We examine how perceived automation and AI threats (the belief that advanced technology threatens humans’ career prospects) shape workers’ strategies for career preparation. In nine studies (N = 2,320; three preregistered), we find that perceived automation threat drives people to prioritize creative skills over technical and social skills. A pilot study revealed that people view creativity as less prone to automation and more likely to complement automation. Subsequent experiments confirmed that automation threat leads people to highlight creativity in job applications (Studies 1a–1c), leads STEM students and professional graphic designers to cultivate creative abilities (Studies 2a–2b), and increases jobseekers’ interest in companies that champion creativity (Study 3). People value creative skills in response to the automation threat even when reminded of generative AI’s ability for creativity (Studies 4a–4b). These results suggest that advanced technology steers individuals to prioritize creativity as a skill necessary to compete in the labor market.
AcemogluD.AutorD. (2011). Skills, tasks, and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In CardD.AshenfelterO. (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 4, pp. 1043–1171). Elsevier.
2.
AcemogluD.RestrepoP. (2018). The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1488–1542.
3.
AcemogluD.RestrepoP. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3–30.
4.
AcemogluD.ShimerR. (1999). Efficient unemployment insurance. Journal of Political Economy, 107(5), 893–928.
5.
AlickeM. D.SedikidesC. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. Guilford Press.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357.
8.
ArntzM.GregoryT.ZierahnU. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers).
9.
AutorD. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of economic perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.
10.
AutorD. H.DornD. (2013). The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553–1597.
11.
AutorD. H.LevyF.MurnaneR. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.
BessenJ. (2015). Toil and technology: Innovative technology is displacing workers to new jobs rather than replacing them entirely. Finance & Development, 52(1), 16–119.
14.
BessenJ. (2019). Automation and jobs: When technology boosts employment. Economic Policy, 34(100), 589–626.
15.
BörnerK.ScrivnerO.GallantM.MaS.LiuX.ChewningK.WuL.EvansJ. A. (2018). Skill discrepancies between research, education, and jobs reveal the critical need to supply soft skills for the data economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(50), 12630–12637.
16.
BrynjolfssonE.McAfeeA. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and Prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.
17.
BullotN. J.ReberR. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 123–137.
18.
BurdettK.MortensenD. T. (1998). Wage differentials, employer size, and unemployment. International Economic Review, 39(2), 257–273.
19.
ByrtT.BishopJ.CarlinJ. B. (1993). Bias, prevalence, and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(5), 423–429.
Dal BóE.FinanF.FolkeO.PerssonT.RickneJ. (2018). Economic losers and political winners: Sweden’s radical right [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Political Science, UC Berkeley.
22.
DemingD. J. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4), 1593–1640.
23.
DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2015). Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114.
24.
DweckC. S.ChiuC. Y.HongY. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.
25.
FastN. J.SchroederJ. (2020). Power and decision making: new directions for research in the age of artificial intelligence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 172–176.
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
27.
FloridaR. (2002). Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(1), 55–71.
28.
FreyC. B.BergerT.ChenC. (2018). Political machinery: did robots swing the 2016 US presidential election?Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(3), 418–442.
29.
FreyC. B.OsborneM. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization?Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.
30.
Gamez-DjokicM.WaytzA. (2020). Concerns about automation and negative sentiment toward immigration. Psychological Science, 31(8), 987–1000.
LearyM. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 317–344.
44.
LoggJ. M.MinsonJ. A.MooreD. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
45.
LongoniC.BonezziA.K MorewedgeC. (2018). Consumer reluctance toward medical artificial intelligence: The underlying role of uniqueness neglect. Advances in Consumer Research, 46, 63–67.
46.
LoughnanS.HaslamN. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18(2), 116–121.
47.
LysyakovM.ViswanathanS. (2023). Threatened by AI: Analyzing users’ responses to the introduction of AI in a crowd-sourcing platform. Information Systems Research, 34(3), 1191–1210.
48.
MacCroryF.WestermanG.AlhammadiY.BrynjolfssonE. (2014). Racing with and against the machine: Changes in occupational skill composition in an era of rapid technological advance. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2014/proceedings/SocietalImpacts/8/
MilletK.BuehlerF.DuG.KokkorisM. D. (2023). Defending humankind: Anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art. Computers in Human Behavior, 143, 107707.
51.
MoldenD. C.DweckC. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: a lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American psychologist, 61(3), 192.
52.
MortensenD. T.PissaridesC. A. (1994). Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment. The Review of Economic Studies, 61(3), 397–415.
NewmanD. T.FastN. J.HarmonD. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167.
RaveendhranR.FastN. J. (2021). Humans judge, algorithms nudge: The psychology of behavior tracking acceptance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 164, 11–26.
59.
RuncoM. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.SingerJ. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30). American Psychological Association
60.
SequeiraS.BanerjeeA. (2020). Spatial mismatches and imperfect information in the job search (CEPR Discussion Papers 14414).
61.
SiepelJ.CameraniR.MasucciM. (2021). Skills combinations and firm performance. Small Business Economics, 56, 1425–1447.
62.
SimJ.WrightC. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical therapy, 85(3), 257–268.
63.
SternbergR.J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–627.
64.
TayB. T. C.ParkT.JungY.TanY. K.WongA. H. Y. (2013, July). When stereotypes meet robots: The effect of gender stereotypes on people’s acceptance of a security robot. In HarrisD. (Ed.), Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Applications and Services (EPCE 20130) (pp. 261–270). Springer. Conference held in Las Vegas, NV, USA.
WaytzA.HeafnerJ.EpleyN. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.
67.
WaytzA.NortonM. I. (2014). Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs. Emotion, 14(2), 434.
68.
ZłotowskiJ.YogeeswaranK.BartneckC. (2017). Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48–54.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
