CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 7Ethics and Social Impacts of AIInnovative Human-Technology InteractionExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Towards Experience-Centered AI: A Framework for Integrating Lived Experience in Design and Development

Open access
Gautam, Sanjana, Chandra, Mohit, De, Ankolika, Chakravorti, Tatiana, Malik, Girik, De Choudhury, Munmun·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2508.06849arXiv 2508.06849
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Lived experiences fundamentally shape how individuals interact with AI systems, influencing perceptions of safety, trust, and usability. While prior research has focused on developing techniques to emulate human preferences, and proposed taxonomies to categorize risks (such as psychological harms and algorithmic biases), these efforts have provided limited systematic understanding of lived human experiences or actionable strategies for embedding them meaningfully into the AI development lifecycle. This work proposes a framework for meaningfully integrating lived experience into the design and evaluation of AI systems. We synthesize interdisciplinary literature across lived experience philosophy, human-centered design, and human-AI interaction, arguing that centering lived experience can lead to models that more accurately reflect the retrospective, emotional, and contextual dimensions of human cognition. Drawing from a wide body of work across psychology, education, healthcare, and social policy, we present a targeted taxonomy of lived experiences with specific applicability to AI systems. To ground our framework, we examine three application domains (i) education, (ii) healthcare, and (iii) cultural alignment, illustrating how lived experience informs user goals, system expectations, and ethical considerations in each context. We further incorporate insights from AI system operators and human-AI partnerships to highlight challenges in responsibility allocation, mental model calibration, and long-term system adaptation. We conclude with actionable recommendations for developing experience-centered AI systems that are not only technically robust but also empathetic, context-aware, and aligned with human realities. This work offers a foundation for future research that bridges technical development with the lived experiences of those impacted by AI systems.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.06849

Cites

124 of 124 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?

  • Within HCI, the lived experience approach has been continuously applied to recent work on human-centered AI design and on identifying psychological risks in conversational AI interactions.

    “Within the human-computer interaction (HCI) community, this approach has been continuously applied to recent work on human-centered AI design [14] and on identifying psychological risks in conversational AI interactions [5].”

    From 'AI-Induced Delusional Spirals': Understanding Lived Experiences During Maladaptive Human-Chatbot Interactions (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

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: 23

  1. 2025. Medical large language model for diagnostic reason- ing across specialties. Nature Medicine, 31(3): 743-744.
  2. Antony, M. V. 2001. Is 'consciousness' ambiguous? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(2): 19-44.
  3. Barsalou, L. W. 2014. Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Psychology Press.
  4. Boud, D.; Keogh, R.; and Walker, D. 2013. Reflection: Turn- ing experience into learning. Routledge.
  5. Buc ¸inca, Z.; Malaya, M. B.; and Gajos, K. Z. 2021. To trust or to think: cognitive forcing functions can reduce overre- liance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1): 1-21.
  6. Bunnin, N.; and Yu, J. 2008. The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Costanza-Chock, S. 2020. Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.
  8. De, A.; Kanthawala, S.; and Maddox, J. 2025. Who Gets Heard? Calling Out the "Hard-to-Reach" Myth for Non- WEIRD Populations' Recruitment and Involvement in Re- search. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '25, 855-867. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400714825.
  9. Dictionary, O. 2025. https://www.oxfordreference.com/ display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100109997. [Ac- cessed 18-05-2025]. · DOI
  10. Giles, D.; Smythe, E.; and Spence, D. 2012. Exploring re- lationships in education: A phenomenological inquiry. Aus- tralian Journal of Adult Learning, 52(2): 214-236.
  11. Mohan, S.; Ramea, K.; Price, B.; Shreve, M.; Eldardiry, H.; and Nelson, L. 2019. Building Jarvis-A Learner-Aware Con- versational Trainer. In IUI Workshops.
  12. Karanikolas, P.; and Gooding, P. M. 2024. How Lived Experience Expertise Shapes Research and De- velopment in Digital Mental Health. SSRN Electronic Jour- nal. Posted on SSRN, Paper No. 4566018.
  13. Passi, S.; and Vorvoreanu, M. 2022. Overreliance on AI lit- erature review. Microsoft Research, 339: 340.
  14. Pufall-Jones, E.; and Mistry, J. 2010. Navigating across Cul- tures: Narrative Constructions of Lived Experience. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 4(3).
  15. Selwyn, N. 2019. Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons.
  16. Sephton, K. A. 2013. Decision-making under informa- tion overload: Visual representation and 'fast and fru- gal'heuristics as strategies for dealing with information overload. Ph.D. thesis, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch Univer- sity.
  17. Smith, D. W. 2018. Phenomenology. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Re- search Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2018 edition.
  18. Spiegelberg, E. 2012. The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction, volume 5. Springer Science & Busi- ness Media.
  19. Tampubolon, M.; and Nadeak, B. 2024. Artificial Intel- ligence and Understanding of Religion: A Moral Perspec- tive. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireli- gious Understanding, 11(8): 903-914.
  20. Turchin, A. 2019. AI alignment problem:"human values" don't actually exist. arXiv.
  21. Wade, S. E.; and Reynolds, R. E. 1989. Developing metacognitive awareness. Journal of reading, 33(1): 6-14.
  22. Wang, D.; Kohler, C.; ten Pas, A.; Wilkinson, A.; Liu, M.; Yanco, H.; and Platt, R. 2019. Towards assistive robotic pick and place in open world environments. In The International Symposium of Robotics Research, 360-375. Springer.
  23. Yao, D. W. J. 2024. The role of artificial intelligence in shaping religion and social studies. Convergence Chroni- cles, 5(1): 334-342.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gautam, S., Chandra, M., De, A., Chakravorti, T., Malik, G., & De Choudhury, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
1062-1077
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2508.06849
arXiv
2508.06849
OpenAlex
W4415230742
Cited by
7
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1
FWCI
7.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
lived experience, AI system design, human-AI interaction, human-centered design, AI ethics, trust in AI, artificial intelligence in education, artificial intelligence in healthcare, cultural alignment, human-AI collaboration, responsibility allocation, empathy in AI

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