Safeguarding worker psychosocial well-being in the age of AI: The critical role of decision control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have ushered in the era of the fourth industrial revolution, transforming workplace dynamics with AI's enhanced decision-making capabilities. While AI has been shown to reduce worker mental workload, improve performance, and enhance physical safety, it also has the potential to negatively impact psychosocial factors, such as work meaningfulness, worker autonomy, and motivation, among others. These factors are crucial as they impact employee retention, well-being, and organizational performance. Yet, the impact of automating decision-making aspects of work on the psychosocial dimension of human-AI interaction remains largely unknown due to the lack of empirical evidence. To address this gap, our study conducted an experiment with 102 participants in a laboratory designed to replicate a manufacturing line. We manipulated the level of AI decision support—characterized by the AI's decision-making control—to observe its effects on worker psychosocial factors through a blend of perceptual, physiological, and observational measures. Our aim was to discern the differential impacts of fully versus partially automated AI decision support on workers' perceptions of job meaningfulness, autonomy, competence, motivation, engagement, and performance on an error-detection task. The results of this study suggest the presence of a critical boundary in automation for psychosocial factors, demonstrating that while some automation of decision selection can nurture work meaningfulness, worker autonomy, competence, self-determined motivation, and engagement, there is a pivotal point beyond which these benefits can decline. Thus, balancing AI assistance with human control is vital to protect psychosocial well‑being. Practically, industry and operations managers should keep employees involved in decision making by adopting partial, confirm‑or‑override AI systems that sustain motivation and engagement, boosting retention and productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it