AI advice dramatically reduces judgment suspension even when it is displayed automatically rather than actively requested¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? When AI advice appeared automatically instead of on request, it still dramatically reduced judgment suspension in Study 4 (0.35 vs 0.01 without stakes). → Chiara Marcoccia 2026

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 · r3

Study 4 (N = 853) was "identical to Study 3 except that, in the conditions where AI advice was available, it appeared automatically rather than on request". The quoted regression is from that study's results; no effect size printed.

"Access to AI advice continued to dramatically reduce judgment suspension, both when monetary stakes were absent (0.35 vs 0.01; b = -0.333, SE = 0.029, t = -11.56, p < 0.001)"

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 stakes for accuracy act independently of AI availability on judgment suspension, with no significant AI × stakes interaction — related
• AI assistance can inflate confidence even after errors and reduce accuracy when AI is faulty (cognitive surrender) — related