When workers hear that machines could take over their roles, many begin to rethink which talents will carry them forward in a changing job market.
A recent report in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin explored how perceived automation risks reshape the way people value their own skills. Instead of focusing on tasks at risk of being automated, the research team looked at the meanings that individuals assign to creativity, technical know‑how and social abilities when they imagine an AI‑driven future.
In an initial survey, participants rated a set of common workplace skills on two fronts: how vulnerable each seemed to replacement by machines and how much it might grow in importance as technology advances. Imagination and original thinking rose to the top as talents that machines could not easily replicate yet would become more essential. By contrast, coding and data analysis fell into a zone of both exposure and declining novelty. Teamwork and negotiation landed in a middle range on both counts, viewed as neither a clear competitive edge nor a serious automation threat.
Next, the research team split more than two thousand adults into groups that read about different job‑market pressures: competition from automation, rivalry with overseas labor or no explicit threat. When the focus shifted to machines, those participants chose creative skills as their standout strengths on mock resumes and cover letters far more often than anyone else. In free‑response exercises, they again named originality and inventive problem solving above social abilities or technical tools.
The pattern extended into real choices about skill development. Science and engineering students nearing graduation weighed creative‑skill workshops more heavily when they believed automation posed their biggest hurdle. Likewise, professional designers told that software could encroach on their craft signed up for brainstorming and concept‑generation courses rather than advanced coding classes.
Company selection also changed under automation anxiety. When two hypothetical firms touted themselves, one as a hub for original thinkers and the other as a bastion of analytical rigor, the group primed to fear AI overwhelmingly gravitated toward the creativity‑focused employer. This finding suggests that, under the specter of machines, people do not merely talk up their talents; they seek out places that share their belief in human ingenuity.
Even when generative AI entered the picture, systems capable of producing text, art or music, the preference for creativity held firm. People continued to present their own ability to innovate as the skill least at risk, even though they knew algorithms now matched or surpassed humans in many imaginative tasks. That result reveals a strong conviction that human creativity carries a unique spark that technology cannot fully extinguish.
The report’s authors acknowledge that their work relies on hypothetical scenarios and a mostly college‑educated, U.S.‑based sample. They note that real‑world hiring outcomes may vary and that workers in other cultures might respond differently. Still, the research highlights a clear psychological shift that is in the face of automation, creativity stands out as a protective asset and a strategic investment for tomorrow’s careers.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: From OpenAI's o3 to Grok-3 Vision: These AI Models Took the Mensa Test, Results May Surprise You
A recent report in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin explored how perceived automation risks reshape the way people value their own skills. Instead of focusing on tasks at risk of being automated, the research team looked at the meanings that individuals assign to creativity, technical know‑how and social abilities when they imagine an AI‑driven future.
In an initial survey, participants rated a set of common workplace skills on two fronts: how vulnerable each seemed to replacement by machines and how much it might grow in importance as technology advances. Imagination and original thinking rose to the top as talents that machines could not easily replicate yet would become more essential. By contrast, coding and data analysis fell into a zone of both exposure and declining novelty. Teamwork and negotiation landed in a middle range on both counts, viewed as neither a clear competitive edge nor a serious automation threat.
Next, the research team split more than two thousand adults into groups that read about different job‑market pressures: competition from automation, rivalry with overseas labor or no explicit threat. When the focus shifted to machines, those participants chose creative skills as their standout strengths on mock resumes and cover letters far more often than anyone else. In free‑response exercises, they again named originality and inventive problem solving above social abilities or technical tools.
The pattern extended into real choices about skill development. Science and engineering students nearing graduation weighed creative‑skill workshops more heavily when they believed automation posed their biggest hurdle. Likewise, professional designers told that software could encroach on their craft signed up for brainstorming and concept‑generation courses rather than advanced coding classes.
Company selection also changed under automation anxiety. When two hypothetical firms touted themselves, one as a hub for original thinkers and the other as a bastion of analytical rigor, the group primed to fear AI overwhelmingly gravitated toward the creativity‑focused employer. This finding suggests that, under the specter of machines, people do not merely talk up their talents; they seek out places that share their belief in human ingenuity.
Even when generative AI entered the picture, systems capable of producing text, art or music, the preference for creativity held firm. People continued to present their own ability to innovate as the skill least at risk, even though they knew algorithms now matched or surpassed humans in many imaginative tasks. That result reveals a strong conviction that human creativity carries a unique spark that technology cannot fully extinguish.
The report’s authors acknowledge that their work relies on hypothetical scenarios and a mostly college‑educated, U.S.‑based sample. They note that real‑world hiring outcomes may vary and that workers in other cultures might respond differently. Still, the research highlights a clear psychological shift that is in the face of automation, creativity stands out as a protective asset and a strategic investment for tomorrow’s careers.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: From OpenAI's o3 to Grok-3 Vision: These AI Models Took the Mensa Test, Results May Surprise You
