Artificial intelligence (AI) is a key driver of technological transformation. According to a McKinsey survey, 88% of organizations have already entered the nascent stage of AI technology. However, it is also changing workflows with implications for work–family balance.
Objectives
This study aims to investigate how AI technology adoption influences employees’ work–family conflict by analyzing the impact-response chain.
Methods
Grounded in conservation of resources theory, we surveyed 346 employees who had adopted AI technology at work. Data were analyzed using Mplus 8.3 and SPSS 27.0 to test the moderated sequential mediation model.
Results
AI technology adoption has both positive and negative effects on work–family conflict and is associated with increased conflict. However, job insecurity and leisure crafting mediate this relationship; job insecurity worsens conflict, whereas leisure crafting reduces conflict. Psychological detachment strengthens this effect by positively moderating the relationship.
Conclusion
AI’s impact on work–family conflict is not simply positive or negative, but both threat and opportunity, clarifying contradictions in past research and provides new answers for managing AI technology adoption.
EnholmIMPapagiannidisEMikalefP, et al.Artificial intelligence and business value: a literature review. Inf Syst Front2022; 24: 1709–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10186-w
3.
Man TangPKoopmanJMcCleanST, et al.When conscientious employees meet intelligent machines: an integrative approach inspired by complementarity theory and role theory. Acad Manag J2022; 65: 1019–1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1516
4.
ChengBLinHKongY. Challenge or hindrance? How and when organizational artificial intelligence adoption influences employee job crafting. J Bus Res2023; 164: 113987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113987
5.
DennisARLakhiwalASachdevaA. AI agents as team members: effects on satisfaction, conflict, trustworthiness, and willingness to work with. J Manag Inf Syst2023; 40: 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2023.2196773
6.
LiLLeeKYEmokpaeE, et al.What makes you continuously use chatbot services? Evidence from Chinese online travel agencies. Electron Mark2021; 31: 575–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00454-z
7.
HuXGaoHAgafariT, et al.How and when artificial intelligence adoption promotes employee knowledge sharing? The role of paradoxical leadership and technophilia. Front Psychol2025; 16: 1573587. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1573587
8.
WuXZhouZChenS. A mixed-methods investigation of the factors affecting the use of facial recognition as a threatening AI application. Internet Res2024; 34: 1872–1897. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-11-2022-0894
9.
JeongJJeongI. Organizational AI investment and its ripple effects: an investigation of job insecurity, coworker conflict and work–family conflict. Pers Rev2025; 54: 1729–1751. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2024-0578
10.
PengXChenZLiY, et al.The relationship between work–family conflict and health behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Behav Sci2026; 16: 386. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16030386
11.
DengMDingGChenX. Techno-stressors, work–family conflict and task performance: exploring the dual moderating effects of family and intrinsic motivation. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2026; 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2024-1281
12.
ZhouSYiNRasiahR, et al.An empirical study on the dark side of service employees’ AI awareness: behavioral responses, emotional mechanisms, and mitigating factors. J Retailing Consum Serv. 2024; 79: 103869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103869
13.
JiaJNingXLiuW. The consequences and theoretical explanation of workplace AI on employees: a systematic literature review. Journal of Digital Management2025; 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44362-025-00016-3
14.
OrabiTAAlahewatAMMAbualfalayehG, et al.The interdisciplinary nature of ai and human resource management: a bibliometric analysis. Hum Syst Manag. 2024; 43: 845–871. https://doi.org/10.3233/hsm-240054
15.
WuT-JLiangYWangY. The buffering role of workplace mindfulness: how job insecurity of human-artificial intelligence collaboration impacts employees’ work–life-related outcomes. J Bus Psychol2024; 39: 1395–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09963-6
16.
KimB-JKimM-J. How artificial intelligence-induced job insecurity shapes knowledge dynamics: the mitigating role of artificial intelligence self-efficacy. J Innov Knowl2024; 9: 100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100590
17.
PluutHIliesRSuR, et al.How social stressors at work influence marital behaviors at home: an interpersonal model of work–family spillover. J Occup Health Psychol2022; 27: 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000298
18.
SoraBCaballerAPeiróJM. Spillover outcomes of job insecurity: differences among men and women (Consecuencias indirectas de la inseguridad laboral: diferencias entre hombres y mujeres). International Journal of Social Psychology2021; 36: 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1840233
19.
ErtelWBonenbergerC. Rebound effects caused by artificial intelligence and automation in private life and industry. Sustainability2025; 17: 1988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051988
PetrouPde VriesJ. Context-free and work-related benefits of a leisure crafting intervention: a randomized controlled trial. J Leisure Res2025; 56: 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2023.2244953
22.
PetrouPHamrickABAbdelHS. Unraveling the power of leisure crafting for unengaged employees: implications for creativity and meaning at work. J Organ Behav2024; 45: 1170–1188. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2824
AgolliAHoltzBC. Facilitating detachment from work: a systematic review, evidence-based recommendations, and guide for future research. J Occup Health Psychol2023; 28: 129–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000353
YanYZhangXYeC, et al.Conflict or enrichment? A comprehensive review of workfamily balance. Int J Conflict Manag2025; 37: 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-05-2025-0142
27.
RaischSKrakowskiS. Artificial intelligence and management: the automation–augmentation paradox. Acad Manag Rev2021; 46: 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
28.
KhasawnehAM. Concepts and measurements of innovativeness: the case of information and communication technologies. Int J Arab Cult Manag Sustain Dev2008; 1: 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJACMSD.2008.020487
29.
LimayemMHirtSGCheungCM. How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance. MIS Q2007; 31: 705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817
30.
HobfollSEHalbeslebenJNeveuJ-P, et al.Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2018; 5: 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
31.
ChenNZhaoXWangL. The effect of job skill demands under artificial intelligence embeddedness on employees’ job performance: a moderated double-edged sword model. Behav Sci2024; 14: 974. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100974
SverkeMHellgrenJ. The nature of job insecurity: understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Appl Psychol2002; 51: 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.0077z
35.
KooBCurtisCRyanB. Examining the impact of artificial intelligence on hotel employees through job insecurity perspectives. Int J Hospit Manag2021; 95: 102763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102763
36.
BaoHLiuCMaJ, et al.When job resources function as a stress buffer: a resource allocation perspective of the job demands-resources model. Pers Indiv Differ2022; 192: 111591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111591
37.
Arranz LahuertaLLópez RamajoMRGandíaA. Artificial intelligence and organisational transformation: technical skills, job insecurity and adoption. Manag Decis. 2026; 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2025-1462
38.
AllenSJHammerLBMohrCD, et al.Conserving what’s left: a longitudinal investigation of how daily financial worry fuels perceived stress and drives turnover intentions and job search behaviors. J Bus Psychol. 2025; 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-025-10083-y
39.
SonSYangTSParkJ. How organizational politics and subjective social status moderate job insecurity–silence relationships. J Manag Organ2023; 29: 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.54
40.
YangBZhaoCZhuY, et al.How daily job insecurity links to next-day ingratiation: the roles of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Psychol Res Behav Manag2024; 17: 2807–2818. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S438242
41.
LiZZouH-YWangH-J, et al.Qualitative job insecurity, negative work-related affect and work-to-family conflict: the moderating role of core self-evaluations. J Career Dev2023; 50: 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453221090610
42.
PetittaLProbstTMGhezziV, et al.Job insecurity and work–family interface as predictors of mental and physical health: the moderating role of family–work stereotype threat. J Occup Organ Psychol2024; 97: 452–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12478
PetrouPBakkerABVan Den HeuvelM. Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting: implications for meaning‐making and work engagement. J Occup Organ Psychol2017; 90: 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12160
45.
CaiHGeYZhaoH. How AI-related task complexity shapes innovative work behavior: a coping theory perspective. Behav Sci2025; 15: 1467. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15111467
46.
AbdelHSBakkerABHäusserJA. The role of leisure crafting for emotional exhaustion in telework during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety Stress Coping2021; 34: 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2021.1903447
47.
ChenI-S. Turning home boredom during the outbreak of COVID-19 into thriving at home and career self-management: the role of online leisure crafting. Int J Contemp Hospit Manag2020; 32: 3645–3663. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2020-0580
48.
KimB-JLeeJ. AI adoption, employee depression and knowledge: how corporate social responsibility buffers psychological impact. J Innov Knowl2025; 10: 100815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100815
49.
ChongSKimYJLeeHW, et al.Mind your own break! the interactive effect of workday respite activities and mindfulness on employee outcomes via affective linkages. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2020; 159: 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.11.001
50.
WeissHCropanzanoR. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res Organ Behav1996; 18: 1–74.
51.
SonnentagSKarkRVenzL. Leader support for recovery: a multi‐level approach to employee psychological detachment from work. J Occup Organ Psychol2024; 97: 1762–1788. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12538
52.
EdenD. Job stress and respite relief: overcoming high-tech tethers. In: PerrewePLGansterDC (eds). Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2001, pp. 143–194.
53.
CoffengJKvan SluijsEMHendriksenIJ, et al.Physical activity and relaxation during and after work are independently associated with the need for recovery. J Phys Activ Health2015; 12: 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2012-0452
54.
FritzCSonnentagSSpectorPE, et al.The weekend matters: relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. J Organ Behav2010; 31: 1137–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.672
55.
LinHTianJChengB. Facilitation or hindrance: the contingent effect of organizational artificial intelligence adoption on proactive career behavior. Comput Hum Behav2024; 152: 108092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108092
56.
MaierCThatcherJBGroverV, et al.Cross-sectional research: a critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research. Int J Inf Manag2023; 70: 102625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102625
57.
ZickarMJKeithMG. Innovations in sampling: improving the appropriateness and quality of samples in organizational research. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2023; 10: 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052946
58.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al.Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88: 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
59.
DongXTianYHeM, et al.When knowledge workers meet AI? The double-edged sword effects of AI adoption on innovative work behavior. J Knowl Manag2025; 29: 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-02-2024-0222
60.
MaunoSLeskinenEKinnunenU. Multi‐wave, multi‐variable models of job insecurity: applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity. J Organ Behav: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior2001; 22: 919–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.122
61.
LiuJZhouYShiQ. Research on negative outcomes of organizational citizenship behavior: based on generalized exchange,impression management and evolutionary psychology(in Chinese). Manag Rev2017; 29: 163–180. https://doi.org/10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2017.04.016
62.
SonnentagSFritzC. The recovery experience questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J Occup Health Psychol2007; 12: 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
SchreiberJBNoraAStageFK, et al.Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res2006; 99: 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
65.
PreacherKJHayesAF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods2008; 40: 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
66.
MacKinnonDPLockwoodCMWilliamsJ. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behav Res2004; 39: 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
67.
XuGXueM. Unemployment risk perception and knowledge hiding under the disruption of artificial intelligence transformation. Soc Behav Personal Int J2023; 51: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.12106
68.
KambojJAE. Mapping the complex interactions between work-family conflict, AI technostress, work-life balance and employees’ well-being: moderated mediation analysis. Int J Conflict Manag. 2026; 37: 713–741. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2025-0274
69.
ZhengJZhangT. Association between AI awareness and emotional exhaustion: the serial mediation of job insecurity and work interference with family. Behav Sci2025; 15: 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040401
70.
WangHXuGHuL, et al.Opportunity and threat: how employees’ perceptions of artificial intelligence influence job crafting. Baltic J Manag2025; 20: 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2024-0525
71.
TadićMBakkerABOerlemansWG. Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well‐being: a diary study on the moderating role of job resources. J Occup Organ Psychol2015; 88: 702–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12094
72.
PanY. How and when organizational artificial intelligence adoption impacts employees' well-being. Int J Ment Health Promot2025; 27: 1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.32604/ijmhp.2025.070147
73.
ChuangY-TChiangH-LLinA-P. Insights from the job demands–resources model: AI's dual impact on employees’ work and life well-being. Int J Inf Manag2025; 83: 102887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102887
74.
CastanedaARMaseehHISurachartkumtonkunJ, et al.Impact of frontline employees’ perceived benefits of artificial intelligence on AI adoption and job engagement: a meta-analysis. Int J Hospit Manag2026; 133: 104446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104446
75.
VermaSSinghVTudoranAA, et al.Elevating employees’ psychological responses and task performance through responsible artificial intelligence. Inf Technol People2024; 37: 2551–2567. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2023-0431
76.
GolgeciIRitalaPArslanA, et al.Confronting and alleviating AI resistance in the workplace: an integrative review and a process framework. Hum Resour Manag Rev2025; 35: 101075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101075
77.
BrammerSMillingtonARaytonB. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag2007; 18: 1701–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866
78.
DivyaDJainRChettyP, et al.The mediating effect of leadership in artificial intelligence success for employee-engagement. Manag Decis2025; 63: 3676–3699. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-01-2024-0213
79.
LopesJMGomesSNogueiraE, et al.Exploring psychosocial predictors of AI use intention: the moderating role of organisational culture in diverse workplaces. Behav Inf Technol. 2026; 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2026.2626743
80.
LiMStasLVanroelenC, et al.Linked lives and work-family dynamics: gendered workload, family support, and mental well-being among urban Chinese dual-earner households. Int J Equity Health2025; 24: 312. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02687-w
81.
SchnettlerBConcha-SalgadoAOrellanaL, et al.Workload, job, and family satisfaction in dual-earning parents with adolescents: the mediating role of work-to-family conflict. Front Psychol2025; 16: 1529092. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1529092
82.
LeongAMWBaiJYRasheedMI, et al.AI disruption threat and employee outcomes: role of technology insecurity, thriving at work, and trait self-esteem. Int J Hospit Manag2025; 126: 104064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104064
83.
YinMJiangSNiuX. Can AI really help? The double-edged sword effect of AI assistant on employees’ innovation behavior. Comput Hum Behav2024; 150: 107987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107987
