arXiv2026
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly show step-by-step reasoning rationales alongside their answers, turning reasoning from an internal model capability into a user-facing interface feature. Yet it is unclear whether such rationales help users judge when trust is warranted or merely persuade through fluent reasoning. We address this gap through the lens of auditable trust calibration: user-facing rationales should help people inspect whether an answer is warranted by evidence. We test this framing in factual verification through two linked studies. Study 1, an online experiment (N=68), manipulated rationale presentation format (instant, delayed, on demand), rationale correctness (correct, incorrect), and certainty framing (none, certain, uncertain). Study 2, a controlled eye-tracking study (N=54), examined how no-, correct-, and incorrect-rationale conditions were associated with users' trust, decision-making, and eye-movement patterns. Study 1 showed no reliable presentation-format effects; instead, rationale correctness and certainty framing influenced the trust in the information, trust in the LLM system, and decision confidence. In Study 2, incorrect rationales drew more attention to the supporting evidence and larger pupil diameter while the rationale was viewed, consistent with greater cognitive effort. Incorrect rationales also lowered trust in LLM system relative to showing no rationale, whereas the no-rationale difference was weaker for trust in information. A post-hoc predictive modeling analysis of gaze data from Study 2 further showed that gaze features carried predictive signal for trust- and decision-related user states. This work challenges the assumption that more reasoning is always better and supports rationale designs that are selective, linked to evidence, calibrated in how they express certainty, and easier to verify.