Cited by 53Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyAI and HR TechnologiesAI in Service Interactions

Human-centered artificial intelligence: a field experiment

Open access
Krakowski, Sebastian, Haftor, Darek, Luger, Johannes, Pashkevich, Natallia, Raisch, Sebastian·2026·Management Science

Abstract

Humans and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms increasingly interact on unstructured managerial tasks. We propose that tailoring this human-AI interaction to align with individuals’ cognitive preferences is essential for enhancing performance. This hypothesis is examined through a field experiment in a multinational pharmaceutical firm. In the experiment, we manipulated four contextual parameters of human-AI interaction—work procedures, decision-making authority, training, and incentives—to align with sales experts’ cognitive styles, categorized as either adaptors or innovators. Our results show that tailored interaction significantly improves sales performance, whereas untailored interaction results in negative treatment effects compared with both the tailored and control conditions. Qualitative evidence suggests that this negative outcome arises from role conflicts and ambiguities in untailored interaction. Exploring the mechanisms underlying these outcomes further, a mediation analysis of AI login data reveals that human-AI interaction tailoring leads sales experts to adjust their AI utilization, which contributes to the observed performance outcomes. These findings support a human-centered approach to AI that prioritizes individuals’ information-processing needs and tailors their interaction with AI accordingly. This paper was accepted by Catherine Tucker, Special Issue on the Human-Algorithm Connection. Funding: This work was supported by Erling Persson Family Foundation; Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung [Grants 100013M 204670, 181364, 185164]; Jan Wallanders och Tom Hedelius Stiftelse samt Tore Browaldhs Stiftelse [Grant W20-0036]; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation [Grants 2021.0074, 2021.0133]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03849 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.2022.03849

Cites

71 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The proposed human-centered AI conceptual framework could support and empower nurses, particularly in under-resourced areas, by prioritizing individual patient needs, clinician-patient relationships, and care coordination services.

    “We propose a human-centered AI conceptual framework that could support and empower nurses, particularly in under-resourced areas, by prioritizing individual patient needs, clinician–patient relationships, and care coordination services.8”

    From Empathic and agentic artificial intelligence in nursing: perspectives on a human-centered framework for cancer care navigation in the United States of America (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction and §6.3 (page unavailable) describe human-centered AI that supports people by tailoring their interactions with AI. The study concerns pharmaceutical sales experts, however; it does not address nurses in under-resourced areas or prioritizing patient needs, clinician–patient relationships, and care coordination. The citing authors’ proposed nursing framework is their own application of the general approach. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Benbya H, 2020, MIS Quart. Executive, 19, ix
  3. Capel T, Brereton M (2023) What is human-centered about human-centered AI? A map of the research landscape. Proc. 2023 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Choudhary V, 2023, J. Management, 51, 536
  5. Dietvorst BJ, 2018, Management Sci., 64, 983
  6. Gujarati D, 1995, Basic Econometrics
  7. Likert R, 1932, Arch. Psych., 140, 1
  8. Liu M, 2023, Management Sci.
  9. Mitchell TM, 1997, Machine Learning
  10. 10.25300/MISQ/2019/431E0 · DOI
  11. Wang W, 2024, Management Sci., 70, 5753

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krakowski, S., Haftor, D., Luger, J., Pashkevich, N., & Raisch, S.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Södertörn University (SE)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Venue
Management Science
Published
2026-01
Volume
72
Issue
1
Pages
57-72
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W4411147502
Cited by
53
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 6
FWCI
42.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Management Science (publishedVersion)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Jan Wallanders och Tom Hedelius Stiftelse samt Tore Browaldhs Stiftelse
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (185164, 181364, 204670)
  • Marcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond (2021.0133)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
human-AI interaction, human-centered AI, cognitive style, sales performance, drug sales, decision-making power, role conflict, AI utilization, management decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review