Scholarlink

<p>Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have become increasingly accurate, but still occasionally err. While research started examining AI erring and the efficacy of trust repair attempts in such cases, there is a need to (1) benchmark trust repair attempts by AI against the trust repair dynamics when humans make the same errors, and (2) examine contextual nuances of trust repair dynamics. Using two experiments, we found that users were less forgiving when AI made a noticeable advice error and apologized than when a human expert erred and apologized. Unlike human experts, AI could not restore reliance through a simple apology, and this strategy could even have detrimental effects. The AI’s trust repair was more effective when the AI apologized with an external attribution (i.e., mitigating its accountability) than with an internal attribution (i.e., acknowledging its own limitations). Both effects were stronger in objective tasks than in subjective tasks.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Apologizing artificial intelligence: designing and evaluating effective AI apologies after errors

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月12日

查看全文
  • Ofir Turel,
  • Tingru Cui

摘要

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have become increasingly accurate, but still occasionally err. While research started examining AI erring and the efficacy of trust repair attempts in such cases, there is a need to (1) benchmark trust repair attempts by AI against the trust repair dynamics when humans make the same errors, and (2) examine contextual nuances of trust repair dynamics. Using two experiments, we found that users were less forgiving when AI made a noticeable advice error and apologized than when a human expert erred and apologized. Unlike human experts, AI could not restore reliance through a simple apology, and this strategy could even have detrimental effects. The AI’s trust repair was more effective when the AI apologized with an external attribution (i.e., mitigating its accountability) than with an internal attribution (i.e., acknowledging its own limitations). Both effects were stronger in objective tasks than in subjective tasks.