In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of confidence that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests showing AI models as more confident than they actually are, even when the original AI is well-calibrated, can improve human-AI performance (measured as the accuracy and confidence of the human's final prediction after seeing the AI advice). We first train a model to predict human incorporation of AI advice using data from thousands of human-AI interactions. This enables us to explicitly estimate how to transform the AI's prediction confidence, making the AI uncalibrated, in order to improve the final human prediction.

In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they

This study explores how college students interact with generative AI (ChatGPT-4) during educational quizzes, focusing on reliance and predictors of AI adoption. Conducted at the early stages of ChatGPT implementation, when students had limited familiarity with the tool, this field study analyzed 315 student-AI conversations during a brief, quiz-based scenario across various STEM courses. A novel four-stage reliance taxonomy was introduced to capture students' reliance patterns, distinguishing AI competence, relevance, adoption, and students' final answer correctness. Three findings emerged. First, students exhibited overall low reliance on AI and many of them could not effectively use AI for learning. Second, negative reliance patterns often persisted across interactions, highlighting students' difficulty in effectively shifting strategies after unsuccessful initial experiences. Third, certain behavioral metrics strongly predicted AI reliance, highlighting potential behavioral mechanisms to explain AI adoption. The study's findings underline critical implications for ethical AI integration in education and the broader field. It emphasizes the need for enhanced onboarding processes to improve student's familiarity and effective use of AI tools. Furthermore, AI interfaces should be designed with reliance-calibration mechanisms to enhance appropriate reliance. Ultimately, this research advances understanding of AI reliance dynamics, providing foundational insights for ethically sound and cognitively enriching AI practices.

People increasingly rely on AI-advice when making decisions. At times, such advice can promote selfish behavior. When individuals abide by selfishness-promoting AI advice, how are they perceived and punished? To study this question, we build on theories from social psychology and combine machine-behavior and behavioral economic approaches. In a pre-registered, financially-incentivized experiment, evaluators could punish real decision-makers who (i) received AI, human, or no advice. The advice (ii) encouraged selfish or prosocial behavior, and decision-makers (iii) behaved selfishly or, in a control condition, behaved prosocially. Evaluators further assigned responsibility to decision-makers and their advisors. Results revealed that (i) prosocial behavior was punished very little, whereas selfish behavior was punished much more. Focusing on selfish behavior, (ii) compared to receiving no advice, selfish behavior was penalized more harshly after prosocial advice and more leniently after selfish advice. Lastly, (iii) whereas selfish decision-makers were seen as more responsible when they followed AI compared to human advice, punishment between the two advice sources did not vary. Overall, behavior and advice content shape punishment, whereas the advice source does not.

In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests showing AI models as more confident than they actually are, even when the original AI is well-calibrated, can improve human-AI performance (measured as the accuracy and confidence of the human's final prediction after seeing the AI advice). We first train a model to predict human incorporation of AI advice using data from thousands of human-AI interactions.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods are being proposed to help interpret and understand how AI systems reach specific predictions. Inspired by prior work on conversational user interfaces, we argue that augmenting existing XAI methods with conversational user interfaces can increase user engagement and boost user understanding of the AI system. In this paper, we explored the impact of a conversational XAI interface on users' understanding of the AI system, their trust, and reliance on the AI system. In comparison to an XAI dashboard, we found that the conversational XAI interface can bring about a better understanding of the AI system among users and higher user trust. However, users of both the XAI dashboard and conversational XAI interfaces showed clear overreliance on the AI system. Enhanced conversations powered by large language model (LLM) agents amplified over-reliance. Based on our findings, we reason that the potential cause of such overreliance is the illusion of explanatory depth that is concomitant with both XAI interfaces. Our findings have important implications for designing effective conversational XAI interfaces to facilitate appropriate reliance and improve human-AI collaboration. Code can be found at https://github.com/delftcrowd/IUI2025_ConvXAI

In recent years, the rapid development of AI systems has brought about the benefits of intelligent services but also concerns about security and reliability. By fostering appropriate user reliance on an AI system, both complementary team performance and reduced human workload can be achieved. Previous empirical studies have extensively analyzed the impact of factors ranging from task, system, and human behavior on user trust and appropriate reliance in the context of one-step decision making. However, user reliance on AI systems in tasks with complex semantics that require multi-step workflows remains under-explored. Inspired by recent work on task decomposition with large language models, we propose to investigate the impact of a novel Multi-Step Transparent (MST) decision workflow on user reliance behaviors. We conducted an empirical study (N = 233) of AI-assisted decision making in composite fact-checking tasks (i.e., fact-checking tasks that entail multiple sub-fact verification steps). Our findings demonstrate that human-AI collaboration with an MST decision workflow can outperform one-step collaboration in specific contexts (e.g., when advice from an AI system is misleading). Further analysis of the appropriate reliance at fine-grained levels indicates that an MST decision workflow can be effective when users demonstrate a relatively high consideration of the intermediate steps. Our work highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all decision workflow that can help obtain optimal human-AI collaboration. Our insights help deepen the understanding of the role of decision workflows in facilitating appropriate reliance. We synthesize important implications for designing effective means to facilitate appropriate reliance on AI systems in composite tasks, positioning opportunities for the human-centered AI and broader HCI communities.

Despite advances in AI's performance and interpretability, AI advisors can undermine experts' decisions and increase the time and effort experts must invest to make decisions. Consequently, AI systems deployed in high-stakes settings often fail to consistently add value across contexts and can even diminish the value that experts alone provide. Beyond harm in specific domains, such outcomes impede progress in research and practice, underscoring the need to understand when and why different AI advisors add or diminish value. To bridge this gap, we stress the importance of assessing the value AI advice brings to real-world contexts when designing and evaluating AI advisors. Building on this perspective, we characterize key pillars -- pathways through which AI advice impacts value -- and develop a framework that incorporates these pillars to create reliable, personalized, and value-adding advisors. Our results highlight the need for system-level, value-driven development of AI advisors that advise selectively, are tailored to experts' unique behaviors, and are optimized for context-specific trade-offs between decision improvements and advising costs. They also reveal how the lack of inclusion of these pillars in the design of AI advising systems may be contributing to the failures observed in practical applications.

The growing capabilities of AI models are leading to their wider use, including in safety-critical domains. Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make these models safer to use by making their inference process more transparent. However, current explainability methods are seldom evaluated in the way they are intended to be used: by real-world end users. To address this, we conducted a large-scale user study with 85 healthcare practitioners in the context of human-AI collaborative chest X-ray analysis. We evaluated three types of explanations: visual explanations (saliency maps), natural language explanations, and a combination of both modalities. We specifically examined how different explanation types influence users depending on whether the AI advice and explanations are factually correct. We find that text-based explanations lead to significant over-reliance, which is alleviated by combining them with saliency maps. We also observe that the quality of explanations, that is, how much factually correct information they entail, and how much this aligns with AI correctness, significantly impacts the usefulness of the different explanation types.

The potential is not necessarily realized, however, because of several challenges: debates on ethical resposibility of decisions [8, 26, 44], the human ability to recognize when AI advice should be taken [43], mental models (biases) regarding AI performance and ability [12, 27] to perform well on subjective tasks, and effects of how the AI advice is delivered [46]. Many research directions thus aim to resolve these barriers to complementarity in human-AI performance, including examining the effects of having AI systems explain predictions [4] using explainable AI (XAI) methods, introducing cognitive forcing functions when presenting AI advice [6], adjusting AI advice interactions/presentation methods [40], and adjusting task framing to account for mental models about the types of tasks AI can work with [9]. In AI-assisted decision making, the human makes the final decision, bearing full responsibility for its consequences. Performance pressure from responsibility can influence decision making behavior [2]. The bulk of research working towards complementary human-AI performance isolates human behavior away from the effects of performance pressure because the field is rapidly evolving its understanding of how humans perceive and work with AI tools. Intrinsically high and low stakes tasks are used in these experiments, but the stakes have little tangible effect or implication for evaluators. Hence, we observe a gap in the literature of how people rely on AI assistants under performance pressure, or when stakes matter personally. In this work, we seek to understand how performance pressure affects AI advice usage when AI advice is provided as a second opinion. We induce performance pressure through a pay-by-performance scheme framed as a loss.