When AI Says "I Am Unable to Answer": Understanding User Responses to AI Refusals
Experiment on how users respond to refusal-based safeguards over repeated interactions. 599 participants interacted with an AI system that never refused, refused infrequently, or refused frequently, with refusals either explained or unexplained, and the authors measured satisfaction alongside participants' need for cognitive closure. Participants were most satisfied with genuine answers, then with hallucinated answers, and least with refusals, even though they recognised the hallucinations as less accurate.
Publisher
arXiv (The Pennsylvania State University; Seoul National University, Center for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence)
Published
14 Sept 2026
Added
today
Key Findings
- Satisfaction ranked genuine responses above hallucinations and hallucinations above refusals, despite participants rating hallucinations as less accurate
- Explanations raised satisfaction with infrequent refusals but not with frequent ones
- Participants higher in need for cognitive closure evaluated refusing systems more negatively
- The authors describe a tension between hallucination avoidance and user satisfaction and call for balanced refusal strategies
Methodology Notes
Between-subjects experiment, N=599, manipulating refusal frequency (never, infrequent, frequent) and explanation (present, absent), with need for cognitive closure measured as a moderator. Participant population not stated on the abstract page. Preprint (v1, posted 2026-09-14; announced in the 15 September cs.HC listing); no venue stated. Curator read the abstract page and the PDF title block on 2026-09-17.
Sources
Topics
Authors
Nahar, Mahjabin, Lee, Eun-Ju, Heo, Yujin, Lee, Dongwon
Tags
Cite This
APA
Nahar, Mahjabin et al. (2026). When AI Says "I Am Unable to Answer": Understanding User Responses to AI Refusals. arXiv (The Pennsylvania State University; Seoul National University, Center for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence). https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16191