Explaining the decisions of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model is increasingly critical in many real-world, high-stake applications. Hundreds of papers have either proposed new feature attribution methods, discussed or harnessed these tools in their work. However, despite humans being the target end-users, most attribution methods were only evaluated on proxy automatic-evaluation metrics. In this paper, we conduct the first, large-scale user study on 320 lay and 11 expert users to shed light on the effectiveness of state-of-the-art attribution methods in assisting humans in ImageNet classification, Stanford Dogs fine-grained classification, and these two tasks but when the input image contains adversarial perturbations. We found that, in overall, feature attribution is surprisingly not more effective than showing humans nearest training-set examples. On a hard task of fine-grained dog categorization, presenting attribution maps to humans does not help, but instead hurts the performance of human-AI teams compared to AI alone. Importantly, we found automatic attribution-map evaluation measures to correlate poorly with the actual human-AI team performance. Our findings encourage the community to rigorously test their methods on the downstream human-in-the-loop applications and to rethink the existing evaluation metrics.