Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41209806›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

When misunderstanding meets artificial intelligence: the critical role of trust in human-AI and human-human team communication and performance.

Na Chen, Xinyue Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Na Chen *School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China.
Xinyue Zhang *School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies become increasingly integrated into organizational teamwork, managing communication breakdowns in human-AI collaboration has emerged as a significant managerial challenge. Although AI-empowered teams often achieve enhanced efficiency, misunderstandings-especially those caused by AI agents during information exchange-can undermine team trust and impair performance. The mechanisms underlying these effects remain insufficiently explored. Methods: Grounded in evolutionary psychology and trust theory, this study employed a 2 (team type: human-AI vs. human-human) × 2 (misunderstanding type: information omission vs. ambiguous expression) experimental design. A total of 126 valid participants were assigned to collaboratively complete a planning and writing task for a popular science social media column with their respective teammates. Results: The findings indicate that information omissions caused by AI agents significantly reduce team trust, which in turn hinders communication efficiency and overall performance. Conversely, the negative impact of ambiguous expressions is moderated by the level of team trust; teams with higher trust demonstrate greater adaptability and resilience. Moderated mediation analyses further reveal that team type influences the dynamic pathway from misunderstanding to trust and performance. Discussion: This research advances theoretical understanding of misunderstanding management in human-AI teams and provides practical insights for optimizing AI systems and fostering effective human-machine collaboration.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence collaborationcommunication efficiencyhuman–AI teamsmisunderstanding typesteam performanceteam trust

Identifiers

PMID41209806
PMCPMC12589011

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.