Parenting Journal · Volume 1 · Issue 3 · Licensed source edition
From doubt to trust: how AI safety voice bridges the gap between employees and AI teammates through perceived capability and benevolence
Originally published 2026-06-17 · Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers Media SA · DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1804847 ↗
AI / system type
Human–AI collaborative teams and AI safety voice
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: Human–AI collaborative teams and AI safety voice. The source-specific system and study design determine what can be inferred.
Why this reading matters
The reading brings safety voice, perceived AI capability and willingness to collaborate into a concrete discussion of humane work during technological change. It offers multi-wave employee questionnaire survey evidence or analysis, not a promise of organizational or family benefit.
Workplace evidence
Work, care and the whole person.
The workplace lens is safety voice, perceived AI capability and willingness to collaborate. Source setting or population: 385 enterprise employees routinely engaged in human–AI collaboration. 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
Will an employee’s AI safety concern be heard and acted on?
This multi-wave employee questionnaire survey examines safety voice, perceived AI capability and willingness to collaborate. Its TRICK home is Trust, an editorial reading path rather than a claim that the paper tests the full framework.
Study context
385 enterprise employees routinely engaged in human–AI collaboration
Age / stage: Adult workplace context; no child age range inferred
Read with three questions
- Will an employee’s AI safety concern be heard and acted on?
- What do this study’s design and population — 385 enterprise employees routinely engaged in human–AI collaboration — allow you to infer about another workplace?
- When considering safety voice, perceived AI capability and willingness to collaborate, which decisions would need employee input before applying this reading to a working family’s circumstances?
Keep the limits in view
Statistical mediators do not prove a causal mechanism; willingness to collaborate is not evidence that concerns were resolved safely.
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.
Zexuan Qi; Yangchun Yan; Panpan Ren (2026). From doubt to trust: how AI safety voice bridges the gap between employees and AI teammates through perceived capability and benevolence Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1804847
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.