An Experimental Comparison of Cognitive Forcing Functions for Execution Plans in AI-Assisted Writing: Effects On Trust, Overreliance, and Perceived Critical Thinking

Generative AI (GenAI) tools improve productivity in knowledge workflows such as writing, but also risk overreliance and reduced critical thinking. Cognitive forcing functions (CFFs) mitigate these risks by requiring active engagement with AI output. As GenAI workflows grow more complex, systems increasingly present execution plans for user review. However, these plans are themselves AI-generated and prone to overreliance, and the effectiveness of applying CFFs to AI plans remains underexplored. We conduct a controlled experiment in which participants completed AI-assisted writing tasks while reviewing AI-generated plans under four CFF conditions: Assumption (argument analysis), WhatIf (hypothesis testing), Both, and a no-CFF control. A follow-up think-aloud and interview study qualitatively compared these conditions. Results show that the Assumption CFF most effectively reduced overreliance without increasing cognitive load, while participants perceived the WhatIf CFF as most helpful. These findings highlight the value of plan-focused CFFs for supporting critical reflection in GenAI-assisted knowledge work.

Through the Looking-Glass: Transparency Implications and Challenges in Enterprise AI Knowledge Systems

Knowledge can't be disentangled from people. As AI knowledge systems mine vast volumes of work-related data, the knowledge that's being extracted and surfaced is intrinsically linked to the people who create and use it. When these systems get embedded in organizational settings, the information that is brought to the foreground and the information that's pushed to the periphery can influence how individuals see each other and how they see themselves at work. In this paper, we present the looking-glass metaphor and use it to conceptualize AI knowledge systems as systems that reflect and distort, expanding our view on transparency requirements, implications and challenges. We formulate transparency as a key mediator in shaping different ways of seeing, including seeing into the system, which unveils its capabilities, limitations and behavior, and seeing through the system, which shapes workers' perceptions of their own contributions and others within the organization. Recognizing the sociotechnical nature of these systems, we identify three transparency dimensions necessary to realize the value of AI knowledge systems, namely system transparency, procedural transparency and transparency of outcomes. We discuss key challenges hindering the implementation of these forms of transparency, bringing to light the wider sociotechnical gap and highlighting directions for future Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) research.

Ethical and Social Considerations in Automatic Expert Identification and People Recommendation in Organizational Knowledge Management Systems

Organizational knowledge bases are moving from passive archives to active entities in the flow of people's work. We are seeing machine learning used to enable systems that both collect and surface information as people are working, making it possible to bring out connections between people and content that were previously much less visible in order to automatically identify and highlight experts on a given topic. When these knowledge bases begin to actively bring attention to people and the content they work on, especially as that work is still ongoing, we run into important challenges at the intersection of work and the social. While such systems have the potential to make certain parts of people's work more productive or enjoyable, they may also introduce new workloads, for instance by putting people in the role of experts for others to reach out to. And these knowledge bases can also have profound social consequences by changing what parts of work are visible and, therefore, acknowledged. We pose a number of open questions that warrant attention and engagement across industry and academia. Addressing these questions is an essential step in ensuring that the future of work becomes a good future for those doing the work. With this position paper, we wish to enter into the cross-disciplinary discussion we believe is required to tackle the challenge of developing recommender systems that respect social values.