ArticleScientific reports2025
Human-generative AI collaboration enhances task performance but undermines human's intrinsic motivation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Across the Drug Development Lifecycle.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Relying on AI at work reduces self-efficacy, ownership, and meaning while active collaboration mitigates the effects.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Driving sustainable innovation outcomes through employee AI collaboration with the mediating role of sustainable career capacities.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dual pathways of generative AI use: role ambiguity and self-efficacy in employee-AI collaboration.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Generative artificial intelligence models outperform students on divergent and convergent thinking assessments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Neurophysiological Paradox of AI-Induced Frustration: A Multimodal Study of Heart Rate Variability, Affective Responses, and Creative Output.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a series of four online experimental studies (total N = 3,562), we investigated the performance augmentation effect and psychological deprivation effect of human-generative AI (GenAI) collaboration in professional settings. Our findings consistently demonstrated that collaboration with GenAI enhanced immediate task performance. However, this performance augmentation effect did not persist in subsequent tasks performed independently by humans. Importantly, transitioning from collaboration with GenAI to solo work led to an increased sense of control of human workers, and was also accompanied by significant decreases in intrinsic motivation and increases in feelings of boredom. These results highlight the complex dual effects of human-GenAI collaboration: It enhances immediate task performance but can undermine long-term psychological experiences of human workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.