Shadan Sadeghian
Marc Hassenzahl
ABSTRACT
The advance of “artificial intelligence”-(AI)-based technologies has the potential to transform work tremendously. Work is a major part of life and, thus, its meaningfulness or lack thereof will impact overall well-being. Previous research investigated human-AI collaboration at work mostly with a focus on performance. However, little attention is given to how collaboration with AI influences the meaningfulness of work and job satisfaction. In this paper, we present an online experiment to compare the perception of meaningfulness and relationship to the collaborator across different task distributions and collaborators (human/AI). Our results show that working with a human is more motivating and meaningful compared to working with an AI independent of the task. Moreover, the AI is more often viewed as a subordinate, while the human is perceived as a teammate. These results provide preliminary implications for the design of collaboration with AI that consider job satisfaction.
- Hussein A Abbass. 2019. Social integration of artificial intelligence: functions, automation allocation logic and human-autonomy trust. Cognitive Computation 11, 2 (2019), 159–171.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Herman Aguinis and Kyle J Bradley. 2014. Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational research methods 17, 4 (2014), 351–371.Google Scholar
- Jessica Amortegui. 2014. Why finding meaning at work is more important than feeling happy. Fast Company 26(2014).Google Scholar
- Kara A Arnold, Nick Turner, Julian Barling, E Kevin Kelloway, and Margaret C McKee. 2007. Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work.Journal of occupational health psychology 12, 3 (2007), 193.Google Scholar
- Christiane Atzmüller and Peter M Steiner. 2010. Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology (2010).Google Scholar
- Catherine Bailey and Adrian Madden. 2016. What makes work meaningful—Or meaningless. MIT Sloan management review 57, 4 (2016), 1–9.Google Scholar
- Matthias Baldauf, Peter Fröhlich, Shadan Sadeghian, Philippe Palanque, Virpi Roto, Wendy Ju, Lynne Baillie, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2021. Automation Experience at the Workplace. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 89, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441332Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cynthia Breazeal, Jesse Gray, Guy Hoffman, and Matt Berlin. 2004. Social robots: Beyond tools to partners. In RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759). IEEE, 551–556.Google Scholar
- Albert Camus. 1955. The absurdity of human existence. The meaning of life (1955), 94–100.Google Scholar
- Shari Caudron. 1997. The search for meaning at work. Training & Development 51, 9 (1997), 24–28.Google Scholar
- Neal Chalofsky. 2003. An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International 6, 1 (2003), 69–83.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Chelliah. 2017. Will artificial intelligence usurp white collar jobs?Human Resource Management International Digest (2017).Google Scholar
- Philip R Cohen and Hector J Levesque. 1991. Confirmations and Joint Action.. In IJCAI. 951–959.Google Scholar
- Ravit Cohen-Meitar, Abraham Carmeli, and David A Waldman. 2009. Linking meaningfulness in the workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal 21, 4 (2009), 361–375.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Haydee M Cuevas, Stephen M Fiore, Barrett S Caldwell, and LAuRA StRAtER. 2007. Augmenting team cognition in human-automation teams performing in complex operational environments. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 78, 5 (2007), B63–B70.Google Scholar
- Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory.(2012).Google Scholar
- Bryan J Dik and Ryan D Duffy. 2009. Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The counseling psychologist 37, 3 (2009), 424–450.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brian R Duffy. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and autonomous systems 42, 3-4 (2003), 177–190.Google Scholar
- Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, Patric R Spence, and David Westerman. 2016. Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies 67, 2 (2016), 227–238.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mica R Endsley. 2017. From here to autonomy: lessons learned from human–automation research. Human factors 59, 1 (2017), 5–27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Connor Esterwood and Lionel P Robert. 2020. Human robot team design. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 251–253.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fanny Ficuciello, Guglielmo Tamburrini, Alberto Arezzo, Luigi Villani, and Bruno Siciliano. 2019. Autonomy in surgical robots and its meaningful human control. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 10, 1 (2019), 30–43. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/pjbr-2019-0002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin Ford. 2015. The rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of mass unemployment. International Journal of HRD Practice Policy and Research 111 (2015).Google Scholar
- Nicole Forsgren, Margaret-Anne Storey, Chandra Maddila, Thomas Zimmermann, Brian Houck, and Jenna Butler. 2021. The SPACE of Developer Productivity: There’s more to it than you think.Queue 19, 1 (2021), 20–48.Google Scholar
- Cornelia Gerdenitsch. 2017. New Ways of Working and Satisfaction of Psychological Needs. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54678-0_6Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark A Griffin, Malcolm G Patterson, and Michael A West. 2001. Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 22, 5(2001), 537–550.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J Richard Hackman and Greg R Oldham. 1974. The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects.(1974).Google Scholar
- J Richard Hackman and Greg R Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey.Journal of Applied psychology 60, 2 (1975), 159.Google Scholar
- J Richard Hackman and Greg R Oldham. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance 16, 2(1976), 250–279.Google Scholar
- Marc Hassenzahl, Jan Borchers, Susanne Boll, Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, and Volker Wulf. 2020. Otherware: how to best interact with autonomous systems. Interactions 28, 1 (2020), 54–57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, and Anja Göritz. 2010. Needs, affect, and interactive products – Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers 22, 5 (04 2010), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article-pdf/22/5/353/1997205/iwc22-0353.pdfGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Marc Hassenzahl, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, Matthias Laschke, Eva Len, and Joonhwan Kim. 2013. Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International journal of design 7, 3 (2013), 21–31.Google Scholar
- Michael R Hyman and Susan D Steiner. 1996. The vignette method in business ethics research: Current uses, limitations, and recommendations. Studies 20, 100.0 (1996), 74–100.Google Scholar
- Eija Kaasinen, Virpi Roto, Jaakko Hakulinen, Tomi Heimonen, Jussi PP Jokinen, Hannu Karvonen, Tuuli Keskinen, Hanna Koskinen, Yichen Lu, Pertti Saariluoma, 2015. Defining user experience goals to guide the design of industrial systems. Behaviour & Information Technology 34, 10 (2015), 976–991.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Holger Klapperich and Marc Hassenzahl. 2016. Hotzenplotz: reconciling automation with experience. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction. 1–10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Holger Klapperich, Alarith Uhde, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2020. Designing everyday automation with well-being in mind. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 24, 6 (2020), 1–17.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthias Laschke, Alarith Uhde, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2020. Positive Work Practices. Opportunities and Challenges in Designing Meaningful Work-related Technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.05533(2020).Google Scholar
- Yi-Chieh Lee, Naomi Yamashita, Yun Huang, and Wai Fu. 2020. ” I Hear You, I Feel You”: Encouraging Deep Self-disclosure through a Chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph CR Licklider. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics1 (1960), 4–11.Google Scholar
- Marjolein Lips-Wiersma and Lani Morris. 2009. Discriminating between ‘meaningful work’and the ‘management of meaning’. Journal of business ethics 88, 3 (2009), 491–511.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evgenia I Lysova, Blake A Allan, Bryan J Dik, Ryan D Duffy, and Michael F Steger. 2019. Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019), 374–389.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank Martela. 2010. Meaningful work-An integrative model based on the human need for meaningfulness. (2010).Google Scholar
- Frank Martela. 2017. Meaningfulness as contribution. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 55, 2 (2017), 232–256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christina Maslach and Michael P Leiter. 2008. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement.Journal of applied psychology 93, 3 (2008), 498.Google Scholar
- Louis S Matza, Katie D Stewart, Andrew J Lloyd, Donna Rowen, and John E Brazier. 2021. Vignette-Based Utilities: Usefulness, Limitations, and Methodological Recommendations. Value in Health 24, 6 (2021), 812–821.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Masahiro Mori. 1970. Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy 7(1970), 33–35.Google Scholar
- Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers Are Social Actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (CHI ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sven Nyholm and Jilles Smids. 2020. Can a robot be a good colleague?Science and engineering ethics 26, 4 (2020), 2169–2188.Google Scholar
- Raja Parasuraman, Thomas B Sheridan, and Christopher D Wickens. 2000. A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 30, 3 (2000), 286–297.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Manuel Portela and Carlos Granell-Canut. 2017. A new friend in our smartphone? Observing interactions with chatbots in the search of emotional engagement. In Proceedings of the XVIII International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 1–7.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael G Pratt and Blake E Ashforth. 2003. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. Teoksessa KS Cameron, JE Dutton & RE Quinn (toim.) Positive organizational scholarship.Google Scholar
- Anne-Marie Rafferty, Jane Ball, and Linda H Aiken. 2001. Are teamwork and professional autonomy compatible, and do they result in improved hospital care?BMJ Quality & Safety 10, suppl 2 (2001), ii32–ii37.Google Scholar
- Amon Rapp, Lorenzo Curti, and Arianna Boldi. 2021. The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2021), 102630.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brent D Rosso, Kathryn H Dekas, and Amy Wrzesniewski. 2010. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in organizational behavior 30 (2010), 91–127.Google Scholar
- William B Rouse and William B Rouse. 1991. Design for success: A human-centered approach to designing successful products and systems. Vol. 2. Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
- Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68.Google Scholar
- Jean Scholtz. 2003. Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. In 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the. IEEE, 10–pp.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Axel Schulte, Diana Donath, and Douglas S Lange. 2016. Design patterns for human-cognitive agent teaming. In International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Springer, 231–243.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kennon M Sheldon, Andrew J Elliot, Youngmee Kim, and Tim Kasser. 2001. What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs.Journal of personality and social psychology 80, 2(2001), 325.Google Scholar
- Thomas B Sheridan. 2012. Human supervisory control. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics(2012), 990–1015.Google Scholar
- Jilles Smids, Sven Nyholm, and Hannah Berkers. 2020. Robots in the Workplace: a Threat to—or Opportunity for—Meaningful Work?Philosophy & Technology 33, 3 (2020), 503–522.Google Scholar
- John R Sparks and Joseph A Schenk. 2001. Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: an investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multilevel marketing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 22, 8(2001), 849–869.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael F Steger and Bryan J Dik. 2010. 11 Work as Meaning: Individual and Organizational Benefits of Engaging in Meaningful Work. (2010).Google Scholar
- Michael F Steger, Bryan J Dik, and Ryan D Duffy. 2012. Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of career Assessment 20, 3 (2012), 322–337.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vivian Ta, Caroline Griffith, Carolynn Boatfield, Xinyu Wang, Maria Civitello, Haley Bader, Esther DeCero, and Alexia Loggarakis. 2020. User experiences of social support from companion chatbots in everyday contexts: Thematic analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 22, 3 (2020).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tom D Taber and Elisabeth Taylor. 1990. A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Personnel psychology 43, 3 (1990), 467–500.Google Scholar
- Hamish Tennent, Solace Shen, and Malte Jung. 2019. Micbot: A peripheral robotic object to shape conversational dynamics and team performance. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 133–142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacqueline Urakami, Billie Akwa Moore, Sujitra Sutthithatip, and Sung Park. 2019. Users’ Perception of Empathic Expressions by an Advanced Intelligent System. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 11–18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrea Veltman. 2016. Meaningful work. Oxford University Press. 117 pages.Google Scholar
- James C Walliser, Ewart J de Visser, Eva Wiese, and Tyler H Shaw. 2019. Team structure and team building improve human–machine teaming with autonomous agents. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 13, 4 (2019), 258–278.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kelly D Wason, Michael J Polonsky, and Michael R Hyman. 2002. Designing vignette studies in marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 10, 3 (2002), 41–58.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Terry Winograd. 2006. Shifting viewpoints: Artificial intelligence and human–computer interaction. Artificial intelligence 170, 18 (2006), 1256–1258.Google Scholar
- Sangseok You, Jeong-Hwan Kim, SangHyun Lee, Vineet Kamat, and Lionel P Robert Jr. 2018. Enhancing perceived safety in human–robot collaborative construction using immersive virtual environments. Automation in Construction 96 (2018), 161–170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sangseok You, Teng Ye, Lionel Robert, 2017. Team potency and ethnic diversity in embodied physical action (EPA) robot-supported dyadic teams. AIS.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The ”Artificial” Colleague: Evaluation of Work Satisfaction in Collaboration with Non-human Coworkers
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation on Human Task Performance and Task Satisfaction
IUI '23: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User InterfacesRecent work has proposed artificial intelligence (AI) models that can learn to decide whether to make a prediction for an instance of a task or to delegate it to a human by considering both parties’ capabilities. In simulations with synthetically ...
From Human-Human Collaboration to Human-AI Collaboration: Designing AI Systems That Can Work Together with People
CHI EA '20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsArtificial Intelligent (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are coming out of research labs into the real-world applications, and recent research has focused a lot on Human-AI Interaction (HAI) and Explainable AI (XAI). However, Interaction is not ...
"An Ideal Human": Expectations of AI Teammates in Human-AI Teaming
CSCWDriven by state-of-the-art AI technologies, human-AI collaboration has become an important area in computer-supported teamwork research. While human-AI collaboration has been investigated in various domains, more research is needed to explore human ...
Comments