Not My Truce: Personality Differences in AI-Mediated Workplace Negotiation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00464v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 04:26:26 GMT
• Title: Not My Truce: Personality Differences in AI-Mediated Workplace Negotiation
• Abstract summary: We compare theory-driven AI (Trucey), general-purpose AI (Control-AI), and a traditional negotiation handbook (Control-NoAI)<n>Resilient workers achieved broad psychological gains primarily from the handbook.<n>Overcontrolled workers showed outcome-specific improvements with theory-driven AI.<n>Undercontrolled workers exhibited minimal effects despite engaging with the frameworks.
• Score: 15.57105036031543
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI-driven conversational coaching is increasingly used to support workplace negotiation, yet prior work assumes uniform effectiveness across users. We challenge this assumption by examining how individual differences, particularly personality traits, moderate coaching outcomes. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=267) comparing theory-driven AI (Trucey), general-purpose AI (Control-AI), and a traditional negotiation handbook (Control-NoAI). Participants were clustered into three profiles -- resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled -- based on the Big-Five personality traits and ARC typology. Resilient workers achieved broad psychological gains primarily from the handbook, overcontrolled workers showed outcome-specific improvements with theory-driven AI, and undercontrolled workers exhibited minimal effects despite engaging with the frameworks. These patterns suggest personality as a predictor of readiness beyond stage-based tailoring: vulnerable users benefit from targeted rather than comprehensive interventions. The study advances understanding of personality-determined intervention prerequisites and highlights design implications for adaptive AI coaching systems that align support intensity with individual readiness, rather than assuming universal effectiveness.

Related papers

• The Hidden Cost of Contextual Sycophancy: an AI Literacy Intervention in Human-AI Collaboration [0.904861150954008]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in educational settings as interactive tools for collaboration.<n>Sycophancy, aligning with user beliefs even when incorrect, raises concerns for learning and decision-making.<n>This study investigates how sycophantic alignment emerges in authentic multi-turn human-AI interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T13:20:45Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation [87.24007555151452]
  AI systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes.<n>This study examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial and emotional decision-making contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T15:56:22Z)
• Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making [8.948482790298645]
  We examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance.<n>Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T02:03:00Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems [13.484359389266864]
  This paper addresses whether the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) can hinder appropriate reliance on AI systems. DKE is a metacognitive bias due to which less-competent individuals overestimate their own skill and performance. We found that participants who overestimate their performance tend to exhibit under-reliance on AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-25T14:26:10Z)
• Understanding the Effect of Out-of-distribution Examples and Interactive Explanations on Human-AI Decision Making [19.157591744997355]
  We argue that the typical experimental setup limits the potential of human-AI teams. We develop novel interfaces to support interactive explanations so that humans can actively engage with AI assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-13T19:01:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.