This paper aims at describing, according to the recent advances in social psychology and Computer Mediated Communication, how identities are perceived and constructed in cyberspace. All interactions analyzed in this study were performed within "Euroland," a collaborative virtual environment. The interacting community was composed of students, teachers, and researchers working on a transnational educational project. Practices and dialogues within Euroland are analyzed using an ethnographic and conversational method. A sample of discourses and actions that occurred during 8 months of time, selected according to the research aims, was analyzed. During online connections, users were personified by an "Avatar." Avatars are able to walk, fly, and look around the virtual world. They are also able to build and manipulate three-dimensional objects, perform virtual actions, and chat with other connected users. Results showed that "Eurolanders" showed and constructed their identities using strategic "positioning" depending on the interactive situation. Identities are thus dynamic and strongly related to the context, created and constantly recreated by the users. It is concluded that specific features offered by the Euroland environment are exploited by the users as resources to play with, while moving from one strategic positioning to another. Cyber identities involve resources given by specific technological tools and by community. The cyber-identity construction process seems to be highly congruent to the advances in the dialogical perspective in psychology, where identities are considered in their conceptualizations as multiple, "multivoiced," "positioned," and context-dependent.

Introduction—Decision making (DM) is a fundamental responsibility for managers, with significant implications for organizational performance and strategic direction. The increasing complexity of modern business environments, along with the recognition of human reasoning limitations related to cognitive and emotional biases, has led to a heightened interest in harnessing emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance DM processes. However, a notable disparity exists between the potential of AI and its actual adoption within organizations, revealing skepticism and practical challenges associated with integrating AI into complex managerial DM scenarios. This systematic literature review aims to address this gap by examining the factors that influence managers’ adoption of AI in DM. Methods—This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Articles from 2010 to 2024 were selected from the Scopus database using specific keywords. Eligible studies were included after rigorous screening and quality assessment using checklist tools. Results—From 202 articles screened, a data synthesis of 16 eligible studies revealed seven major interconnected factors acting as key facilitators or barriers to AI integration within organizations. These factors—Managers’ Perceptions of AI, Ethical Factors, Psychological and Individual Factors, Social and Psychosocial Factors, Organizational Factors, External Factors, and Technical and Design Characteristics of AI—were then organized into a complex analytical framework informed by existing theoretical constructs. Discussion—This contribution provides valuable insights into how managers perceive and interact with AI systems, as well as the conditions necessary for successful integration into organizational DM processes.

The context of a vocational e-learning project is used to explore the relation between dialogicality, intersubjectivity, and interobjectivity. By means of narrative analysis, we show that human mediation is sometimes directed outwards (interobjectivity) and sometimes directed inwards (intersubjectivity). Some interactions are closer to the intersubjectivity polarity because participants focus on a shared understanding of the world, whereas others are oriented to the interobjectivity polarity because subjects direct their efforts to what is shared ‘‘out there in the world.’’ We claim that this positioning between the two polarities influences the type of interaction occurring between the subjects. Whenever subjects engage in dialogical interactions, where the other’s collaboration is sought to redefine a shared understanding of the present state of the activity, the intersubjective polarity is put in place. In contrast, when the other’s position takes on an instrumental function, the interobjectivity polarity is chosen.