The substitutability potential of jobs and workers’ labor-market expectations

We define the substitutability potential (or possibility to automate) of a job as the share of automatable core tasks among all core tasks within a job. Automatable in this context means that job tasks could theoretically be carried out by a computer or could be done fully automatically by a computer or computer-controlled machine.
Specifically, we randomly assign all respondents to a control group or a treatment group. The treatment group receives personalized information about the share of automatable core tasks within their own job. Respondents in the treatment group will be (i) asked about their perceptions of the substitutability potential of their job in general and their own job in particular, (ii) informed about the share of automatable core tasks in their job, (iii) asked about their labor market expectations for themselves and their job, (iv) asked about their likelihood to participate in professional development and retraining, (v) asked about their willingness to forgo part of their wage during professional development and (vi) asked whether they want to receive further information about professional development. Respondents in the control group answer the same questions, but without receiving information about the substitutability potential of their own job (i.e., without stage (ii)).

2022-05-19

2022-06-30

Our primary outcomes are (i) respondents’ labor market expectations, (ii) respondents’ likelihood of participation in professional development and retraining, and (iii) respondents’ willingness to forgo part of their wage during professional development.

The outcome question on the labor market expectations is the following:
“To what extent do you agree with the following statements? [order of items randomized]
- I am worried about my professional future.
- I will have different tasks in my job in the future than I have now.
- I have a low risk of becoming unemployed.
- I am afraid that many tasks in my job will be replaced by new technologies.
- I believe that my job will no longer exist in a few years.
- I expect to be paid a higher wage in the future.
- I will work on more demanding tasks in the future.
- I will work fewer hours in the future than I do now because some of my activities will be replaced by computers and computer-controlled machines.
- In the future I will work a lot with computers or computer-controlled machines.”
Answers to this question can be given on a 5-point scale labelled “I strongly agree”, “I rather agree”, “I rather disagree”, “I strongly disagree”, “neither”.

The outcome question on the likelihood of participation in professional development and retraining consists of three parts and is worded as follows:
1) “How likely is it that you yourself will participate in professional development of at least 120 hours?
2) And how likely is it that in the next two years you will complete retraining to another occupation?
By retraining, we mean a professional development program in which you acquire skills for a new occupation.
3) Assume that in the next two years you would actually complete a retraining to another occupation. To which profession would you retrain?”
Answers to the first two questions can be given on a 0-100 scale labelled “0% very unlikely” and “100% highly likely” at both ends of the scale. In the third question, respondents can choose from the list of jobs that they could also choose from their actual occupation.

The outcome question on the willingness to forgo part of their wage during professional development is worded as follows:
“What percentage of your monthly income would you be willing to forgo while completing professional development outside your company of at least 120 hours?
Please enter "0" if you are not willing to forgo any part of your income.”

To answer this question, respondents can indicate a number from 0 to 100.

We further ask whether respondents want to acquire information about professional development possibilities and elicit respondents’ assessment of the need for professional development for specific groups of people in the future. Besides, we ask for respondents’ support for the statement that everyone who is affected by structural change is required to participate in professional development (policy preference). Besides, we ask for reasons to (not) participate in professional development.

We further plan to perform heterogeneity analyses with respect to (i) respondents’ prior beliefs about their job, (ii) respondents’ own educational attainment, and (iii) respondents’ type of job (e.g., type of tasks, exposure to structural change).

The question on whether respondents would like to receive further information about professional development (information acquisition) is worded as follows:
“Would you like to receive more information about professional development opportunities, funding, and providers in Germany?
• Yes
• No
If you indicate "yes", more information will be shown at the end of the survey.”

Respondents who answer “yes” will be provided with information about professional development possibilities and funding at the end of the survey.


The question on the assessment of the need for professional development for specific groups of people in the future is worded as follows:
“What do you think, will the need for professional development for the following
groups of people increase, decrease, or remain unchanged in the future?
- For all employees in Germany
- For people who do the same job as me”

Answers for the two groups can be given on a 5-point scale labelled “strongly increase” “rather increase” “remain roughly unchanged” “rather decrease” “strongly decrease”.

The question on respondents’ support for the statement that everyone who is affected by structural change is required to participate in professional development is worded as follows:
“In the course of one’s professional life, every person whose job is affected by structural change and digitalization should be required to participate in professional development. “
Answers to this question can be given on a 5-point scale labelled “I strongly agree”, “I rather agree”, “I rather disagree”, “I strongly disagree”, “neither”.

The question on eliciting reasons for (not) participating in professional development is worded as follows:
“To what extent do you agree with the following statements? [order of items randomized]
- I cannot afford to participate in professional development.
- I do not have time for professional development (e.g. because of caring for relatives, childcare, etc.).
- My employer offers me the opportunity to participate in professional development.
- I do not wish to participate in any professional development that is sponsored by the Federal Employment Agency.
- I am unsure whether professional development will pay off for me.
- I see a great need to participate in professional development.
- I am well equipped for my future career.
- Vocational training is a good way to keep pace with structural change.”

We conduct the experiment in a sample of 4,000 adults aged 18 years and older. The survey is conducted in cooperation with Talk Online Panel. The recruitment and polling is managed by Talk Online Panel, who collect the data via an online platform. That is, our participants answer the survey questions autonomously on their own digital devices. Randomization is carried out by Talk Online Panel at the individual level, using a computer.

Not available

Randomization is carried out by the survey company Talk Online Panel, using a computer.

at the individual level

No

4,000

4,000

4,000, 1/2 (approx. 2,000) will be assigned to each of the two experimental groups.