arXiv preprint ·
The Differential Effects of AI Abstention on Advice Acceptance
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
AI advising systems are typically designed to always provide a response. Recent work has focused on developing systems that withhold advice in some instances, such as when advice quality is questionable, to improve the overall quality of guidance when it is given; a design paradigm we refer to as AI abstention. While substantial work has focused on optimizing when models should abstain, little is known about how users respond to systems that abstain. In a preregistered experiment, participants made repeated financial decisions, assisted by one of two advising regimes: an AI that advises selectively or one that advises on every decision. We find that the same AI abstention regime produces differential effects depending on the user: it increases advice acceptance among users with high perceived expertise and tends to decrease it among users with low perceived expertise. This differential effect is accounted for by the cognitive burden users face when repeatedly reconciling AI recommendations with their own judgment; AI abstention appears to relieve this burden among users with high perceived expertise, and in doing so increases their receptivity to advice. Further, AI abstention mitigates the decline in advice acceptance observed among expert users over repeated interactions. Exploratory evidence also suggests it increases appropriate acceptance where advice would improve the decision, increasing the downstream accuracy of perceived experts. The AI abstention regime is thus a first-order design property of AI advisory systems, and one that must be calibrated to the users a system serves.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
When Better Opportunities Backfire: Service Worker Responses to Parallel AI Deployment in Customer Acquisition
Relational Complexity: Making Sense of Social Companion AI Use
When Care Expands and Control Declines: Understanding Digital Privacy in End-of-Life Care
Bias and Reliability in Learning-Style Inference from Student--AI Dialogues: An Evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash
Cling: Supporting Cross-Page Coordination with Human-Directed, In-Situ, and Small-Step Automation
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.