As automation and artificial intelligence become more widespread, many workers are rethinking how to prepare for the future of work. A new study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin shows that people who perceive automation as a threat to their job prospects tend to place greater value on creativity.
The researchers conducted the study to better understand how psychological reactions to new technology shape career preparation. While past research has focused on the types of jobs and tasks most vulnerable to automation, less is known about how workers themselves interpret these changes and which skills they believe will help them remain employable. The team wanted to investigate how people think about their own abilities in an era of rapid technological change, especially as machines begin to outperform humans in areas once thought to be uniquely human.
Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems designed to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as decision-making, pattern recognition, or language use. Recent advances have made AI especially adept at automating routine, rule-based tasks—and even generating novel outputs like artwork, writing, and code.
These developments have raised concerns about job displacement, leading many people to reassess which skills will remain valuable. While policymakers often encourage people to develop technical expertise, other scholars have argued that creative and interpersonal skills may be more resistant to automation.
“We were interested in how people are psychologically responding to the rapid rise of automation and AI,” said study author Monica Gamez-Djokic, an assistant professor at Purdue University. “A lot of public discourse frames AI as a threat to jobs, especially those that rely on technical or analytical skills. We wanted to know: how do people adapt to this threat? Our idea was that people might respond by placing more value on qualities and skills they see as distinctly human and less easily replaced by machines.”
To explore how workers respond to perceived automation threats, the researchers conducted a series of studies involving more than 2,300 participants. In each study, participants were randomly assigned to read descriptions of labor market competition, either from automation, foreign labor, or no specified threat. They were then asked to make career-related choices, such as selecting which skills to emphasize on job applications, which training programs to pursue, or which companies to work for.
The study began with a pilot survey that gauged how people viewed different skills in terms of their vulnerability to automation. Participants rated 15 common workplace skills—five each in the creative, technical, and social domains—on two dimensions: how likely each was to be replaced by automation, and how likely it was to increase in importance as technology advances. Creative skills such as imagination and innovation were rated as both highly complementary to automation and unlikely to be replaced. In contrast, technical skills like programming and data analysis were seen as more vulnerable to automation, even if still useful. Social skills like teamwork and negotiation were viewed as relatively low in both dimensions.
In the first set of studies, participants imagined themselves as recent college graduates applying for jobs. They selected a few skills from a list to highlight in a hypothetical cover letter. Those who had read about automation threats were more likely to highlight creative skills than those who read about foreign labor competition. In one variation, participants were allowed to freely list skills rather than choose from a preset list. Again, people exposed to automation threats emphasized creativity more often than technical or social skills.
Other studies examined whether this preference for creativity translated into behavior beyond self-presentation. In one experiment, science and engineering students nearing graduation were shown mock job listings from technology companies. After reading about the automation threat, they were more likely to select training courses focused on creativity than those focused on technical topics. A similar pattern emerged among professional graphic designers: those told their field was threatened by automation showed a greater interest in creative training courses than those told the competition came from foreign workers.
“When people feel that their jobs are threatened by automation or AI, they start to emphasize their creativity more—especially in contexts like job applications,” Gamez-Djokic told PsyPost. “Importantly, this shift wasn’t just about self-presentation. People also showed more interest in pursuing education or training related to creative skills when faced with automation threats. This suggests that creativity isn’t just seen as a current strength, but as a future-oriented investment—something people believe will grow in importance in an AI-driven job market.”
The automation threat also shaped how people evaluated potential employers. In another experiment, participants read recruitment messages from two hypothetical companies—one emphasizing a culture of creativity and the other stressing analytical rigor. Participants who had read about automation were significantly more drawn to the company that valued creativity, suggesting that automation not only changes how people present themselves, but also where they want to work.
“One thing that stood out was how consistently people responded to automation threats by highlighting creativity—even when creativity wasn’t explicitly mentioned or encouraged,” Gamez-Djokic said. “In fact, participants seemed to ‘default’ to emphasizing technical skills unless they were prompted to think about automation. That shift was striking and shows how powerfully automation and AI can shape how people present themselves and their strengths.”
Two final studies explored how people responded to the newer form of artificial intelligence known as generative AI. Generative AI systems can create text, images, music, and more—abilities traditionally thought to require human creativity. Despite this, participants continued to emphasize their own creative skills in job applications and professional profiles, even when AI was explicitly described as excelling at creative tasks. This suggests a strong belief in the enduring value of human creativity, even in domains where machines are now competitive.
Across all nine studies, the researchers consistently found that automation threats increased the emphasis people placed on creativity. When people were forced to choose among skill types, they viewed creative abilities as a safer and more valuable asset in a changing labor market. This effect was specific to automation; participants did not prioritize creativity in response to other kinds of job threats, such as competition from foreign workers.
“Another surprising finding was that not all non-automatable human skills were treated equally,” Gamez-Djokic told PsyPost. “While creativity was consistently emphasized, social skills—like collaboration or communication—were not prioritized in the same way. This suggests that people don’t simply value whatever they think AI can’t do; instead, they seem to view creativity as a skill that is complementary to emerging technologies and likely to become more important as AI advances. Creativity is seen not just as uniquely human, but as increasingly essential in a tech-driven future.”
As with all research, there are some limitations. Most participants were college-educated and recruited online, which may not reflect how all workers think about automation. The studies focused on a limited range of skill categories—primarily creative, technical, and social—so it is possible that other types of abilities, like managerial or emotional intelligence, could show different patterns. The findings also rely on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture how people make real-world career decisions.
“Our studies focused on perceptions—how people feel about their skills and job prospects when imagining a world shaped by AI—not on actual job outcomes,” Gamez-Djokic noted. “We don’t yet know whether emphasizing creativity would actually improve employment chances in real-world hiring. Also, our studies were primarily U.S.-based, so it’s unclear whether the same patterns would hold in other cultural or labor market contexts.”
Future research could expand by examining how people with different education levels, job types, or socioeconomic backgrounds respond to automation threats. It could also explore how beliefs about skill complementarity—such as combining creativity with technical know-how—shape career development. The researchers suggest that understanding these psychological responses is important for designing education programs and labor policies that help workers adapt to technological change.
The study, “Poets Over Quants: Automation and AI Threats Increase the Value People Place on Creativity,” was authored by Monica Gamez-Djokic, Adam Waytz, and Maryam Kouchaki.
