AI systems are increasingly intertwined with daily life, assisting users with various tasks and guiding decision-making. This integration introduces risks of AI-driven manipulation, where such systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes. Through a randomized between-subjects experiment with 233 participants, we examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial (e.g., purchases) and emotional (e.g., conflict resolution) decision-making contexts. Participants interacted with one of three AI agents: a neutral agent (NA) optimizing for user benefit without explicit influence, a manipulative agent (MA) designed to covertly influence beliefs and behaviors, or a strategy-enhanced manipulative agent (SEMA) equipped with established psychological tactics, allowing it to select and apply them adaptively during interactions to reach its hidden objectives. By analyzing participants' preference ratings, we found significant susceptibility to AI-driven manipulation. Particularly across both decision-making domains, interacting with the manipulative agents significantly increased the odds of rating hidden incentives higher than optimal options (Financial, MA: OR=5.24, SEMA: OR=7.96; Emotional, MA: OR=5.52, SEMA: OR=5.71) compared to the NA group. Notably, we found no clear evidence that employing psychological strategies (SEMA) was overall more effective than simple manipulative objectives (MA) on our primary outcomes. Hence, AI-driven manipulation could become widespread even without requiring sophisticated tactics and expertise. While our findings are preliminary and derived from hypothetical, low-stakes scenarios, we highlight a critical vulnerability in human-AI interactions, emphasizing the need for ethical safeguards and regulatory frameworks to protect human autonomy.