ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
When AI works, employees worry: the vigilance cost of AI delegation in hybrid work.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Hybrid work and AI-assisted technologies have transformed not only where employees work but also how work remains psychologically active after formal working hours. This study develops the AI delegation paradox, which proposes that although AI can reduce the effort required to execute work tasks, it may simultaneously increase employees' need to monitor, evaluate, and remain accountable for work processes that continue through AI-assisted systems. Building on this argument, the study introduces AI process vigilance (AIPV), a second-order construct capturing sustained cognitive attachment to delegated AI-assisted work through progress monitoring, output quality concern, error anticipation, and loss of control. Using a two-wave survey design with a seven-week interval, data were collected from 642 hybrid employees who used AI tools for work at least weekly. The results supported a sequential pathway in which continuous AI availability was linked to greater AI delegation dependence, delegation dependence predicted higher levels of AI process vigilance, vigilance increased work-related rumination, rumination undermined psychological detachment, and lower detachment was associated with poorer recovery outcomes. The hypothesized moderating role of boundary management preference was not supported. These findings suggest that recovery impairment may arise not only because employees continue working after hours, but also because they remain psychologically engaged with work processes that have been delegated to AI. By demonstrating that responsibility and concern often persist even when task execution is transferred to intelligent systems, the study identifies a previously overlooked recovery cost of AI-assisted work and extends current understanding of recovery, boundary management, and human-AI collaboration in contemporary work environments.
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.