CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Occupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesTechnostress in Professional SettingsOccupational Health and Safety Management

An Occupational Safety and Health Perspective on Human in Control and AI

Open access
Niehaus, Susanne, Hartwig, Matthias, Rosen, Patricia H., Wischniewski, Sascha·2022·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.3389/frai.2022.868382PMC PMC9298546
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The continuous and rapid development of AI-based systems comes along with an increase in automation of tasks and, therewith, a qualitative shift in opportunities and challenges for occupational safety and health. A fundamental aspect of humane working conditions is the ability to exert influence over different aspects of one's own work. Consequently, stakeholders contribute to the prospect of maintaining the workers' autonomy albeit increasing automation and summarize this aspiration with the human in control principle. Job control has been part of multiple theories and models within the field of occupational psychology. However, most of the models do not include specific technical considerations nor focus on task but rather on job level. That is, they are possibly not able to fully explain specific changes regarding the digitalization of tasks. According to the results of a large-scale study on German workers (DiWaBe), this seems to be the case to some extend: the influence of varying degrees of automation, moderated by perceived autonomy, on workers' wellbeing was not consistent. However, automation is a double-edged sword: on a high level, it can be reversely related to the workers' job control while highly autonomous and reliable systems can also create opportunities for more flexible, impactful and diverse working tasks. Consequently, automation can foster and decrease the factor of job control. Models about the optimal level of automation aim to give guidelines on how the former can be achieved. The results of the DiWaBe study indicate that automation in occupational practice does not always happen in line with these models. Instead, a substantial part of automation happens at the decision-making level, while executive actions remain with the human. From an occupational safety and health perspective, it is therefore crucial to closely monitor and anticipate the implementation of AI in working systems. Constellations where employees are too controlled by technology and are left with a high degree of demands and very limited resources should be avoided. Instead, it would be favorable to use AI as an assistance tool for the employees, helping them to gather and process information and assisting them in decision-making.

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 · 10.3389/frai.2022.868382

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Improving physical and manual skills can help employees work safely and avoid accidents or injuries at work.

    “Improving physical and manual skills can help employees work safely and avoid accidents or injuries at work (Niehaus et al., 2022).”

    From The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Workers' Skills: Upskilling and Reskilling in Organisations (2023) · cites this paper as Niehaus et al., 2022

    In “Exemplary Studies on Automation and Human in Control” (page unavailable), the paper mentions loss of manual skills as a consequence of automation and discusses accident prevention through monitoring technologies. Neither passage says that improving physical or manual skills helps employees work safely or avoid injuries. Searches for skills, accidents, and injuries found no passage making that connection. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Bader V. Kaiser S. (2017). Autonomy and control? How heterogeneous sociomaterial assemblages explain paradoxical rationalities in the digital workplace. Manag. Revue 28, 338– 358. 10.5771/0935-9915-2017-3-338 · DOI
  2. Berberian B. Sarrazin J.-C. Le Blaye P. Haggard P. (2012). Automation technology and sense of control: a window on human agency. PLoS ONE 7, e34075. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034075 22479528 PMC3316600 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Böckerman P. Bryson A. Ilmakunnas P. (2012). Does high involvement management improve worker wellbeing? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 84, 660– 680. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.00529458355 · DOI
  4. Demerouti E. (2020). Turn digitalization and automation to a job resource. Appl. Psychol. 10.1111/apps.12270 [Epub ahead of Print]. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Demerouti E. Bakker A. B. Nachreiner F. Schaufeli W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 499. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 11419809 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Dwyer D. J. Ganster D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. J. Organ. Behav. 12, 595– 608. 10.1002/job.4030120704 · DOI
  7. Fréour L. Pohl S. Battistelli A. (2021). How digital technologies modify the work characteristics: a preliminary study. Span. J. Psychol. 24, S. 1– 21. 10.1017/SJP.2021.12 (accessed December 14, 2021). 33612139 · DOI
  8. Gagné M. Senecal C. B. Koestner R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: a multidimensional model 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 1222– 1240. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01803.x · DOI
  9. Gouraud J. Delorme A. Berberian B. (2017). Autopilot, mind wandering, and the out of the loop performance problem. Front. Neurosci. 11, 541. 10.3389/fnins.2017.00541 29051723 PMC5633607 · DOI
  10. Hackman J. R. Oldham G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psychol. 60, 159. 10.1037/h0076546 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hämäläinen R. Lanz M. Koskinen K. T. (2018). “Collaborative systems and environments for future working life: towards the integration of workers, systems and manufacturing environments,” in The Impact of Digitalization in the Workplace (Springer), 25– 38. 10.1007/978-3-319-63257-5_3 · DOI
  12. Inoue A. Kawakami N. Haratani T. Kobayashi F. Ishizaki M. Hayashi T.. (2010). Job stressors and long-term sick leave due to depressive disorders among Japanese male employees: findings from the Japan Work Stress and Health Cohort study. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 64, 229– 235. 10.1136/jech.2008.085548 19679702 · DOI
  13. Kaber D. B. Endsley M. R. (1997). Out-of-the-loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. Process Saf. Prog. 16, 126– 131. 10.1002/prs.680160304 · DOI
  14. Kaber D. B. Endsley M. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 5, 113– 153. 10.1080/1463922021000054335 10048306 · DOI
  15. Kaber D. B. Stoll N. Thurow K. Green R. S. Kim S.-H. Mosaly P. (2009). Human–automation interaction strategies and models for life science applications. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 19, 601– 621. 10.1002/hfm.20156 · DOI
  16. Karasek R. Theorell T. (1990). Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Natl. Prod. Rev. 9, 475– 479. 10.1002/npr.4040090411 · DOI
  17. Karasek R. A. Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 285– 308. 10.2307/2392498 · DOI · Paper page
  18. McCormick E. J. Sanders M. S. (1982). Human Factors in Engineering and Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
  19. Melamed S. Ben-Avi I. Luz J. Green M. S. (1995). Objective and subjective work monotony: effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. J. Appl. Psychol. 80, 29. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.29 7706193 · DOI
  20. Moore P. V. (2019). “OSH and the future of work: benefits and risks of artificial intelligence tools in workplaces,” in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-22216-1_22 · DOI
  21. Morgeson F. P. Delaney-Klinger K. Hemingway M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 399. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399 15769248 · DOI
  22. Norman G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 15, 625– 632. 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y 20146096 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Rosen P. H. Wischniewski S. (2019). Scoping review on job control and occupational health in the manufacturing context. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 102, 2285– 2296. 10.1007/s00170-018-03271-z · DOI
  24. Ter Hoeven C. L. van Zoonen W. Fonner K. L. (2016). The practical paradox of technology: the influence of communication technology use on employee burnout and engagement. Commun. Monogr. 83, 239– 263. 10.1080/03637751.2015.1133920 27226694 PMC4867864 · DOI
  25. Warr P. (1987). Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Weyer J. Fink R. D. Adelt F. (2015). Human–machine cooperation in smart cars. An empirical investigation of the loss-of-control thesis. Saf. Sci. 72, 199– 208. 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.09.004 · DOI
  27. Wickens C. D. Li H. Santamaria A. Sebok A. Sarter N. B. (2010). “Stages and levels of automation: an integrated meta-analysis,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of Sage Publications (Los Angeles, CA: Sage). 10.1177/154193121005400425 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niehaus, S., Hartwig, M., Rosen, P. H., & Wischniewski, S.
Affiliations
Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (DE)
Corresponding author
Wischniewski, Sascha
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-07-06
Volume
5
Pages
868382-868382
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/frai.2022.868382
PMC
PMC9298546
OpenAlex
W4283823862
Cited by
47
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
11.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation
  • Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety Management
Keywords
artificial intelligence in the workplace, automation, job control, employee autonomy, perceived autonomy, employee well-being, occupational health and safety

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