Breeding distrust during artificial intelligence (AI) era: how technological advancements, job insecurity and job stress fuel organizational cynicism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study examines how technological advancements and psychological capital contribute to job stress. Furthermore, the paper examines how job insecurity, job stress and job involvement influence the cynicism of recently laid-off employees. Despite various research studies, there is a lack of understanding of employees’ views on their work future and its probable influence on their job behaviors in this era of technology. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative method was used to collect a sample of 403 recently laid-off employees. The research tool of this study was a questionnaire, and the sampling technique was stratified random sampling. IBM SPSS and AMOS software were utilized to ensure the trustworthiness and accuracy of constructs via factor analysis. The proposed hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. Findings The analysis showed that technological advancements, specifically in job-related stress, job involvement and job insecurity, significantly affect organizational cynicism. Job involvement is negatively associated with employee’s cynicism. Practical implications The current study adds to the comprehension of shifts in the perceived behavior of employees toward their organizations due to factors like the adoption of new technology in the organization, job stress, job insecurity and job involvement. Accordingly, there will be a need to form a favorable working atmosphere so that employees can perform their jobs with positive psychology and without any insecurity or stress. Originality/value The study is thought to contribute to the literature in terms of measuring organizational cynicism while layoffs continue due to AI advancements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".