Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40175521›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

AI feedback and workplace social support in enhancing occupational self-efficacy: a randomized controlled trial in Japan.

Yasushi Watanabe, Masataka Nakayama, Kosuke Takemura, Yukiko Uchida

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Yasushi WatanabeKyoto University Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Yoshida-nihonmatsucho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan. yasushi.watanabe.77@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4330-6822
Masataka NakayamaKyoto University Institute for the Future of Human Society, 46 Yoshida-shimoadachicho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto, 606-8304, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3904-4986
Kosuke TakemuraShiga University Faculty of Economics, 1-1-1 Banba, Hikone, Shiga, 522-8522, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6143-1213
Yukiko UchidaKyoto University Institute for the Future of Human Society, 46 Yoshida-shimoadachicho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto, 606-8304, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8336-2423

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As AI is expected to take on the role of providing workplace feedback to employees in the future, understanding how AI and humans can complement effectively in this context is crucial. This study explores this through a randomized controlled experiment testing the feedback effectiveness of two different Chat-GPT-based AI chatbots-one that delivers positive feedback focused on individual strengths (n = 54) and the other that provides negative feedback aimed at areas for improvement (n = 48). Japanese office workers, including freelancers, participated in this study. We conducted mixed-effects model analysis to assess whether the effects of these AI chatbots on occupational self-efficacy are moderated by the level of social support from supervisors and colleagues. The results showed that positive feedback from the AI chatbots significantly enhanced occupational self-efficacy. Furthermore, negative feedback also boosted self-efficacy, but only when employees perceived a high level of emotional support from their supervisors and colleagues. These findings point to effective ways of integrating AI into the workplace, where humans and AI can assume complementary roles in employee development.

Indexed as

Self EfficacySocial SupportWorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedAI chatbotOccupational self-efficacySocial supportWorkplace feedback

Identifiers

PMID40175521
PMCPMC11965314

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.