Abstract
Research on human-AI interaction has long framed verification of system outputs as a trust-contingent behavior that better-calibrated trust should reduce. We test this assumption in everyday human-chatbot interaction through a mixed-methods survey of 153 frequent chatbot users. Contrary to the canonical prediction, we find no detectable association between trust and verification, with the result robust across sensitivity analyses. Three further user-side practices - refinement, correction, and approval before automated actions - are widely endorsed and positively associated with satisfaction. The data reveal a substantive distinction between evaluative oversight (trust-decoupled, weakly tied to satisfaction) and interventionist oversight (weakly trust-correlated, strongly tied to satisfaction). A medium-to-large satisfaction-control gap shows that effective task outcomes do not produce a felt sense of agency. Qualitative findings identify instrumental mental models, failure-mode-specific doubt, and demand for epistemic infrastructure. We reframe user-side oversight as routine epistemic governance compatible with trust, and derive four design directions for scaffolded oversight in conversational AI.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24761
