Truace
Subscribe
68/100

Moderate evidence

Cite
More
Export CSVExport JSONEmailLinkedInX

Frequent AI use went with more confidence at work; dependence eroded mastery, studies suggest

Study title: The suppressing effect of AI dependency in the workplace: Can frequent use of AI enhance practitioners' job self‐efficacy?

Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
Published
2 min read
Truvace record
TRV-2026-2550cite or check it

Study title: The suppressing effect of AI dependency in the workplace: Can frequent use of AI enhance practitioners' job self‐efficacy?

A multi-source, time-lagged field study and a scenario experiment examined how using AI at work affects practitioners' confidence in their own job abilities. Workplace AI use showed a positive direct association with job self-efficacy, while AI dependency carried a negative indirect effect, producing a significant suppressing effect.

Read the study abstract

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a primary channel through which employees access information and solve problems at work. Drawing on media dependency theory, we theorize that workplace AI use exerts a suppressing effect on practitioners' job self‐efficacy in task‐focused achievement contexts. Specifically, AI use can directly bolster job self‐efficacy by facilitating task accomplishment. At the same time, frequent AI use may foster AI dependency, reducing employees' engagement in compete…

58Gain side

How the two sides scoreClose call

59Problem side

The gain

In a time-lagged field study and a scenario experiment, frequent workplace AI use was directly associated with higher job self-efficacy among practitioners, because it helped them accomplish tasks.

The problem

In the same field study and experiment, AI dependency carried a negative indirect effect on job self-efficacy, weakening employees' mastery-based confidence by reducing their engagement in competence-relevant cognitive work.

A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.

What the scores mean

G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.

P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.

In brief

The authors, drawing on media dependency theory, argue that frequent use can breed dependency, which reduces the competence-relevant cognitive work through which people build mastery-based confidence. AI is becoming a primary channel through which employees get information and solve problems, so the pattern bears on how organizations deploy it.

Proactive feedback to AI, meaning employees actively giving the system feedback, weakened the negative effect of dependency. At higher levels of that feedback, the suppressing effect was no longer significant.

Main points

  1. The research combined a multi-source, time-lagged field study with a scenario experiment.
  2. Workplace AI use was positively and directly associated with job self-efficacy because it helps people complete tasks.
  3. AI dependency had a negative indirect effect on job self-efficacy, creating a significant suppressing effect.
  4. The proposed mechanism is that dependency reduces engagement in competence-relevant cognitive work and weakens mastery-based confidence.
  5. Proactive feedback to AI acted as a boundary condition that attenuated the harm of dependency.
  6. At higher levels of proactive feedback, the suppressing effect became nonsignificant.

The full story

The study applies media dependency theory to workplace AI, treating it as a main channel through which employees obtain information and solve problems. It theorizes two competing processes: a direct route in which AI helps task accomplishment and raises job self-efficacy, and an indirect route through dependency that lowers it.

Results from both the time-lagged field study and the scenario experiment supported this competing-process account. The positive direct association and the negative indirect effect together produced what the authors call a suppressing effect, in which dependency partly offsets the confidence gains from AI use.

Proactive feedback to AI emerged as the key boundary condition. It reduced the negative effect of dependency on job self-efficacy and made the suppressing effect nonsignificant at higher feedback levels, which the authors present as a way for organizations to gain performance benefits while protecting employees' perceived capability.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Applied Psychologydoi:10.1111/apps.70121
    Peer-reviewed2026-07-09

Talk it over

Four questions to start onThis record found a gain and a problem in the same place. Which matters more to you, and who might answer differently?

Start with a question

Frequent AI use went with more confidence at work; dependence eroded mastery, studies suggesthttps://truvace.com/item/the-suppressing-effect-of-ai-dependency-in-the-workplace-can-frequent-use-of-ai-

  1. This record found a gain and a problem in the same place. Which matters more to you, and who might answer differently?

    The gain In a time-lagged field study and a scenario experiment, frequent workplace AI use was directly associated with higher job self-efficacy among practitioners, because it helped them accomplish tasks.

    The problem In the same field study and experiment, AI dependency carried a negative indirect effect on job self-efficacy, weakening employees' mastery-based confidence by reducing their engagement in competence-relevant cognitive work.

    Answer in the thread

  2. How do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?

    The evidence This rests on a controlled comparison, from Applied Psychology.

    Answer in the thread

  3. What does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?

    Answer in the thread

  4. Have you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?

    Answer in the thread

The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.

What readers say

More from Labor