Beyond Individual UX: Defining Group Experience(GX) as a New Paradigm for Group-centered AI

TL;DR

The paper identifies a gap in HCI/AI research that prioritizes individual UX and proposes Group Experience (GX) as a formal construct for collective perceptual, emotional, and cognitive dynamics in group contexts. It then introduces Group-centered AI (GCAI), a mezzo-level paradigm designed to actively support group processes through five core elements—Interaction Mediation, Social Transparency, Adaptive Scaffolding, Collective Intelligence Amplification, and Group-Level Accountability and Ethics—underpinned by a Group-centered Design approach. By drawing on social psychology, organizational behavior, and CSCW, the authors advocate group-level metrics and methodologies to evaluate GX, bridging micro-level experiences and macro societal impacts. They also present provocative directions for future research, emphasizing ethical group governance and methodological innovations to assess cohesive, inclusive, and effective collective collaboration. Overall, the work aims to enrich collaborative human experiences by enabling AI systems that augment group agency, dialogue, and decision-making across domains including education, remote work, and social robotics.

Abstract

Recent advancements in HCI and AI have predominantly centered on individual user experiences, often neglecting the emergent dynamics of group interactions. This provocation introduces Group Experience(GX) to capture the collective perceptual, emotional, and cognitive dimensions that arise when individuals interact in cohesive groups. We challenge the conventional Human-centered AI paradigm and propose Group-centered AI(GCAI) as a framework that actively mediates group dynamics, amplifies diverse voices, and fosters ethical collective decision-making. Drawing on social psychology, organizational behavior, and group dynamics, we outline a group-centered design approach that balances individual autonomy with collective interests while developing novel evaluative metrics. Our analysis emphasizes rethinking traditional methodologies that focus solely on individual outcomes and advocates for innovative strategies to capture group collaboration. We call on researchers to bridge the gap between micro-level experiences and macro-level impacts, ultimately enriching and transforming collaborative human interactions.

Figures (1)

• Figure 1: Group-centered Design: Comparison between Human-centered Design and Group-centered Design approaches across five design phases (Discovery, Define, Design, Prototype & Test, Plan & Implementation). The diagram illustrates how traditional HCD methods focused on individual needs transition to GCD approaches that explicitly address group dynamics, social roles, collective interactions, and organizational structures throughout the design process.