Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.09269

Thinking Twice: A Sequential Approach to Nudge Towards Reflective Judgment in GenAI-Assisted Decision Making

Hüseyin Hussein Keke·Daniel Eisenhardt·Christian Meske
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Humans increasingly use generative AI (GenAI) for decision-making assistance, yet tend to engage in such situations using quick, intuitive (System 1) rather than deliberate, analytical assessment (System 2) as reflected in Dual Process Theory. Such engagement reduces the effectiveness of human-GenAI interactions and increases associated risks. Our research investigates how to design human-GenAI interactions that promote the transition from System 1 to System 2 thinking in decision-making. Based on the Three-Stage-Model, which suggests humans switch to System 2 when conflicts are detected, we conducted an experiment (n=130) testing sequential human-GenAI interaction as a cognitive forcing nudge during problem-solving tasks. This approach, where humans decide first before receiving AI assistance, enables detection of conflicting decisions. Compared to non-sequential settings (concurrent or no AI assistance), results show the sequential condition significantly enhanced both decision performance and GenAI prompt utilization, providing valuable insights for designing more reflective and thus effective human-GenAI interactions.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hüseyin Hussein Keke, Daniel Eisenhardt, Christian Meske. 2026-11-06. Thinking Twice: A Sequential Approach to Nudge Towards Reflective Judgment in GenAI-Assisted Decision Making. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09269

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Human-AI Collaboration in Large Language Model-Integrated Building Energy Management Systems: The Role of User Domain Knowledge and AI Literacy

This study aimed to comprehend how user domain knowledge and artificial intelligence (AI) literacy impact the effective use of human-AI interactive building energy management system (BEMS). While prior studies have investigated the potential of integrating large language models (LLMs) into BEMS or building energy modeling, very few studies have examined how user interact with such systems. We conducted a systematic role-playing experiment, where 85 human subjects interacted with an advanced generative pre-trained transformer (OpenAI GPT-4o). Participants were tasked with identifying the top five behavioral changes that could reduce home energy use with the GPT model that functioned as an LLM-integrated BEMS. Then, the collected prompt-response data and participant conclusions were analyzed using an analytical framework that hierarchically assessed and scored human-AI interactions and their home energy analysis approaches. Also, participants were classified into four groups based on their self-evaluated domain knowledge of building energy use and AI literacy, and Kruskal-Wallis H tests with post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted across 20 quantifiable metrics. Key takeaways include: most participants employed concise prompts (median: 16.2 words) and relied heavily on GPT's analytical capabilities; and notably, only 1 of 20 metrics, appliance identification rate, showed statistically significant group differences (p=0.037), driven by AI literacy rather than domain knowledge, suggesting an equalizing effect of LLMs across expertise levels. This study provides foundational insights into human-AI collaboration dynamics and promising development directions in the context of LLM-integrated BEMS and contributes to realizing human-centric LLM-integrated energy systems.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Making Sense of Audience Change: Causal Attribution and Boundary Management on Xiaohongshu

Recommendation-driven platforms can reshape not only what users see, but also who becomes visible and how community boundaries are negotiated. We examine Xiaohongshu discussions surrounding a perceived World Cup-related audience influx to understand how users attributed community change and how those explanations related to boundary-management strategies. We analyzed 262 comments from eight high-engagement threads using researcher-led thematic analysis, structured coding, and permutation-based association analysis. Users described personalization as both social separation and a boundary that could fail, interpreted platform growth through audience acquisition and commercialization, and contested whether gender should define community membership. Among 70 comments with explicit attributions and strategies, attribution and strategy were strongly associated (Cramer's V = .583): algorithmic attributions concentrated in technical boundary management, while social-actor attributions more often aligned with social enforcement or normative socialization. These findings connect causal sensemaking with boundary management and show how audience restructuring can create governance consequences on recommendation-driven platforms.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Today's Work, Tomorrow's Workforce: Incentivizing Learning in AI-Assisted Work

At work, people develop skills through experience: novices acquire skills by completing tasks, while experts retain theirs through continued practice. AI assistance changes this process by offering workers a choice between solving tasks independently and accepting the AI's answers. While relying on AI saves immediate effort, it can also displace the practice needed to acquire and retain skills, including those required to oversee the AI. We extend an existing accept-or-solve model to a sequence of tasks in which workers' skills evolve through independent practice and reliance on AI. We compare myopic workers, who maximize immediate utility, with strategic workers, who also value their future skills. We show that novices can become trapped at low skill levels, while experts may lose skill, even as AI-assisted outcome accuracy remains high. Strategic workers, by contrast, may choose to solve independently even when AI is more accurate, recognizing the future value of acquiring and retaining their skills. We then study incentives that reward correct independent work and characterize the payments needed to encourage skill acquisition and retention. We show that independent work can become self-sustaining once workers acquire sufficient skill, eliminating the need for continued incentives. Counterintuitively, supporting a higher skill target can sometimes reduce long-run incentive costs, either by enabling self-sustaining independent work or by lowering the payments needed to maintain proficiency. Our findings thereby shift the focus from whether workers should rely on AI on individual tasks to how organizations can sustain human expertise over time, and which skills are worth investing in.

cs.HC↗