| Literature DB >> 35126235 |
Fei Jiang1,2, Li Wang1,2, Jian-Xin Li3, Jie Liu3.
Abstract
The rapid improvement of technologies such as artificial intelligence in recent years has resulted in the development of smart technologies (ST) that can influence learning performance in different fields. The purpose of study is to explore the link between smart technology and learning performance. Using the S-O-R model as a framework, the researchers argue that smart technology (Stimuli) will increase corporate trust, self-efficacy, and well-being (Organism), resulting in improved learning performance (Response). The current model regards corporate trust and self-efficacy as relationship factors and investigates their direct influence on employee well-being and learning performance and the mediating role played by these variables. Additionally, the function of employee well-being in moderating the relationship between corporate trust, self-efficacy, and employee learning performance is also explored. The respondents (n = 516) in the present study are made up of employees from 10 logistics companies located in China. The data analysis is conducted using the AMOS software. The results show that that smart technologies can affect learning performance through corporate trust, self-efficacy, and employee well-being. The implementation of smart technology initiatives by corporations may provide positive workplace outcomes for employees (increased well-being), corporations (more engagement in workplace learning performance), and the relationship between employees and the companies that employ them (corporate trust and self-efficacy).Entities:
Keywords: corporate trust; learning performance; self-efficacy; smart technology; well-being
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126235 PMCID: PMC8810824 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.768440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Smart technology usage (Marikyan et al., 2019).
Figure 2Conceptual framework.
Figure 3Demographic.
The correlation.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Smart technology |
| ||||
| 2. Corporate trust | 0.45 |
| |||
| 3. Self-efficacy | 0.381 | 0.691 |
| ||
| 4. Employee well-being | 0.365 | 0.67 | 0.593 |
| |
| 5. Learning performance | 0.339 | 0.649 | 0.612 | 0.61 |
|
The AVE values were bolded.
Measurement outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a smart technology → corporate trust | λ21 | 0.178 | 3.639 | 0.43 | Yes |
| H1b smart technology → self-efficacy | λ31 | 0.257 | 5.148 | 0.59 | Yes |
| H1c smart technology → employee well-being | λ41 | 0.089 | 1.957 | 0.45 | Yes |
| H1d smart technology → learning performance | λ51 | 0.124 | 3.009 | 0.42 | Yes |
| H2a corporate trust → employee well-being | β42 | 0.198 | 4.299 | 0.51 | Yes |
| H2b corporate trust → learning performance | β52 | 0.179 | 4.061 | 0.49 | Yes |
| H3a self-efficacy → employee well-being | β43 | 0.418 | 8.219 | 0.40 | Yes |
| H3b self-efficacy → learning performance | β53 | 0.459 | 8.878 | 0.41 | Yes |
| H4 employee well-being → learning performance | β54 | 0.198 | 3.457 | 0.50 | Yes |
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
Hypothesis outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Smart technology → corporate trust | 0.319 | 0.319 | |
| Smart technology → self-efficacy | 0.292 | 0.292 | |
| Smart technology → employee well-being | 0.104 | 0.108779 | 0.327 |
| Smart technology → learning performance | 0.11 | 0.095381 | 0.342 |
| Organizational trust → employee well-being | 0.391 | 0.391 | |
| Organizational trust → learning performance | 0.199 | 0.094622 | 0.294 |
| Self-efficacy → employee well-being | 0.341 | 0.341 | |
| Self-efficacy → learning performance | 0.299 | 0.082522 | 0.381 |
| Employee well-being → learning performance | 0.242 | 0.242 |