AI Involvement and Psychological Safety: The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership in Human–AI Collaboration

Main Article Content

Muhang Wang
School of Education, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai 201620, China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70267/spp.v3n1.1828

Keywords

human–AI collaboration, psychological ownership, psychological safety, AI involvement, organizational psychology, Mediating effect analysis

Abstract

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in collaborative work environments raises important questions about how AI involvement influences employees’ psychological experiences. Drawing on organizational psychology and human–AI collaboration research, this study examines the relationship between AI involvement, psychological ownership, and psychological safety. Specifically, it proposes that AI involvement may influence psychological safety through its impact on psychological ownership. A scenario-based experiment with 74 participants was conducted using a between-subject design with two conditions representing different levels of AI involvement. Participants completed measures of AI involvement, psychological ownership, and psychological safety. Data were analyzed using regression analysis and mediation effect testing with PROCESS Model 4. The results show that psychological ownership significantly and positively predicts psychological safety. However, AI involvement does not significantly predict psychological ownership, and the hypothesized mediating effect of psychological ownership is not supported. These findings suggest that while psychological ownership plays an important role in fostering psychological safety, AI involvement may not directly influence ownership perceptions. This study contributes to the emerging literature on human–AI collaboration by highlighting the importance of psychological ownership in shaping psychologically safe work environments and by suggesting that the psychological effects of AI involvement may operate through more complex mechanisms than previously assumed.

Abstract 119 | PDF Downloads 94

References

  • [1] Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence
  • [2] Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
  • [3] Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61, 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2
  • [4] Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G.-J., de Vreede, T., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., & Söllner, M. (2020). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 62, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00609-z
  • [5] Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0057
  • [6] Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
  • [7] Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378028
  • [8] Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
  • [9] Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.249
  • [10] Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 595–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.458
  • [11] Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.01.002
  • [12] Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
  • [13] Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.583
  • [14] Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005
  • [15] Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
  • [16] Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851788
  • [17] Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  • [18] Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
  • [19] Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
  • [20] Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2066
  • [21] Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing mediation in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  • [22] Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
  • [23] Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  • [24] Davenport, T. H., & Kirby, J. (2016). Only humans need apply: Winners and losers in the age of smart machines. Harper Business.
  • [25] Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published
Jun 29, 2026
Issue
Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026)
Section
Research Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Wang, M. (2026). AI Involvement and Psychological Safety: The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership in Human–AI Collaboration. Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.70267/spp.v3n1.1828