Fostering appropriate reliance on large language models: The role of explanations, sources, and inconsistencies
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing, raising the risk that users will rely on these responses as if they were correct. Mitigating such overreliance is a key challenge. Through a think-aloud study in which participants use an LLM-infused application to answer objective questions, we identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance: *explanations* (supporting details for answers), *inconsistencies* in explanations, and *sources*. Through a large-scale, pre-registered, controlled experiment (N=308), we isolate and study the effects of these features on users' reliance, accuracy, and other measures. We find that the presence of explanations increases reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. However, we observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies. We discuss the implications of these findings for fostering appropriate reliance on LLMs.
Study specs
Think-aloud study followed by a pre-registered, controlled experiment to assess the impact of explanations, sources, and inconsistencies in LLM responses on user reliance.
- Authors
- SSY Kim,JW Vaughan,QV Liao,T Lombrozo
- Institution
- Wake Forest University,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,Princeton University,University of California Berkeley
- Sample Size
- N=308
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Users' reliance on LLM responses, accuracy, and the influence of explanations, inconsistencies, and sources on these measures.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
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.
Non-naive Participants Issue
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.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
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.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.