ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing AI to an online petition platform changed outputs but not outcomes.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- AI Perceptions, Professional Identity, and AI-Supported Clinical Decisions Among Medical Students and Clinicians: Cross-Sectional Survey and Quasi-Randomized Vignette Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in psychiatric care and education: a qualitative study of factors influencing adoption in Singapore.International journal of medical education · 2026Article
- Observer Perceptions of GenAI Use and Interpersonal Trust: The Roles of Warmth, Competence, and AI Literacy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- How Employee-AI Collaboration Influences Coworkers' Helping Behaviour: An Attribution Theory Perspective.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Academic journals' AI policies fail to curb the surge in AI-assisted academic writing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The impact of generative AI on social media: an experimental study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Perceived generative AI teaching intelligence and pre-service teachers' professional identity: double-edged pathways through professional agency and AI replacement threat.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Disclosure in the era of generative artificial intelligence.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based chatbots improve the efficiency of course orientation among medical students: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the rapid proliferation of AI tools, we know little about how people who use them are perceived by others. Drawing on theories of attribution and impression management, we propose that people believe they will be evaluated negatively by others for using AI tools and that this belief is justified. We examine these predictions in four preregistered experiments (N = 4,439) and find that people who use AI at work anticipate and receive negative evaluations regarding their competence and motivation. Further, we find evidence that these social evaluations affect assessments of job candidates. Our findings reveal a dilemma for people considering adopting AI tools: Although AI can enhance productivity, its use carries social costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.