The set of concepts collectively known as Technical Debt (TD) assume that software liabilities set up a context that can make a future change more costly or impossible; and therefore repaying the debt should be pursued. However, software developers often disagree with an automatically generated list of improvement suggestions, which they consider not fitting or important for their own code. To shed light into the reasons that drive developers to adopt or reject refactoring opportunities (i.e. TD repayment), we have performed an empirical study on the potential factors that affect the developers' decision to agree with the removal of a specific TD liability. The study has been addressed to the developers of four well-known open-source applications. To increase the response rate, a personalized assessment has first been sent to each developer, summarizing his/her own contribution to the TD of the corresponding project. Responds have been collected through a custom built web application that presented code fragments suffering from violations as identified by SonarQube along with information that could possibly affect their level of agreement to the importance of resolving an issue. These factors include data such as the frequency of past changes in the module under study, the number of bugs, the type and intensity of the violation, the level of involvement of the developer and whether he/she is a contributor in the corresponding project. Multivariate statistical analysis methods have been used to understand the importance and the underlying relationships among these factors and the results are expected to be useful for researchers and practitioners in TD Management.