SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Dimensions of artificial intelligence anxiety among employees in the age of innovation: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) anxiety has emerged as a significant phenomenon accompanying the digital transformation and increasing adoption of AI in workplace settings. This study aims to identify and synthesize the different dimensions of AI anxiety discussed in prior research. Methods: This systematic literature review combines the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) guidelines with the Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methodology (TCCM) analytical framework. The review addresses the 3W1H research questions (What, Where, When, and How) related to AI anxiety dimensions and provides a comprehensive analysis of the theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodologies used in this research domain. Results: The findings reveal that Conservation of Resources (COR) theory and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) are the most frequently applied theoretical perspectives. Research on AI anxiety dimensions has been conducted predominantly in China and Türkiye, particularly within the healthcare sector. General AI anxiety is the most extensively examined dimension, with numerous antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes identified. In contrast, dimensions such as job replacement anxiety, AI ethics anxiety, AI learning anxiety, collective anxiety, and configuration anxiety remain relatively underexplored. Furthermore, regression analysis is the most commonly employed statistical technique in the reviewed studies. Discussion: The findings indicate a strong concentration on general AI anxiety and a limited focus on more specific dimensions across different levels of analysis. This review contributes to a comprehensive understanding of AI anxiety and its dimensions while identifying important research gaps. Practical implications for practitioners and researchers, along with study limitations and directions for future research, are also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.