AI Job Losses Trigger Different Spending Than Human Layoffs

Workers replaced by artificial intelligence react differently at the cash register than those laid off by human competitors, according to new research that reveals how automation anxiety shapes our shopping habits.

A study spanning five experiments found that people who lose their jobs to AI algorithms or robots gravitate toward flashy, status-symbol purchases, while those replaced by human workers tend toward charitable giving and pro-social behaviors. The findings suggest that as AI continues reshaping the workforce, it may also be quietly rewiring how displaced workers spend their money.

Two Types of Threat, Two Shopping Patterns

The research, published in the Journal of Business Research, examined how different sources of job displacement affect consumer psychology. When researchers simulated job replacement scenarios with 850 participants across various professions—from programmers to warehouse workers—clear patterns emerged.

AI replacement threatens people’s sense of control, driving them toward conspicuous consumption designed to signal power and status. Human replacement, by contrast, damages people’s need for belonging, pushing them toward charitable donations and community-minded purchases.

“Job replacement increases individuals’ perception of threats across various professional backgrounds,” the study notes. But the type of threat matters enormously for what happens next.

The Control vs. Belonging Divide

Why do these two scenarios trigger such different responses? The answer lies in fundamental psychological needs that get threatened differently by humans versus machines.

AI’s ability to learn, adapt, and improve autonomously creates what researchers call a “sense of powerlessness and loss of control.” Unlike traditional automation that replaced manual tasks, modern AI can mimic human cognitive functions while operating beyond individual control.

Human job replacement hits different psychological buttons. It triggers social comparison and can lead to stigma, affecting people’s connections with others and their sense of belonging in society.

Key Research Findings:

• 41.8% of AI-displaced workers chose products with large logos vs. 23.9% of human-displaced workers
• Human-replaced workers donated an average of $10.30 compared to $7.19 for AI-replaced workers
• Threats to control mediated AI replacement effects on conspicuous consumption
• Threats to belonging mediated human replacement effects on pro-social behavior

Real-World Shopping Behaviors

The researchers didn’t just rely on hypothetical scenarios. In one experiment, participants faced actual job replacement during a task, then made real choices about product preferences and charitable donations.

Those replaced by AI showed a stronger preference for Nike hats with prominent logos over subtle designs. Meanwhile, workers replaced by humans donated more money to educational charities.

The pattern held across different occupational contexts—from junior programmers threatened by ChatGPT to warehouse workers facing robotic automation to restaurant servers potentially replaced by service robots.

The Self-Affirmation Solution

But there’s hope for mitigating these psychological impacts. The research identified self-affirmation as an effective intervention that can reduce compensatory shopping behaviors regardless of replacement source.

When participants spent time writing about their core values—things like family, personal abilities, or public service—the dramatic differences in spending patterns largely disappeared.

This suggests that helping displaced workers maintain perspective on their broader self-worth could prevent some of the psychological fallout from job loss.

What This Means for the Future

As AI capabilities expand, these findings have implications far beyond individual shopping habits. The Goldman Sachs Institute has predicted that AI could replace the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs by 2030.

For businesses, understanding these psychological responses could inform both workforce transition strategies and marketing approaches. Companies might emphasize status elements in products marketed to workers in AI-vulnerable industries.

For policymakers, the research suggests that different types of job displacement require different support strategies. While programs addressing social connection might help those displaced by human competition, workers replaced by AI may need interventions focused on restoring their sense of agency and control.

The study also raises broader questions about the psychological costs of technological progress. As AI systems become more sophisticated, the threat they pose to human control becomes more profound—potentially triggering compensatory behaviors that extend well beyond the workplace.

Perhaps most importantly, the research demonstrates that the rise of AI isn’t just changing what jobs exist, but how people cope with job loss itself. In a world where algorithms can outperform humans at an growing range of tasks, even our responses to unemployment are evolving.