Profile

The Storyteller

Minimal musings on code, design, and life

The Psychology of Code Reviews

By Hasin Hayder March 20, 2025 Posted in Team Culture
Tags: code review team dynamics psychology collaboration

Code reviews are one of the most important practices in software development, yet they’re often a source of stress, conflict, and misunderstanding. Understanding the psychology behind code reviews can transform them from dreaded obligations into powerful tools for team growth and code quality.

The Emotional Landscape

For the Author

Submitting code for review is inherently vulnerable. You’re exposing your thinking, your problem-solving approach, and inevitably, your mistakes. This can trigger:

For the Reviewer

Reviewing code carries its own psychological burden:

Common Psychological Pitfalls

1. The Perfectionism Trap

Some reviewers feel compelled to comment on every minor issue, leading to overwhelming feedback that obscures important problems.

// Instead of nitpicking every small style issue
function getUserData(id) {
  const user = database.findUser(id) // Could be more descriptive variable name
  return user.data // Missing null check, direct property access
}

// Focus on the significant issues first
function getUserData(id) {
  const user = database.findUser(id)
  // CRITICAL: Need to handle case where user is null
  return user.data // Will throw if user is null
}

2. The Authority Bias

Junior developers might hesitate to question senior developers’ code, while seniors might dismiss juniors’ feedback too quickly.

3. The Ownership Effect

We naturally become attached to our code. Criticism of our code can feel like personal criticism.

Building a Healthy Review Culture

1. Establish Clear Expectations

Create guidelines that everyone understands:

## Our Code Review Guidelines

**What to focus on:**

- Logic errors and bugs
- Performance implications
- Security vulnerabilities
- Maintainability issues

**What to avoid:**

- Personal style preferences (unless they impact readability)
- Architectural decisions already made
- Nitpicking syntax when linters exist

2. Use Constructive Language

The way feedback is delivered matters enormously:

Instead of: “This is wrong” Try: “This might cause issues when X happens. Consider Y approach.”

Instead of: “Bad naming” Try: “Could we use a more descriptive name here? Maybe calculateTotalPrice instead of calc?”

Instead of: “This won’t work” Try: “I’m concerned this might not handle the case where…“

3. Balance Criticism with Recognition

// Good review comment structure:
"Great solution for handling the edge case! One small suggestion:
we might want to add error handling for when the API is unavailable."

"I love how readable this is. The variable names make the logic very clear.
Minor suggestion: we could extract the validation logic into a helper function."

The Art of Giving Feedback

1. Be Specific and Actionable

Vague: “This could be better” Specific: “This function does too many things. Consider splitting the validation logic into a separate function.”

2. Explain the Why

// Instead of just saying "use const"
let userAge = 25 // This value never changes

// Explain the reasoning
let userAge = 25 // Since this value doesn't change,
// const would be more appropriate and
// prevents accidental reassignment

3. Suggest Solutions

Don’t just point out problems—offer alternatives:

// Problem identification + solution
// Current approach might be slow with large datasets
const filtered = users.filter((u) => u.active).filter((u) => u.role === "admin")

// Consider combining filters for better performance:
const filtered = users.filter((u) => u.active && u.role === "admin")

The Art of Receiving Feedback

1. Separate Yourself from Your Code

Your code is not you. It’s a tool, a draft, a work in progress. Feedback on code is not feedback on your worth as a developer.

2. Ask Questions

If feedback isn’t clear, ask for clarification:

3. Express Gratitude

Even when feedback stings, remember that someone took time to help improve your code:

Making Reviews More Effective

1. Keep Pull Requests Small

Large PRs are psychologically overwhelming. They lead to:

Aim for PRs that can be reviewed in 20-30 minutes.

2. Provide Context

Help reviewers understand your thinking:

## What this PR does

Implements user authentication using JWT tokens

## Why these changes

We need secure authentication for the API endpoints

## Testing

- Added unit tests for token validation
- Tested login/logout flow manually

## Questions for reviewers

- Should we add rate limiting to the login endpoint?
- Is the token expiration time (24 hours) appropriate?

3. Use the Right Medium

Not everything needs to be in writing:

Advanced Psychological Strategies

1. The Sandwich Method (Use Sparingly)

While controversial, sometimes softening criticism can be helpful: “The error handling here is solid. I’m wondering if we could simplify the validation logic—it seems complex for the use case. Overall, great work on handling the edge cases.”

2. Collaborative Language

Use “we” instead of “you”:

3. Timing Matters

Consider when you give feedback:

Building Team Resilience

1. Normalize Learning

Create an environment where everyone is learning:

2. Rotate Reviewers

Different people bring different perspectives:

3. Review the Review Process

Regularly assess how reviews are going:

The Long-Term Benefits

When done well, code reviews create:

Conclusion

Code reviews are fundamentally about people, not just code. By understanding the psychological dynamics at play, we can create review processes that are not only more effective at improving code quality but also more supportive of team growth and well-being.

Remember: the goal isn’t perfect code—it’s better code and better developers. When we approach reviews with empathy, clarity, and a growth mindset, everyone wins.

The best code reviews feel like collaborative problem-solving sessions, not performance evaluations. Foster that culture, and watch both your code quality and team satisfaction improve dramatically.