Monetary stakes for accuracy act independently of AI availability on judgment suspension, with no significant AI × stakes interaction¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2–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? The pre-registered negative AI × stakes interaction on suspension was not significant in Studies 2, 3, and 4 (p = .312, .506, .784). → Chiara Marcoccia 2026
q3 i? In Study 3, stakes significantly increased suspension both without AI (0.32 vs. 0.41) and with AI (0.02 vs. 0.08). → 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
Study 2 regression testing the preregistered hypothesis that AI availability would blunt the effect of stakes on suspension; the article reports the interaction "was not significant". No effect size printed.
"This interaction was not significant (b = −0.034, SE = 0.034, t = −1.011, p = .312; see Figure 2a)."
Chiara Marcoccia 2026 (2)¶
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
q3 · i? · causal · r3
Study 3 (N = 843) made incentives salient by reminding participants of the stakes before every question and dropped confidence elicitation. Stakes "significantly increased judgment suspension" in both AI conditions; no effect size printed.
"Unlike Study 2, monetary stakes here significantly increased judgment suspension, both when AI advice was unavailable (0.32 vs. 0.41; b = 0.089, SE = 0.039, t = 2.296, p = .022) and when it was available (0.02 vs. 0.08; b = 0.062, SE = 0.016, t = 3.911, p < .001)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Access to AI advice roughly doubled reported confidence in answers in one experiment — related
- Merely having access to AI advice nearly eliminates people's willingness to suspend judgment under uncertainty, even when the advice is wrong — related
- Monetary incentives for accuracy improve answer correctness specifically when AI advice is available, by reducing reliance on that advice — 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
- AI assistance can inflate confidence even after errors and reduce accuracy when AI is faulty (cognitive surrender) — related
- Authorial suspension is marked by a fluency-ownership gap, deferral of commitment despite exhausted deliberation, and an overview unavailable on withdrawal — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
stakes-independent-of-ai-on-suspension |
title |
Monetary stakes for accuracy act independently of AI availability on judgment suspension, with no significant AI × stakes interaction |
description |
Monetary stakes for accuracy act independently of AI availability on judgment suspension, with no significant AI × stakes interaction |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
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.