Cognitive Forcing for Better Decision-Making: Reducing Overreliance on AI Systems Through Partial Explanations

14 citations

Abstract

In AI-assisted decision-making, explanations aim to enhance transparency and user trust but can also lead to negligence. In two separate studies, we explore the use of partial explanations to activate cognitive forcing and increase user engagement. In Study I (N = 264), we present participants with weighted graphs and ask them to identify the shortest paths. In Study II (N = 210), participants correct spelling and grammar mistakes in short text segments. In both studies, we provide a solution suggestion accompanied by either no explanation, a full explanation, or a partial explanation. Our results show that partial explanations reduce overreliance on incorrect AI suggestions, performing significantly better than the baseline but not as well as full explanations. Individuals with a high need for cognition benefit more from AI explanations and consequently perform better. Our work suggests that partial explanations can be valuable in domains where reducing overreliance on AI is critical, like medical diagnosis. It also underscores the need to consider explanation effectiveness across different task difficulties, a factor often overlooked in contemporary human-AI studies.

14
Citations
Research
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

Two experiments were conducted: (1) participants identified shortest paths in weighted graphs, and (2) participants corrected spelling and grammar errors in text, with AI suggestions accompanied by no, partial, or full explanations.

Sample Size
N=474
Study Type
Experimental Study
Year
2025
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

Effectiveness of partial explanations in reducing overreliance on incorrect AI suggestions, and interaction of explanation type with task difficulty and user need for cognition.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.