Machines and Meaning: Work Meaningfulness in the Age of AI

Last registered on February 12, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Machines and Meaning: Work Meaningfulness in the Age of AI
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015363
Initial registration date
February 10, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 12, 2025, 12:22 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
Netherlands
Region
Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Milena Nikolova
Affiliation
University of Groningen
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Viliana Milanova
PI Affiliation
University of Groningen
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Feicheng Wang
PI Affiliation
University of Groningen
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-02-10
End date
2025-03-25
Keywords
Behavior, Other
Additional Keywords
Artificial Intelligence (AI), work meaning
JEL code(s)
I3, O14
Secondary IDs
22-030-1044/
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
As AI takes on more workplace tasks, how does this affect our sense of meaning and control? This project explores whether people find their work fulfilling when AI contributes to their tasks. We conduct two identical survey experiments in the United States (through the Understanding America Study) and the Netherlands (via the LISS panel). Participants evaluate a public health campaign slogan, but with a key difference—some (treated group, target N=750 in the US, target N=1000 in the NL) are told the slogan was created by AI, while others (control, target N=750 in the US, target N=1000 in the NL) believe it was written by a human professional. By comparing responses, we examine how AI’s role in creative work influences perceptions of meaning.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Milanova, Viliana, Milena Nikolova and Feicheng Wang. 2025. "Machines and Meaning: Work Meaningfulness in the Age of AI." AEA RCT Registry. February 12. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15363-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This study explores how AI affects the way people perceive creative work's meaningfulness if they are told output was created by an AI vs. a human professional. Participants in the United States and the Netherlands will evaluate slogans for a public health campaign. The treated group will be told the slogan was created by AI, while the control will be told it was written by a human professional. They will then rate the slogans on creativity and persuasiveness, as well as how meaningful they found the task. The study will help us understand whether AI’s role in creative tasks influences people’s sense of value and trust in AI-generated content.
Intervention Start Date
2025-02-10
Intervention End Date
2025-03-25

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Perceptions of task meaning
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The primary outcome of this study is task meaning, which refers to how meaningful participants perceive the task of evaluating a public health campaign slogan. This outcome will be measured through a self-reported survey question, where participants rate the meaningfulness of the task on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not meaningful at all, 7 = Extremely meaningful).

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Effort/engagement
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Whether the respondents wrote a task slogan on their own; This will be measured as a binary variable:
1 = Respondent wrote a slogan
0 = Respondent did not write a slogan

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study examines how artificial intelligence (AI) affects people’s perceptions of meaning and engagement in creative tasks. Participants in the United States and the Netherlands will evaluate slogans for a public health campaign. They will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: one where they believe the slogan was created by AI and another where they believe it was written by a human professional.

The main outcome of interest is task meaning, measured by how meaningful participants find the evaluation process.A secondary outcome measure is engagement, assessed by whether participants choose to create their own slogan. The study will provide insight into how AI’s involvement in creative tasks influences people’s perceptions of task meaning and effort.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization will be done by a computer before the respondents take the survey
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N=1,500 individuals in the US
N=2,000 individuals in the NL
Sample size: planned number of observations
N=1,500 individuals in the US N=2,000 individuals in the NL
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
N=1,500 individuals in the US
N=2,000 individuals in the NL
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
BRAINY SBER IRB
IRB Approval Date
2025-01-31
IRB Approval Number
011625
Analysis Plan