Generative Experiences for Digital Mental Health Interventions: Evidence from a Randomized Study

Digital mental health (DMH) tools have extensively explored personalization of interventions to users' needs and contexts. However, this personalization often targets what support is provided, not how it is experienced. Even well-matched content can fail when the interaction format misaligns with how someone can engage. We introduce generative experience as a paradigm for DMH support, where the intervention experience is composed at runtime. We instantiate this in GUIDE, a system that generates personalized intervention content and multimodal interaction structure through rubric-guided generation of modular components. In a preregistered study with N = 237 participants, GUIDE significantly reduced stress (p = .02) and improved the user experience (p = .04) compared to an LLM-based cognitive restructuring control. GUIDE also supported diverse forms of reflection and action through varied interaction flows, while revealing tensions around personalization across the interaction sequence. This work lays the foundation for interventions that dynamically shape how support is experienced and enacted in digital settings.

Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.