2026/04/09 by Alex Farach, Alexia Cambon, Lev Tankelevitch +4 · 2 voices
Computer Science · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Medicine · Social Sciences · #AI in Service Interactions #Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education #Cognition #Cognitive reframing #Ethics and Social Impacts of AI #Generative grammar #Intervention (counseling) #Portfolio #Psychological intervention #Quality (philosophy) #Session (web analytics) #cs.HC #econ.GN
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08678
openalex publication_date 2026/04/09 · arxiv published 2026/04/09 · openalex created_date 2026/04/14 · arxiv updated 2026/04/19 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Organizations have widely deployed generative AI tools, yet productivity gains remain uneven, suggesting that how people use AI matters as much as whether they have access. We conducted a field experiment with 388 employees at a Fortune 500 retailer to test two scaffolding interventions for human-AI collaboration. All participants had access to the same AI tool; we varied only the structure surrounding its use. A behavioral scaffolding intervention (a structured protocol requiring joint AI use within pairs) was associated with lower document quality relative to unstructured use and substantially lower document production. A cognitive scaffolding intervention (partnership training that reframed AI as a thought partner) was associated with higher individual document quality at the top of the distribution. Treatment participants also showed greater positive belief change across the session, though sensitivity analyses suggest this likely reflects recovery from carry-over effects rather than genuine training-induced shifts. Both findings are subject to design limitations including an AM/PM session confound, differential attrition, and LLM grading sensitivity to document length.