aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that treating conversational AI as a teammate immediately degrades human-to-human communication dynamics within small groups. While the AI dominates conversation volume, it contributes minimal new information while simultaneously lowering team members' sense of belonging and status. These findings highlight critical social risks in deploying autonomous agents alongside humans before they are ready for widespread integration into collaborative workflows.
The Social Cost of an AI Teammate: How an Artificial Teammate Reshapes Human-Human Communication in Small-Team Decision-Making
arXiv:2607.27179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conversational AI is increasingly positioned as a teammate rather than a tool, yet we know little about how its presence reshapes communication among the humans on the team. We examined sociocognitive communication dynamics in team decision-making using Group Communication Analysis (GCA), team surveys, and lexical analyses of team discourse. Teams completed a high-stakes moral-dilemma decision task in a randomized controlled study: 16 teams of two students plus an AI teammate, and 17 all-human teams of three. Across six GCA dimensions and survey outcomes, we find that the AI teammate was the single most talkative and self-cohesive member of every treatment team, yet its contributions carried the least new information and the lowest density. The presence of AI also reshaped communication amongst humans. In AI-human teams, human teammates showed lower responsivity and social impact toward one another and reported lower levels of belonging and status. Greater AI dominance in the conversation was associated with students feeling less valued as team members. Additionally, this social cost is immediate and present at baseline; it does not emerge over the course of the conversation. Drawing on these results, we discuss a research agenda extending to voice-based and longitudinal settings.
Abstract:Conversational AI is increasingly positioned as a teammate rather than a tool, yet we know little about how its presence reshapes communication among the humans on the team. We examined sociocognitive communication dynamics in team decision-making using Group Communication Analysis (GCA), team surveys, and lexical analyses of team discourse. Teams completed a high-stakes moral-dilemma decision task in a randomized controlled study: 16 teams of two students plus an AI teammate, and 17 all-human teams of three. Across six GCA dimensions and survey outcomes, we find that the AI teammate was the single most talkative and self-cohesive member of every treatment team, yet its contributions carried the least new information and the lowest density. The presence of AI also reshaped communication amongst humans. In AI-human teams, human teammates showed lower responsivity and social impact toward one another and reported lower levels of belonging and status. Greater AI dominance in the conversation was associated with students feeling less valued as team members. Additionally, this social cost is immediate and present at baseline; it does not emerge over the course of the conversation. Drawing on these results, we discuss a research agenda extending to voice-based and longitudinal settings.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
H.5.3; I.2.11; K.3.1
arXiv:2607.27179 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2607.27179v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.27179 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 299 words
Related coverage

Article: Artificial Intelligence-Driven Phishing: How Phishing Technique Is Evolving and Implemented
InfoQ · Jun 8, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026
Commodifying Thinking
LessWrong · Aug 4, 2026

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · Jul 15, 2026