Machines and Meaning: Work Meaningfulness in the Age of AI

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.

This study employs a survey experiment to examine how artificial intelligence (AI) influences individuals’ perceptions of meaning and value in creative tasks. Participants from the United States (Understanding America Study - UAS) and the Netherlands (LISS panel) will complete the survey.

Study Procedure:
Participants will be asked to evaluate slogans designed for a public health campaign promoting healthier water consumption.
They will be randomly assigned to one of two groups:
Treatment Group: Participants will be informed that the slogan was generated by AI-powered marketing software.
Control Group: Participants will be informed that the slogan was created by a human marketing professional.
Participants will assess the slogans based on:
Creativity (originality, uniqueness, innovation).
Persuasiveness (effectiveness in encouraging behavior change).
Participants will rate the meaningfulness of the task and their trust in AI vs. human professionals for generating creative and persuasive content.
(Optional) Participants will have the opportunity to suggest their own slogan, allowing for additional qualitative insights.
This intervention is designed to measure whether the involvement of AI in a traditionally human-led creative process affects task engagement, perceived meaning, and trust in AI-generated content.

2025-02-10

2025-03-25

Perceptions of task meaning

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).

Effort/engagement

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

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.

This study investigates how artificial intelligence (AI) affects individuals' perceptions of task meaning and engagement in creative work. Specifically, it examines whether people perceive a task as more or less meaningful when AI contributes to it.

Study Procedure:
Participants in the United States (Understanding America Study - UAS) and the Netherlands (LISS panel) will take part in a survey experiment. They will evaluate slogans for a public health campaign promoting healthier water consumption.

Each participant will be randomly assigned to one of two groups:

AI Condition (Treatment Group): Participants are told the slogan was created by AI-powered marketing software.
Human Condition (Control Group): Participants are told the slogan was created by a human marketing professional.
Participants will then:

Rate the meaningfulness of the task (primary outcome).
Evaluate the slogans on:
Creativity (originality, uniqueness, innovation).
Persuasiveness (effectiveness in encouraging behavior change).
Indicate whether they choose to write their own slogan (a measure of engagement).
Report their trust in AI versus human professionals for creative work.
Mediation Analysis:
The study will assess whether the effects of AI involvement on task meaning and engagement are mediated by:

Trust in AI vs. human professionals.
Perceptions of creativity (whether AI-generated content is seen as original and innovative).
Perceptions of persuasiveness (whether AI-generated content is seen as convincing and effective).
Moderation Analysis:
We will explore whether the effects of AI’s involvement in creative work vary across different socio-demographic and personality characteristics (which are available in the UAS and LISS already), such as:

Age, gender, education level, and occupation.
Personality traits (e.g., openness to experience, conscientiousness).
By combining experimental and moderation analyses, this study will provide deeper insights into how AI impacts task meaning, engagement, and creative evaluation, as well as whether these effects differ across populations.

Randomization will be done by a computer before the respondents take the survey

Individual

No

N=1,500 individuals in the US
N=2,000 individuals in the NL

N=1,500 individuals in the US N=2,000 individuals in the NL

N=1,500 individuals in the US
N=2,000 individuals in the NL