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

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.

Does AI Coaching Prepare us for Workplace Negotiations?

Workplace negotiations are undermined by psychological barriers, which can even derail well-prepared tactics. AI offers personalized and always -- available negotiation coaching, yet its effectiveness for negotiation preparedness remains unclear. We built Trucey, a prototype AI coach grounded in Brett's negotiation model. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=267), comparing Trucey, ChatGPT, and a traditional negotiation Handbook, followed by in-depth interviews (N=15). While Trucey showed the strongest reductions in fear relative to both comparison conditions, the Handbook outperformed both AIs in usability and psychological empowerment. Interviews revealed that the Handbook's comprehensive, reviewable content was crucial for participants' confidence and preparedness. In contrast, although participants valued AI's rehearsal capability, its guidance often felt verbose and fragmented -- delivered in bits and pieces that required additional effort -- leaving them uncertain or overwhelmed. These findings challenge assumptions of AI superiority and motivate hybrid designs that integrate structured, theory-driven content with targeted rehearsal, clear boundaries, and adaptive scaffolds to address psychological barriers and support negotiation preparedness.

CC-RAG: Structured Multi-Hop Reasoning via Theme-Based Causal Graphs

Understanding cause and effect relationships remains a formidable challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in specialized domains where reasoning requires more than surface-level correlations. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves factual accuracy, but standard RAG pipelines treat evidence as flat context, lacking the structure required to model true causal dependencies. We introduce Causal-Chain RAG (CC-RAG), a novel approach that integrates zero-shot triple extraction and theme-aware graph chaining into the RAG pipeline, enabling structured multi-hop inference. Given a domain specific corpus, CC-RAG constructs a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) of <cause, relation, effect> triples and uses forward/backward chaining to guide structured answer generation. Experiments on two real-world domains: Bitcoin price fluctuations and Gaucher disease, show that CC-RAG outperforms standard RAG and zero-shot LLMs in chain similarity, information density, and lexical diversity. Both LLM-as-a-Judge and human evaluations consistently favor CC-RAG. Our results demonstrate that explicitly modeling causal structure enables LLMs to generate more accurate and interpretable responses, especially in specialized domains where flat retrieval fails.