Mastodon
The Negative Social Impact of Dealing with AI in the Workplace

The Negative Social Impact of Dealing with AI in the Workplace

by | 2023 Sep 29 | Public, Quick Hits

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

AI is a very hot topic at the moment. It is considered a tool that will be able to do everything and essentially replace human beings in the workplace. Not to mention the existential threat that some see. But at a more pragmatic level just working with AI seems like it can have some unintended consequences. Read on:

So what is negative about dealing with AI? Feeling stupid, maybe?

I suppose it could be, but I think most people see it as a tool to get more of what they want at the moment. This research looked at the psychological impacts of dealing with AI in the workplace in four locations (U.S., Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia).

Ok, I’m intrigued, what did they find?

Tang et al. conducted studies in four countries that explored the impacts of interaction with AI. This included working as often as possible with AI systems for a three-week period and tracking psychological impacts with surveys. In another study half of the cohort wer instructed to avoid working with AI systems for three days and the other half to maximise their work with AI systems. They also included surveys of family members to report on other factors at home.

Subscribe to receive free or paid posts directly in your inbox.

Oh wow, I like that idea? But you still haven’t told my what they found…

I’m getting there. The findings across all the studies and groups was consistent, it is important to note, suggesting that this is not cultural. So what did they find? They found that interactions with AI:

  • Increased feelings of loneliness

  • Increased insomnia

  • Increased after-work drinking

But there are some positive effects too…

Oh, that is fascinating – so it seems that interacting with “machines” actually does impact our social system. But why sleep and drinking?

Yes, fascinating. The loneliness could be intuited – after all if you’re interacting less with human beings, or less than usual, loneliness could be a logical consequence. We do know that social interaction is also rewarding and can calm anxiety – so maybe the increased anxiety is causing sleep disruptions and desire for rewards such as in drinking. That is all supposition though.

But there were some positive knock-on effects.

Oh, what were they?

They found that those who interacted a lot with AI were more willing to help others in the workplace!

Oh wow – lack of social interactions make people more helpful?!

Yes, it seems like the lack of social interaction makes people want to be more social and therefore more helpful. What is also interesting is the effect of personal social anxiety on this which was also measured.

And what was that?

Those who were more socially anxious, i.e. more worried or nervous about their social connections, responded stronger. On both sides. So they became more lonely than those who were less social anxious, but they also become more helpful!

That is surprising!

Kind of. Their high anxiety would make them more responsive.

Ok so what does this mean?

The researchers were quick to point out that this is correlational data and doesn’t prove causation, though one study did compare different scenarios. However, it would make sense that lowering interactions with human beings in favour of AI has an impact. Whether this is short- or long-term, or could be naturally compensated by other mechanisms, such as those helping behaviours, remains something for future studies to tease out.

For now we know that there are more than likely consequences, and unintended consequences, of working with AI that are very human.

Well, that makes me happy that I’ve got you to talk to!

Are you sure I’m not an AI programme…

Quick Hits Alerts
Article Alerts
Newsletter
Premium Brain
Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

Reference

Pok Man Tang, Joel Koopman, Ke Michael Mai, David De Cremer, Jack H. Zhang, Philipp Reynders, Chin Tung Stewart Ng, I-Heng Chen.
No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2023
DOI: 10.1037/apl0001103

More Quick Hits

How the Gut Influences Brain Development in Babies

How the Gut Influences Brain Development in Babies

by | 2023 Sep 27 | Public, Quick Hits

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

Are you suggesting that the gut influences the brain – how on earth can that happen?

Yes, but when I say the gut I mean specifically the microbiome of the gut – that is the collection of bacteria in our guts. Which are plentiful.

What, our gut bacteria can help with brain development?

Yes, this has been well-documented in recent years. We all have hundreds and thousand of different strains of bacteria in our guts. And the balance of these seem to have a surprisingly large impact on our health. And that includes brain health and in this case brain development.

How on earth can that happen?

Well, there are multiple ways and we are not sure exactly how all of these work. But an example is that a class called bacteroidetes produce metabolites called sphingolipids, which are instrumental in the formation and structuring of neurons in the brain.

So, a healthy balance of bacteroidetes is a massive bonus of the developing brain (actually any brain).

Get free brain updates directly in your inbox.

Oh wow, and what did these researchers find?

In this exploratory study, published in PLOS in August, Sebastian Hunter et al. found that certain bacterial strains were associated with increased cognitive functionality but they also measured brain processing responses (to sounds) in babies 4-6 months old.

They found that those with higher, or lower, proportions of certain strains performed better and had more rapid brain responses.

Specifically, if you’re interested in the details, negatively to Bifidobacterium, and positively to the abundance of Clostridium and Enterococcus.

Ok, and do they know why?

There are multiple ways that your gut bacteria can influence your health but they did note a positive association with metabolic pathways – and this included, for example, if you want to know the technical details, something called branched chain amino acid biosynthesis and the pentose phosphate pathway.

Basically stuff that helps with brain development.

Oh wow – and can this be influenced?

Yes, we can influence our microbiomes and that of our children. I speak about some of the mechanisms here. We know that vaginal brith is good for the microbiome in babies, as is breastfeeding. Minimising use of antibiotics also.

For us, as adults, our diet is essential – lots of natural high-fibre food such as fresh fruit and vegetables and avoiding highly-processed foods counts for a lot.

Is it the same for us adults as well?

Indeed, yes, the microbiome has been shown to be very important for health and brain function in adults as well.

Eat your greens, then!

Yup, and rolling around in the dirt also seems to be beneficial!

Quick Hits Alerts
Article Alerts
Newsletter
Premium Brain
Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

Reference

Sebastian Hunter, Erica Flaten, Charisse Petersen, Judit Gervain, Janet F. Werker, Laurel J. Trainor, Brett B. Finlay.
Babies, bugs and brains: How the early microbiome associates with infant brain and behavior development.
PLOS ONE, 2023; 18 (8): e0288689
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288689

More Quick Hits

Your Brain’s Own Cannabinoid Molecules Calm You Down

Your Brain’s Own Cannabinoid Molecules Calm You Down

by | 2023 Sep 25 | Public, Quick Hits

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

Making fast and accurate decisions is the goal right?

Right. But we know from research that there is a speed/accuracy trade off i.e. the faster you make a decisions the more it is likely to be inaccurate.

 

And what has dopamine got to do with this – I thought dopamine was a reward chemical also known for the little dopamine “hits” on social media.

Yes, dopamine is related to reward – as you mentioned particularly with reward learning i.e. you do something and get a reward – in the classic rat experiments they get something to eat.

But dopamine is also involved in movement – Parkinson’s is also related to dopamine and L-Dopa the common Parkinson’s medication simply boosts dopamine. Dopamine is also considered one of the key motivation chemicals.

Ok, and what did these researchers do?

The researchers from the University of Cologne in Germany had participants (humans not rats that is!) do various computer-based reward learning tasks. They did this under various conditions with L-Dopa for example, to boost dopamine, or with placebo.

And what were the results?

By using these computer-based learning scenarios they were more accurately able to measure responses and accuracy. And indeed they noticed that dopamine did increase this speed vs accuracy divide. Meaning that dopamine increases decision-making speed but at the expense of accuracy.

Ummm that’s kind of not the best thing then!

Yes, dopamine motivates and drives action, and in this scenario it increased decision making speed. But that may not necessarily be a good things if accuracy loses.

But if you have trouble making decisions then dopamine might help?

We’re a long way from using supplements to improve decision making despite what some “biohackers” may claim. Sure, for those who can’t make decisions and for some forms of ADHD a dopamine boost may help ability to make or get to decisions, which could be very useful. But for most of us that is not the case.

And a reminder to slow down sometimes to increase accuracy?

Yes, indeed!

Quick Hits Alerts
Article Alerts
Newsletter
Premium Brain
Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

Reference

Karima Chakroun, Antonius Wiehler, Ben Wagner, David Mathar, Florian Ganzer, Thilo van Eimeren, Tobias Sommer, Jan Peters.
Dopamine regulates decision thresholds in human reinforcement learning in males.
Nature Communications, 2023; 14 (1)
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-41130-y

More Quick Hits

Role of Dopamine in Speed and Accuracy of Decisions

Role of Dopamine in Speed and Accuracy of Decisions

by | 2023 Sep 22 | Business Brains, Decision Making, Public, Quick Hits

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

Making fast and accurate decisions is the goal right?

Right. But we know from research that there is a speed/accuracy trade off i.e. the faster you make a decisions the more it is likely to be inaccurate.

 

And what has dopamine got to do with this – I thought dopamine was a reward chemical also known for the little dopamine “hits” on social media.

Yes, dopamine is related to reward – as you mentioned particularly with reward learning i.e. you do something and get a reward – in the classic rat experiments they get something to eat.

But dopamine is also involved in movement – Parkinson’s is also related to dopamine and L-Dopa the common Parkinson’s medication simply boosts dopamine. Dopamine is also considered one of the key motivation chemicals.

Ok, and what did these researchers do?

The researchers from the University of Cologne in Germany had participants (humans not rats that is!) do various computer-based reward learning tasks. They did this under various conditions with L-Dopa for example, to boost dopamine, or with placebo.

And what were the results?

By using these computer-based learning scenarios they were more accurately able to measure responses and accuracy. And indeed they noticed that dopamine did increase this speed vs accuracy divide. Meaning that dopamine increases decision-making speed but at the expense of accuracy.

Ummm that’s kind of not the best thing then!

Yes, dopamine motivates and drives action, and in this scenario it increased decision making speed. But that may not necessarily be a good things if accuracy loses.

But if you have trouble making decisions then dopamine might help?

We’re a long way from using supplements to improve decision making despite what some “biohackers” may claim. Sure, for those who can’t make decisions and for some forms of ADHD a dopamine boost may help ability to make or get to decisions, which could be very useful. But for most of us that is not the case.

And a reminder to slow down sometimes to increase accuracy?

Yes, indeed!

Quick Hits Alerts
Article Alerts
Newsletter
Premium Brain
Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

Reference

Karima Chakroun, Antonius Wiehler, Ben Wagner, David Mathar, Florian Ganzer, Thilo van Eimeren, Tobias Sommer, Jan Peters.
Dopamine regulates decision thresholds in human reinforcement learning in males.
Nature Communications, 2023; 14 (1)
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-41130-y

More Quick Hits

How Seven Habits Boost Brain Function and Lower Depression Risk

How Seven Habits Boost Brain Function and Lower Depression Risk

by | 2023 Sep 20 | Healthy Brains, Learning Brains, Public, Quick Hits, Society Brains

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

We’re back to the debate on diversity in teams and whether this is beneficial or not?

Yes, indeed.

There are two sides to the argument: one is that lower diversity increases efficiency. Similar people may react in similar ways and understand each other better and have less conflict. The second is that diversity brings a broader set of skills, attitudes, and personalities to the table – but may cause friction and lack of agreement.

So what is it?

Well, as you know we have developed team cohesion assessments and our data shows that there seems to be a sweet spot of diversity – so maybe we should talk about optimal diversity. Note I’m talking of personality diversity here.

And is this what these researchers found?

This recently published study looked at environments that business were founded in and found that the environment defined whether diverse teams were successful or not. So it seems like the question is not whether diversity is good, but under what conditions diversity is good, or better.

Pray, explain more.

This group of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Stanford University, and INSEAD looked at alumni from Stanford and found 140’000 that had started their own business and then reviewed 1’060 new ventures.

That’s a lot!

Yes, that is correct: this is a massive dataset and ranged from 1960!

Oh wow, and what did they find?

Well, they looked at “functional diversity”, not personality diversity that we measure, which is the range of roles and specialities people have. But it wasn’t a clear cut answer as to whether diverse teams were more successful.

Oh!

That is until you take the environmental conditions into account. Startups that were founded in more dynamic and chaotic times, recessions, changes in market dynamic such as the tech revolution, and had more diversity were much more likely to succeed. In contrast, in stable times team diversity was less important.

Also specifically if dynamism increased over lifetime the diverse teams were more likely to be successful. However, if dynamism decreased over lifetime then diverse teams were actually less likely to be successful.

Ummm, that kind of makes sense

Yes, when times are dynamic, the different perspectives and expertise help teams to be effective, manage the challenging times together, and even thrive. The same applies if the markets are becoming increasingly dynamic. But this diversity can be a hinderance in stable or less dynamic times.

So environments are crucial?

Yes, something that is underestimated in much business rhetoric. Functional diversity it seems, according to this research at least, is best in dynamic times only. In more stable times not so.

And how do we predict that?

Well, if I could predict that I would be a rich man – diversity may therefore be a good hedge but sometimes boring and uniform may be best also!

But what about other forms of diversity?

Gender, age, race, and others, weren’t measured here but there is plenty of evidence to show that diverse companies outperform less diverse companies. You may want to read this longer read on various forms of team performance and underrated contributions to this.

Quick Hits Alerts
Article Alerts
Newsletter
Premium Brain
Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

Reference

Yujie Zhao, Liu Yang, Barbara J. Sahakian, et al.
The brain structure, immunometabolic and genetic mechanisms underlying the association between lifestyle and depression.
Nature Mental Health, 2023
DOI: 10.1038/s44220-023-00120-1

More Quick Hits

Diversity in Startup Teams Increases Survival In Changing Environments

Diversity in Startup Teams Increases Survival In Changing Environments

by | 2023 Sep 18 | Business Brains, Public, Quick Hits

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

We’re back to the debate on diversity in teams and whether this is beneficial or not?

Yes, indeed.

There are two sides to the argument: one is that lower diversity increases efficiency. Similar people may react in similar ways and understand each other better and have less conflict. The second is that diversity brings a broader set of skills, attitudes, and personalities to the table – but may cause friction and lack of agreement.

So what is it?

Well, as you know we have developed team cohesion assessments and our data shows that there seems to be a sweet spot of diversity – so maybe we should talk about optimal diversity. Note I’m talking of personality diversity here.

And is this what these researchers found?

This recently published study looked at environments that business were founded in and found that the environment defined whether diverse teams were successful or not. So it seems like the question is not whether diversity is good, but under what conditions diversity is good, or better.

Pray, explain more.

This group of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Stanford University, and INSEAD looked at alumni from Stanford and found 140’000 that had started their own business and then reviewed 1’060 new ventures.

That’s a lot!

Yes, that is correct: this is a massive dataset and ranged from 1960!

Oh wow, and what did they find?

Well, they looked at “functional diversity”, not personality diversity that we measure, which is the range of roles and specialities people have. But it wasn’t a clear cut answer as to whether diverse teams were more successful.

Oh!

That is until you take the environmental conditions into account. Startups that were founded in more dynamic and chaotic times, recessions, changes in market dynamic such as the tech revolution, and had more diversity were much more likely to succeed. In contrast, in stable times team diversity was less important.

Also specifically if dynamism increased over lifetime the diverse teams were more likely to be successful. However, if dynamism decreased over lifetime then diverse teams were actually less likely to be successful.

Ummm, that kind of makes sense

Yes, when times are dynamic, the different perspectives and expertise help teams to be effective, manage the challenging times together, and even thrive. The same applies if the markets are becoming increasingly dynamic. But this diversity can be a hinderance in stable or less dynamic times.

So environments are crucial?

Yes, something that is underestimated in much business rhetoric. Functional diversity it seems, according to this research at least, is best in dynamic times only. In more stable times not so.

And how do we predict that?

Well, if I could predict that I would be a rich man – diversity may therefore be a good hedge but sometimes boring and uniform may be best also!

But what about other forms of diversity?

Gender, age, race, and others, weren’t measured here but there is plenty of evidence to show that diverse companies outperform less diverse companies. You may want to read this longer read on various forms of team performance and underrated contributions to this.

Quick Hits Alerts
Article Alerts
Newsletter
Premium Brain
Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

Reference

D. Carrington Motley, Charles E. Eesley, Wesley Koo.
Born into chaos: How founding conditions shape whether ventures survive or thrive when experiencing environmental change.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2023
DOI: 10.1002/sej.1461

More Quick Hits