Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40465594›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

AI integration and workforce development: Exploring job autonomy and creative self-efficacy in a global context.

Deeviya Francis Xavier, Christian Korunka, Roni Reiter-Palmon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Deeviya Francis XavierDepartment of Occupational, Economic and Social Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0009-0006-8154-4705
Christian KorunkaDepartment of Occupational, Economic and Social Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Roni Reiter-PalmonDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration in the workplace, cultural orientation, and its impact on job autonomy and creative self-efficacy. Our study employs a mixed-method experimental design across 480 individuals from different cultural backgrounds, specifically individualistic (United Kingdom) and collectivistic (Mexico) cultures. We evaluate how they perceive AI's role in their professional lives. We focus on two key aspects: job autonomy, the level of control and discretion employees have over their tasks, and creative self-efficacy, the confidence in one's ability to generate innovative ideas. Our findings revealed a significant increase in job autonomy following AI integration across all participants. Interestingly, this increase was more pronounced in the individualistic participants. Regarding creative self-efficacy, we found gender-specific impacts, with male participants experiencing a decrease, contrary to our expectations. Finally, our results supported the hypothesis that cultural orientation influences perceptions of AI, with collectivistic participants being more receptive to AI integration. These findings have significant implications for organizations integrating AI in multicultural environments. They highlight the importance of considering cultural differences in AI deployment strategies and suggest a need for culturally sensitive AI systems. The study also opens avenues for future research, particularly in exploring the role of other cultural dimensions, conducting longitudinal studies, and investigating ethical and bias-related aspects of AI in the workplace.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceProfessional AutonomySelf EfficacyAdultCreativityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited KingdomWorkplaceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40465594
PMCPMC12136293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.