CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Technostress in Professional SettingsPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorAI and HR Technologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet.

"If the Machine Is As Good As Me, Then What Use Am I?" – How the Use of ChatGPT Changes Young Professionals' Perception of Productivity and Accomplishment

Open access
Kobiella, Charlotte, Flores López, Yarhy Said, Waltenberger, Franz, Draxler, Fiona, Schmidt, Albrecht·2024·Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3613904.3641964
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have been widely adopted in work contexts. We explore the impact of ChatGPT on young professionals’ perception of productivity and sense of accomplishment. We collected LLMs’ main use cases in knowledge work through a preliminary study, which served as the basis for a two-week diary study with 21 young professionals reflecting on their ChatGPT use. Findings indicate that ChatGPT enhanced some participants’ perceptions of productivity and accomplishment by enabling greater creative output and satisfaction from efficient tool utilization. Others experienced decreased perceived productivity and accomplishment, driven by a diminished sense of ownership, perceived lack of challenge, and mediocre results. We found that the suitability of task delegation to ChatGPT varies strongly depending on the task nature. It’s especially suitable for comprehending broad subject domains, generating creative solutions, and uncovering new information. It’s less suitable for research tasks due to hallucinations, which necessitate extensive validation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3613904.3641964

Cites

69 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the Creative context, support for planning takes the form of generative ideation, usually presented as suggestions, although some systems have a more equal and collaborative storytelling focus that weaves the AI ideas into the story text.

    “Support for planning takes the form of generative ideation, usually presented as suggestions [74,135], although some systems have a more equal and collaborative storytelling focus that weaves the AI ideas into the story text [70,92].”

    From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [70]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Feelings of ownership were related to how much they felt their contribution was central to the task at hand.

    “In a two-week diary study, Kobiella et al. investigated young professionals' perceptions of ChatGPT and found that feelings of ownership were related to how much they felt their contribution was central to the task at hand [34].”

    From Where Do I 'Add the Egg'?: Exploring Agency and Ownership in AI Creative Co-Writing Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. James E. Bessen, Maarten Goos, Anna Salomons, and Wiljan Van Den Berge. 2019. Automatic Reaction - What Happens to Workers at Firms that Automate?Technical Report. Boston University School of Law. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3328877
  2. Rikke Friis Dam and Teo Yu Siang. 2022. Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/affinity-diagrams-learn-how-to-cluster-and-bundle-ideas-and-facts
  3. Fiona Draxler Anna Werner Florian Lehmann Matthias Hoppe Albrecht Schmidt Daniel Buschek and Robin Welsch. 2023. The AI Ghostwriter Effect: Users Do Not Perceive Ownership of AI-Generated Text But Self-Declare as Authors. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.03283 arXiv:2303.03283 [cs]. · arXiv
  4. 10.1093/jcmc · DOI
  5. Marc Hassenzahl. 2007. The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. In Towards a UX Manifesto. BCS Learning \& Development Ltd. Swindon GBR 10–14. https://scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/HCI2007.95 · DOI
  6. Marc Hassenzahl and Virpi Roto. 2007. Being and doing: A perspective on user experience and its measurement. Interfaces 72 (Jan. 2007), 10–12.
  7. 10.1093/qje · DOI
  8. 10.1093/qje · DOI
  9. Janin Koch, Prashanth Thattai Ravikumar, and Filipe Calegario. 2021. Agency in Co-Creativity: Towards a Structured Analysis of a Concept. In ICCC 2021 - 12th International Conference on Computational Creativity. Association for Computational Creativity (ACC), Mexico City (online), Mexico, 449–452. https://inria.hal.science/hal-03533245
  10. R. Likert. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 22 140 (1932), 55–55.
  11. Wei Ma Shangqing Liu Wenhan Wang Qiang Hu Ye Liu Cen Zhang Liming Nie and Yang Liu. 2023. The Scope of ChatGPT in Software Engineering: A Thorough Investigation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.12138 arXiv:2305.12138 [cs]. · DOI
  12. Christina Maslach, Susan Jackson, and Michael Leiter. 1997. The Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. In Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources. Vol. 3. The Scarecrow Press, New York, 191–218. Journal Abbreviation: Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources.
  13. Ethan R. Mollick and Lilach Mollick. 2023. Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts. Technical Report. University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4475995
  14. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Robert J. Sternberg and Todd I. Lubart. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, US, 3–15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kobiella, C., Flores López, Y. S., Waltenberger, F., Draxler, F., & Schmidt, A.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Center for Digital Technology and Management, Germany and Technical University of Munich, Germany
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • University of Mannheim (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-11
Pages
1-16
DOI
10.1145/3613904.3641964
OpenAlex
W4396827132
Cited by
57
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 1
FWCI
38.28
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MADOC (University of Mannheim) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, young professionals, perceived productivity, sense of achievement, task delegation, knowledge work, creative output, sense of ownership, task difficulty, hallucinations, research assignments, artificial intelligence in the workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review