Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

AI in human teams: effects on technology use, members’ interactions, and creative performance under time scarcity

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Time and technology permeate the fabric of teamwork across a variety of settings to affect outcomes which have a wide range of consequences. However, there is a limited understanding about the interplay between these factors for teams, especially as applied to artificial intelligence (AI) technology. With the increasing integration of AI into human teams, we need to understand how environmental  factors such as time scarcity interact with AI technology to affect team behaviors. To address this gap in the literature, we investigated the interaction between the availability of intelligent technology and time scarcity in teams. Drawing from the theoretical perspective of computers are social actors and extant research on the use of heuristics and human–AI interaction, this study uses behavioral data from 56 teams who participated in a between-subjects 2 (intelligent assistant available × control/no intelligent assistant) × 2 (time scarcity × control/no time scarcity) lab experiment. Results show that teams working under time scarcity used the intelligent assistant more often and underperformed on a creative task compared to teams without the temporal constraints. Further, teams who had an intelligent assistant available to them had fewer interactions between members compared to teams who did not have the technology. Implications for research and applications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allred RJ, Crowley JP (2017) The “mere presence” hypothesis: investigating the nonverbal effects of cell-phone presence on conversation satisfaction. Commun Stud 68:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.1241292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile TM, Hadley CN, Kramer SJ (2002) Creativity under the gun. Harv Bus Rev 80:52–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D, Zakay D (2001) A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Physiol 108(2):187–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00034-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer M, Oldham GR (2006) The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. J Appl Psychol 91(4):963–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2011) Reconfiguring boundary relations: robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organ Sci 23(5):1448–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogers T, Al-Basri AAA, Ostermann Rytlig C, Bak Møller ME, Juhl Rasmussen M, Bates Michelsen NK, Gerling Jørgensen S (2019) A study of usage and usability of intelligent personal assistants in Denmark. In: Information in Contemporary Society, Springer International Publishing, pp 79–90

  • Bogost I (2019) The AI-art gold rush is here. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/ai-created-art-invades-chelsea-gallery-scene/584134/

  • Business Wire (2019) Global intelligent virtual assistant (IVA) market 2019–2025: industry size, share & trends - researchandmarkets.com. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190822005478/en/Global-Intelligent-Virtual-Assistant-IVA-Market-2019-2025-Industry-Size-Share-Trends---ResearchAndMarkets.com. Accessed 5 Nov 2019

  • Caballer A, Gracia F, Peiró JM (2005) Affective responses to work process and outcomes in virtual teams: effects of communication media and time pressure. J Manag Psychol 20(3/4):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canbek NG, Mutlu ME (2016) On the track of artificial intelligence: learning with intelligent personal assistants. J Hum Sci 13(1):592–601. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1998) Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. American Psychological Association, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CIMON brings AI to the International Space Station (2019). IBM Innovation Explanations website: https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/innovation_explanations/article/cimon-ai-in-space.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2019

  • Cohen J (1969) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan BR, Pantidi N, Coyle D, Morrissey K, Clarke P, Al-Shehri S, Earley D, Bandeira N (2017) What can I help you with? Infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, ACM, p 43

  • Crook J (2017) Amazon is putting Alexa in the office. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/29/amazon-is-putting-alexa-in-the-office/

  • Crowley JP, Allred RJ, Follon J, Volkmer C (2018) Replication of the mere presence hypothesis: the effects of cell phones on face-to-face conversations. Commun Stud 69(3):283–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 91:280–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deahl D (2018) How AI-generated music is changing the way hits are made. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17777008/artificial-intelligence-taryn-southern-amper-music

  • DeCostanza A, Marathe A, Bohannon A, Evans W, Palazzolo ET, Metcalfe JS, McDowell K (2018) Enhancing human-agent teaming with individualized, adaptive technologies: a discussion of critical scientific questions. https://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2018/technical-report.cfm?id=6082

  • Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2015) Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol 144(1):114–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra JJ (2010) User agreement with incorrect expert system advice. Behav Inf Technol 18(6):399–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492999118832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durham CC, Locke EA, Poon JML, McLeod PL (2000) Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information-seeking strategy, and performance. Hum Perform 13(2):115–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards J, Liu H, Zhou T, Gould SJJ, Clark L, Doyle P, Cowan BR (2019) Multitasking with Alexa: How using intelligent personal assistants impacts language- based primary task performance. In: The Association for Computing Machinery, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on conversation user interfaces, pp 1–7

  • Ellis APJ (2006) System breakdown: the role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Acad Manag J 49(3):576–589. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezer N, Bruni S, Cai Y, Hepenstal SJ, Miller CA, Schmorrow DD (2019) Trust engineering for human-AI teams. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting, vol 63, issue 1, pp 322– 326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631264

  • Franco LA, Rouwette EA, Korzilius H (2016) Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):878–889

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gambino A, Fox J, Ratan RA (2020) Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Hum Mach Commun 1:71–85. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In: Simple heuristics that make us smart, Oxford University Press, pp 3–34. http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2102905/component/escidoc:2102904/GG_Fast_1999.pdf

  • Goksel N, Mutlu M (2016) On the track of artificial intelligence: learning with intelligent personal assistants. J Hum Sci 13(1):592–601. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman AL, Lewis SC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human– machine communication research agenda. New Media Soc 22(1):70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauswald J, Laurenzano MA, Zhang Y, Li C, Rovinski A, Khurana A, Dreslinski RG, Mudge T, Petrucci V, Tang L, Mars J (2015) Sirius: an open end-to-end voice and vision personal assistant and its implications for future warehouse scale computers. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, ACM, pp 223–238

  • Hong JW, Williams D (2019) Racism, responsibility and autonomy in HCI: testing perceptions of an AI agent. Comput Hum Behav 100:79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoy MB (2018) Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Med Ref Serv Q 37(1):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu ML, Fan HL (2010) Organizational innovation climate and creative outcomes: exploring the moderating effect of time pressure. Creat Res J 22(4):378–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau SJ, Kelly JR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. J Exp Soc Psychol 28(6):542–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr-Wisniewski P, Prietula M (2010) CASA, WASA, and the dimensions of us. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1761–1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JR, Loving TJ (2004) Time pressure and group performance: exploring underlying processes in the attentional focus model. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(2):185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00094-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Këpuska V, Bohouta G (2018) Next-generation of virtual personal assistants (Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa and Google Home). In: 2018 IEEE 8th annual computing and communication workshop and conference (CCWC), pp 99–103

  • Kim K, de Melo CM, Norouzi N, Bruder G, Welch GF (2020) Reducing Task Load with an Embodied Intelligent Virtual Assistant for Improved Performance in Collaborative Decision Making. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00074

  • Logg JM, Minson JA, Moore DA (2019) Algorithm appreciation: people prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 151:90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longoni C, Cian L (2020) Artificial intelligence in utilitarian vs. hedonic contexts: the “word-of-machine” effect. J Mark 86(1):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920957347

  • López G, Quesada L, Guerrero LA (2018) Alexa vs. Siri vs. Cortana vs. Google Assistant: a comparison of speech-based natural user interfaces. Advances in human factors and systems interaction. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 241–250

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luger E, Sellen A (2016) “Like having a really bad PA”: the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp 5286–5297

  • Malone TW (2018) Superminds: the surprising power of people and computers thinking together. Little, Brown and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J (2013) Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341(6149):976–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Group Res 22(2):147–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft (n.d.) Cortana. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cortana

  • Miller-Ott A, Kelly L (2015) The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: an expectancy violation theory approach. South Commun J 80(4):253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misra S, Cheng L, Genevie J, Yuan M (2016) The iPhone effect: the quality of in- person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environ Behav 48(2):275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullainathan S, Shafir E (2013) Scarcity: why having too little means so much. Times Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nass C, Moon Y (2002) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 72–78

  • Nass C, Moon Y, Green N (1997) Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. J Appl Soc Psychol 27(10):864–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Personal Digital Assistant, Cortana Home Assistant, Microsoft (2019) Microsoft Cortana, your intelligent assistant website: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cortana. Accessed 20 Oct 2019

  • Prahl A, Van Swol L (2017) Understanding algorithm aversion: when is advice from automation discounted? J Forecast 36(6):691–702

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Przybylski AK, Weinstein N (2013) Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. J Soc Pers Relat 30(3):237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purington A, Taft JG, Sannon S, Bazarova NN, Taylor SH (2017) Alexa is my new BFF: social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the Amazon Echo. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’17)

  • Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinette P, Li W, Allen R, Howard AM, Wagner AR (2016) Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, pp 101–108

  • Robinette P, Howard AM, Wagner AR (2017) Effect of robot performance on human-robot trust in time-critical situations. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst 47(4):425–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow B, Liu J, Wegner DM (2011) Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science 333(604):776–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar SS, Kim J (2019) Machine heuristic: when we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300768

  • Sycara K, Lewis M (2004) Integrating intelligent agents into human teams. In: Salas E (ed) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance, vol 268. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 203–231

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton B, Faires A, Robbins M, Rollins E (2014) The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: implications for attention and task performance. Soc Psychol 45(6):479. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent J (2019) The state of AI in 2019. The Verge; The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/28/18197520/ai-artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-computational-science

  • Wall M (2018) Meet CIMON. The 1st robot with artificial intelligence to fly in space. https://www.space.com/41041-artificial-intelligence-cimon-space-exploration.html

  • Wall Street Journal (2017) Bringing the power of Alexa to the office. Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/bringing-the-power-of-alexa-to-the-office/04D8BC25-D764-4FCE-82C0-DB6E54DD84C0.html

  • Ward AF, Duke K, Gneezy A, Bos MW (2017) Brain drain: the mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. J Assoc Consum Res 2(2):140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams KD (2010) Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Res 41(2):268–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JH, Daugherty PR (2018) How humans and AI are working together in 1,500 companies. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/07/collaborative-intelligence-humans-and-ai-are-joining-forces

  • Winkler R, Söllner M, Neuweiler ML, Conti Rossini F, Leimeister JM (2019) Alexa, can you help us solve this problem? How conversations with smart personal assistant tutors increase task group outcomes. In: Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–6

  • Yeomans M, Shah A, Mullainathan S,  Kleinberg J (2019) Making sense of recommendations. J Behav Decis Making 32(4):403–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakay D (1993) The impact of time perception processes on decision making under time stress. In: Svenson O, Maule AJ (eds) Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. Plenum Press, New York, pp 59–72

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang AY, Tsui AS, Wang DX (2011) Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: the role of group processes. Leadersh Q 22(5):851–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Francesca Gacho, Dmitri Williams, Janet Fulk, Andrea B. Hollingshead, Marcia Allison, and Nageen Shaikh for their support in conducting this study and revisions of this manuscript. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. The authors appreciate AI and Society’s editorial team for their incredible patience and support of this work.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, Base Award Number 2016223686.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Sonia Jawaid Shaikh

  2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sonia Jawaid Shaikh

  3. School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Ignacio F. Cruz

Authors
  1. Sonia Jawaid Shaikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ignacio F. Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia Jawaid Shaikh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shaikh, S.J., Cruz, I.F. AI in human teams: effects on technology use, members’ interactions, and creative performance under time scarcity. AI & Soc 38, 1587–1600 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01335-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01335-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation