4.7 Article

The impact of automation and artificial intelligence on worker well-being

期刊

TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101679

关键词

Automation; Artificial intelligence; Worker well-being; Technology adoption; Fourth Industrial Revolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that automation risk has complex impacts on workers, reducing stress but possibly leading to worse health conditions and minimal or negative effects on job satisfaction. These impacts are more concentrated on workers facing the highest levels of automation risk.
Discourse surrounding the future of work often treats technological substitution of workers as a cause for concern, but complementarity as a good. However, while automation and artificial intelligence may improve productivity or wages for those who remain employed, they may also have mixed or negative impacts on worker well-being. This study considers five hypothetical channels through which automation may impact worker well-being: influencing worker freedom, sense of meaning, cognitive load, external monitoring, and insecurity. We apply a measure of automation risk to a set of 402 occupations to assess whether automation predicts impacts on worker well-being along the dimensions of job satisfaction, stress, health, and insecurity. Findings based on a 2002-2018 dataset from the General Social Survey reveal that workers facing automation risk appear to experience less stress, but also worse health, and minimal or negative impacts on job satisfaction. These impacts are more concentrated on workers facing the highest levels of automation risk. This article encourages new research directions by revealing important heterogeneous effects of technological complementarity. We recommend that firms, policymakers, and researchers not conceive of technological complementarity as a uniform good, and instead direct more attention to mixed well-being impacts of automation and artificial intelligence on workers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据