Merely having access to AI advice nearly eliminates people's willingness to suspend judgment under uncertainty, even when the advice is wrong¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2–r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Participants who could seek AI advice suspended judgment far less often than baseline participants (0.36 vs. 0.06 in Study 1a). → Chiara Marcoccia 2026 q3 i? The suspension collapse replicated with pre-generated AI responses (0.44 vs. 0.03 in Study 1b), ruling out tool malfunction as an explanation. → Chiara Marcoccia 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Chiara Marcoccia 2026¶

Chiara Marcoccia, Walter Quattrociocchi, Valerio Capraro. (2026). AI advice suppresses people's willingness to say "I don't know", even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized. https://osf.io/nwx6r/overview?view_only=a03ae0ca587c4c84a442c44d55ab97b6 doi:10.31234/osf.io/5y6m4_v1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Preregistered randomized experiment (N = 314, Prolific): baseline vs. optional consultation of an LLM whose answers were engineered to be wrong. Baseline participants were "substantially more likely to suspend judgment than participants who could seek AI advice (0.36 vs. 0.06)". No effect size printed.

"Participants in the baseline condition were substantially more likely to suspend judgment than participants who could seek AI advice (0.36 vs. 0.06; one-tailed t-test: t = 8.295, p < .001; see Figure 1a)."

Chiara Marcoccia 2026 (2)¶

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Direct replication (N = 310) replacing live queries with three pre-generated incorrect AI responses per question, eliminating live-query failures. The authors state the replication "rules out transient failures of the AI system as a potential explanation". No effect size printed.

"Participants in the baseline condition were again substantially more likely to suspend judgment than participants who could seek AI advice (0.44 vs. 0.03; t = 11.772, p < .001; see Figure 1b)."

Discussion¶

Access to AI advice roughly doubled reported confidence in answers in one experiment — related
Participants seek AI advice less frequently when accuracy carries monetary stakes — related
AI advice dramatically reduces judgment suspension even when it is displayed automatically rather than actively requested — related
Monetary stakes for accuracy act independently of AI availability on judgment suspension, with no significant AI × stakes interaction — related
Monetary incentives for accuracy improve answer correctness specifically when AI advice is available, by reducing reliance on that advice — related
AI assistance can inflate confidence even after errors and reduce accuracy when AI is faulty (cognitive surrender) — related
GPT-4 access raised consultant output quality inside the model's frontier but reduced correct solutions just outside it — related
Sequencing independent task engagement before LLM consultation is associated with stronger student outputs — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`ai-access-nearly-eliminates-judgment-suspension`
`title`	`Merely having access to AI advice nearly eliminates people's willingness to suspend judgment under uncertainty, even when the advice is wrong`
`description`	`Merely having access to AI advice nearly eliminates people's willingness to suspend judgment under uncertainty, even when the advice is wrong`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`strong`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-10`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `chiara-marcoccia-2026`, `chiara-marcoccia-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.