  A recurring problem in software development is incorrect decision making on
the techniques, methods and tools to be used. Mostly, these decisions are based
on developers' perceptions about them. A factor influencing people's
perceptions is past experience, but it is not the only one. In this research,
we aim to discover how well the perceptions of the defect detection
effectiveness of different techniques match their real effectiveness in the
absence of prior experience. To do this, we conduct an empirical study plus a
replication. During the original study, we conduct a controlled experiment with
students applying two testing techniques and a code review technique. At the
end of the experiment, they take a survey to find out which technique they
perceive to be most effective. The results show that participants' perceptions
are wrong and that this mismatch is costly in terms of quality. In order to
gain further insight into the results, we replicate the controlled experiment
and extend the survey to include questions about participants' opinions on the
techniques and programs. The results of the replicated study confirm the
findings of the original study and suggest that participants' perceptions might
be based not on their opinions about complexity or preferences for techniques
but on how well they think that they have applied the techniques.
