不同性格的人在AI谈判辅导中效果差异大，需个性化匹配。
Not My Truce: Personality Differences in AI-Mediated Workplace Negotiation
- 按人格特质分三类：坚韧型、过度控制型、控制不足型。
- 理论驱动的AI仅对过度控制者有效，手册对坚韧者更好。
- 提醒设计者：不能假设AI对所有人都同样有效。
AI对话辅导正被用于职场谈判支持，但现有研究假设其对所有用户效果一致。本文通过一项267人的对照实验（N=267），比较了基于理论的AI（Trucey）、通用AI（Control-AI）和传统手册（Control-NoAI）的效果。参与者根据大五人格与ARC类型分为三类：坚韧型、过度控制型、控制不足型。结果发现：坚韧型主要从手册中获益；过度控制型在理论驱动AI下取得特定结果改善；控制不足型即使参与框架学习也未见明显效果。表明人格可作为干预适配性的预测因子——脆弱用户更需要精准而非全面的支持。研究揭示了人格决定干预前提的机制，为自适应AI辅导系统的设计提供了依据：应依据个体准备度调整支持强度，而非假设普遍有效。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。