Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

Trace: a gain and a problemPublished recordLaborThe Trace

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Source matters, AI anxiety less so: comparing employee reactions to human, AI, and hybrid performance feedback and the limited role of AI anxiety

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2532raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Randomized controlled trial
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
3ced9a6049b0…check it

Introduction: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into human resource management practices and are becoming capable of supporting managerial tasks such as performance feedback. Although these technologies may improve the efficiency and quality of feedback delivery, it remains unclear whether knowledge of AI involvement influences recipients' reactions to it. Methods: = 192) examining employees' reactions to a hypothetical performance feedback scenario. Participants were randomly assigned to…

61Gain side

How the two sides scoreClose call

57Problem side

The gain

In a 192-employee vignette experiment, feedback a human wrote and then refined with AI did not differ significantly from purely human feedback and beat fully AI-generated feedback on all outcomes except rumination.

The problem

In a 192-employee vignette experiment, identical feedback disclosed as fully AI-generated scored lower than human-written feedback on work motivation (3.66 vs 4.79 on a 7-point scale) and on the supervisor relationship (3.23 vs 4.69).

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.

What this doesn’t fix

The study used a hypothetical vignette with 192 Hungarian convenience-sample participants and single-item measures; the authors say the largest differences (up to d = 1.46) may reflect label salience or demand characteristics and overstate real workplace effects.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Frontiers in Psychologydoi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1924487
    Peer-reviewed2026-08-17

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2532, v1: “Source matters, AI anxiety less so: comparing employee reactions to human, AI, and hybrid performance feedback and the limited role of AI anxiety.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2532 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 3ced9a6049b091c2…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv13ced9a6049b0…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2532 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.