kaur, D., Uslu, S., Rittichier, K. J., & Durresi, A. (2022). Trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491209
[11] McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353
[12] Nguyen, T. T., & Reddi, V. J. (2023). Deep reinforcement learning for cyber security. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(8), 3779–3795. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3121870
[13] Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
[14] Sarker, I. H. (2023). Machine learning for intelligent data analysis and automation in cybersecurity: Current and future prospects. Annals of Data Science, 10(6), 1473–1498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-022-00444-2
[15] Ameh, J. E., Otebolaku, A., Shenfield, A., Ikpehai, A., & Sule, D. (2025). Machine learning approaches in software vulnerability detection: A systematic review and analysis of contemporary methods [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5975490/v1
[16] Suresh, H., Gomez, S. R., Nam, K. K., & Satyanarayan, A. (2021). Beyond expertise and roles: A framework to characterize the stakeholders of interpretable machine learning and their needs. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 74, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445088
[17] Tahaei, M., Vaniea, K., & Rashid, A. (2023). Embedding Privacy Into Design Through Software Developers: Challenges and Solutions, IEEE Security & Privacy 21(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSEC.2022.3204364
[18] Ofusori, L., Bokaba, T., & Mhlongo, S. (2024). Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity: A Comprehensive Review and Future Direction. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2024.2439609
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Boris Gramchev, Marina Marinova-Stoyanova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
