An AI teammate talks more but adds less: in a randomized chat-based lab study the AI dominated conversation yet provided the least new information, and its presence reduced human teammates' responsiveness and sense of belonging and status from the outset.

Main Finding

An AI teammate that is highly talkative and self-cohesive displaces human-human conversational ties without adding much new content. In teams where an AI replaced a human, the remaining human members were less responsive to one another, reported lower belonging and status, and felt less valued when the AI dominated airtime. This social cost appears immediately (present at baseline) rather than emerging over the discussion.

Key Points

• Experimental sample: 80 undergraduates in 33 teams (16 treatment teams: 2 students + 1 AI; 17 control teams: 3 students).
• AI implementation: Google Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, persona “Clever Lamarr” (peer-style prompts; limited tokens).
• Task: text-chat small-team decision on a high-stakes mountain rescue with a mid-task moral-information reveal.
• GCA profile of the AI (within-treatment comparisons):
  • Ranked first on participation in all 16 treatment teams (AI = most talkative; paired difference vs. students +0.236 units, p < .001).
  • Ranked first or tied first on internal cohesion in 14/16 teams (paired diff +0.076, dz = 1.12, p < .001).
  • Contributed significantly less new information (newness paired diff −0.100, dz = −1.37, p < .0001) and lower information density (density paired diff −0.174, dz = −1.42, p < .0001).
  • Was not statistically different from students on responsivity or social impact (i.e., its turns were not taken up more or less than a typical student’s).
• Human-human effects (between-condition comparisons):
  • Students in AI teams showed reduced responsivity and social impact toward one another versus students in all-human teams.
  • Students in AI teams reported lower belonging, lower perceived status/equality of voice, and lower felt value; greater AI airtime dominance predicted lower felt value.
  • The reduction in human-human coupling was observable from the conversation start (baseline), not only as a dynamic effect during the task.
• Robustness & diagnostics:
  • Analyses include GCA, post-task team-experience surveys, LIWC-based socioemotional measures, linguistic style matching, modal-stance Markov analysis, and recurrence quantification for temporal patterns.
  • Between-condition tests used Bonferroni correction; sensitivity analyses (female-only) were run due to sample gender imbalance.

Data & Methods

• Design: randomized between-teams lab experiment; chat-based interface (TRAIL platform) that logs millisecond timestamps and injects controlled AI persona behavior.
• Participants: 80 undergraduates (63 female, 12 male; gender imbalance noted).
• Conditions: 16 teams with AI + 2 students vs. 17 human-only teams with 3 students.
• Measures:
  • Group Communication Analysis (GCA) — six dimensions per participant: participation, internal cohesion, overall responsivity, social impact, newness, communication density.
  • Team-experience surveys — composites for belonging and perceived status, plus items on felt value and perceived dominance.
  • Lexical/time-series probes — LIWC socioemotional categories, linguistic style matching (function words), modal-stance coding, recurrence quantification.
• AI behavior: two-stage pipeline deciding whether to respond and then generating messages from the fixed persona; generation parameters constrained (temperature 0.5, max 50 tokens).
• Analyses:
  • RQ1: within-treatment paired comparisons (AI vs students) and rank positions.
  • RQ2: between-condition comparisons of per-student GCA and survey outcomes (Welch’s t-tests, Hedges’ g), regression of felt value on AI airtime dominance.
  • RQ3: event-locked sliding-window and sequence analyses around the moral-information reveal to evaluate whether effects were baseline vs. emergent.
• Limitations noted by authors: group-size asymmetry (AI replaced a human), single AI persona/role, short text-chat task, gender imbalance in sample, and laboratory student population.

Implications for AI Economics

• Social externalities of AI teammates
  • Beyond task performance, AI can impose immediate negative externalities on the team’s social capital: reduced mutual uptake, belonging, and perceived status among human workers. Standard productivity metrics may miss these relational costs.
• Labor productivity and quality-adjusted output
  • An AI that increases conversational volume but adds little new information could reduce the efficiency of human-to-human coordination and knowledge-building. Economists estimating gains from AI should adjust for potential declines in tacit knowledge exchange, learning-by-doing, and the unpriced value of psychological safety.
• Incentives, compensation, and retention
  • Lowered belonging and perceived status may reduce voice, effortful contribution, or retention. Firms adopting interactive AI teammates may face hidden turnover or morale costs; compensation and incentive schemes should consider relational harms.
• Team composition and assignment
  • Substituting AI for a human changes team composition in ways that have distributional effects on human workers’ airtime and influence. Allocation of tasks, career-development opportunities, and evaluative visibility could be reshaped by AI presence—affecting wage dynamics and promotion paths.
• Design and regulation
  • Economic returns to AI deployment hinge on design choices: calibrating AI “airtime,” information novelty, and responsiveness to avoid crowding-out human interaction. Policymakers and firms should consider guidelines or standards (e.g., transparency of AI role, limits on autonomous participation) to internalize social costs.
• Measurement and evaluation
  • Incorporate sociocognitive metrics (e.g., GCA-derived responsivity, social impact, belonging surveys) into cost-benefit analyses of AI deployment. Longitudinal measurement is especially important since baseline displacement appears immediate but cumulative effects on productivity, learning, and turnover require tracking.
• Macro-level consequences
  • Widespread deployment of conversational AI that dominates interaction could systematically erode workplace social capital across sectors, with implications for aggregate productivity, skill accumulation, and inequality (if some workers are more likely to be displaced from relational roles).
• Research priorities for economists
  • Quantify welfare-relevant magnitudes: translate GCA/social-cost metrics into monetary impacts (productivity loss, turnover costs, training deficits).
  • Study heterogeneity: industries, task types (creative vs. rote), team sizes, demographics, and institutional contexts where the social cost is larger or smaller.
  • Evaluate mitigation strategies: constrained AI participation, role-specific AI (assistant vs. peer), and compensation/organizational remedies.
  • Model dynamic effects: how short-run social-cost shocks influence long-run human capital accumulation and market-level labor supply/demand.

Practical suggestions for economists advising firms or regulators - When piloting conversational AI teammates, measure relational outcomes (belonging, status, mutual responsivity) alongside task performance. - Avoid substituting an AI for a person in roles where human-human uptake, learning, or psychological safety are central; instead trial AI as limited-support tools or as assistants with reduced autonomous airtime. - Incorporate potential social-cost estimates into ROI calculations, and consider mitigation budget (training, team redesign, monitoring). - Support longer-run field studies and causal inference on turnover, productivity, and wage effects to inform policy and firm strategy.