Cognitive Biases and User Vulnerability to AI-Driven Social Engineering Attacks in Corporate IT Systems

Social engineering remains one of the most persistent cybersecurity threats to corporate information systems, primarily because it exploits human cognitive processes rather than technical vulnerabilities. Despite substantial investments in advanced security infrastructures, employee behaviour continues to represent a critical point of failure, a challenge that has intensified with the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)–driven social engineering attacks. AI-generated phishing, voice cloning, and deepfake impersonation enable highly personalized, context-aware, and scalable attacks that are increasingly difficult for users to detect. Central to the success of these attacks is the exploitation of cognitive biases, such as authority, urgency, familiarity, confirmation, and optimism biases, which systematically influence human judgment and decision-making in high-pressure corporate environments. This study examines how specific cognitive biases shape employee susceptibility to both traditional and AI-powered social engineering attacks within corporate IT environments. Drawing on cognitive psychology, human–computer interaction, and cybersecurity engineering frameworks, the research analyses the mechanisms through which biases affect user responses to deceptive digital interactions. It further investigates how AI-enhanced attack techniques amplify these vulnerabilities by mimicking legitimate communication patterns and dynamically adapting to user behaviour. The study evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of existing technical and human-centred security controls and highlights gaps in current organisational defence strategies that fail to adequately account for cognitive vulnerabilities. Based on these insights, the research proposes engineering-oriented mitigation strategies, including adaptive security training, cognitive-aware authentication mechanisms, behavioural analytics, and AI-driven detection systems, aimed at reducing user susceptibility and strengthening organisational resilience. By integrating human cognitive factors into security system design, this research contributes to the development of next-generation socio-technical cybersecurity models capable of countering both human error and AI-enhanced adversarial tactics.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-01-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18252365
Primary Topic
Information and Cyber Security
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cognitive Biases and User Vulnerability to AI-Driven Social Engineering Attacks in Corporate IT Systems

Mya Franklin
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Information and Cyber Security
article

Cognitive Biases and User Vulnerability to AI-Driven Social Engineering Attacks in Corporate IT Systems

Mya Franklin
article en

Abstract

Social engineering remains one of the most persistent cybersecurity threats to corporate information systems, primarily because it exploits human cognitive processes rather than technical vulnerabilities. Despite substantial investments in advanced security infrastructures, employee behaviour continues to represent a critical point of failure, a challenge that has intensified with the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)–driven social engineering attacks. AI-generated phishing, voice cloning, and deepfake impersonation enable highly personalized, context-aware, and scalable attacks that are increasingly difficult for users to detect. Central to the success of these attacks is the exploitation of cognitive biases, such as authority, urgency, familiarity, confirmation, and optimism biases, which systematically influence human judgment and decision-making in high-pressure corporate environments. This study examines how specific cognitive biases shape employee susceptibility to both traditional and AI-powered social engineering attacks within corporate IT environments. Drawing on cognitive psychology, human–computer interaction, and cybersecurity engineering frameworks, the research analyses the mechanisms through which biases affect user responses to deceptive digital interactions. It further investigates how AI-enhanced attack techniques amplify these vulnerabilities by mimicking legitimate communication patterns and dynamically adapting to user behaviour. The study evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of existing technical and human-centred security controls and highlights gaps in current organisational defence strategies that fail to adequately account for cognitive vulnerabilities. Based on these insights, the research proposes engineering-oriented mitigation strategies, including adaptive security training, cognitive-aware authentication mechanisms, behavioural analytics, and AI-driven detection systems, aimed at reducing user susceptibility and strengthening organisational resilience. By integrating human cognitive factors into security system design, this research contributes to the development of next-generation socio-technical cybersecurity models capable of countering both human error and AI-enhanced adversarial tactics.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Information and Cyber Security
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Cognitive Biases and User Vulnerability to AI-Driven Social Engineering Attacks in Corporate IT Systems — Mya Franklin · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS