Not All Trust is the Same: Effects of Decision Workflow and Explanations in Human-AI Decision Making

A central challenge in AI-assisted decision making is achieving warranted, well-calibrated trust. Both overtrust (accepting incorrect AI recommendations) and undertrust (rejecting correct advice) should be prevented. Prior studies differ in the design of the decision workflow - whether users see the AI suggestion immediately (1-step setup) or have to submit a first decision beforehand (2-step setup) -, and in how trust is measured - through self-reports or as behavioral trust, that is, reliance. We examined the effects and interactions of (a) the type of decision workflow, (b) the presence of explanations, and (c) users' domain knowledge and prior AI experience. We compared reported trust, reliance (agreement rate and switch rate), and overreliance. Results showed no evidence that a 2-step setup reduces overreliance. The decision workflow also did not directly affect self-reported trust, but there was a crossover interaction effect with domain knowledge and explanations, suggesting that the effects of explanations alone may not generalize across workflow setups. Finally, our findings confirm that reported trust and reliance behavior are distinct constructs that should be evaluated separately in AI-assisted decision making.

Can AI Explanations Make You Change Your Mind?

In the context of AI-based decision support systems, explanations can help users to judge when to trust the AI's suggestion, and when to question it. In this way, human oversight can prevent AI errors and biased decision-making. However, this rests on the assumption that users will consider explanations in enough detail to be able to catch such errors. We conducted an online study on trust in explainable DSS, and were surprised to find that in many cases, participants spent little time on the explanation and did not always consider it in detail. We present an exploratory analysis of this data, investigating what factors impact how carefully study participants consider AI explanations, and how this in turn impacts whether they are open to changing their mind based on what the AI suggests.

Personas Evolved: Designing Ethical LLM-Based Conversational Agent Personalities

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized Conversational User Interfaces (CUIs), enabling more dynamic, context-aware, and human-like interactions across diverse domains, from social sciences to healthcare. However, the rapid adoption of LLM-based personas raises critical ethical and practical concerns, including bias, manipulation, and unforeseen social consequences. Unlike traditional CUIs, where personas are carefully designed with clear intent, LLM-based personas generate responses dynamically from vast datasets, making their behavior less predictable and harder to govern. This workshop aims to bridge the gap between CUI and broader AI communities by fostering a cross-disciplinary dialogue on the responsible design and evaluation of LLM-based personas. Bringing together researchers, designers, and practitioners, we will explore best practices, develop ethical guidelines, and promote frameworks that ensure transparency, inclusivity, and user-centered interactions. By addressing these challenges collaboratively, we seek to shape the future of LLM-driven CUIs in ways that align with societal values and expectations.