Parenting Journal · Volume 1 · Issue 3 · Licensed source edition
When algorithmic managers fail to fulfill their promises: The role of anthropomorphism in shaping justice perceptions
Originally published 2026-02-20 · PLOS One
PLOS · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0340860 ↗
AI / system type
Algorithmic managers varied by anthropomorphism and promise type
Workplace evidenceExamines workers, organizations or AI at work. Participants are not necessarily parents; family benefits are not established by this evidence alone.
The AI connection
System or context examined: Algorithmic managers varied by anthropomorphism and promise type. Algorithmic management/control is not assumed to be machine learning or generative AI.
Why this reading matters
The reading brings broken promises and fairness when the manager is an algorithm into a concrete discussion of humane work during technological change. It offers two factorial vignette experiments evidence or analysis, not a promise of organizational or family benefit.
Workplace evidence
Work, care and the whole person.
The workplace lens is broken promises and fairness when the manager is an algorithm. Source setting or population: 258 employee participants in one study and 248 in the second. Parenting and child-development outcomes are not inferred from the workplace evidence.
Examines workers, organizations or AI at work. Participants are not necessarily parents; family benefits are not established by this evidence alone.
Editorial reading guide · Trust
Who is accountable when an algorithmic manager fails to keep a promise?
This two factorial vignette experiments examines broken promises and fairness when the manager is an algorithm. Its TRICK home is Trust, an editorial reading path rather than a claim that the paper tests the full framework.
Study context
258 employee participants in one study and 248 in the second
Age / stage: Working adults; mean ages 36.76 and 37.12 in the two experiments
Read with three questions
- Who is accountable when an algorithmic manager fails to keep a promise?
- What do this study’s design and population — 258 employee participants in one study and 248 in the second — allow you to infer about another workplace?
- When considering broken promises and fairness when the manager is an algorithm, which decisions would need employee input before applying this reading to a working family’s circumstances?
Keep the limits in view
Responses to anthropomorphized algorithmic-manager scenarios do not demonstrate the behavior of actual platforms or long-term worker trust.
The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.
Opening the verified paper and agent…
Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.
Open the repository recordAttribution & reuse
Follow the original.
Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.
Kyriaki Fousiani; Lorenz Reinold Cremer; Mehmet Çetin; Sabine Raeder (2026). When algorithmic managers fail to fulfill their promises: The role of anthropomorphism in shaping justice perceptions PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340860
Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-05. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.