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
1 month ago
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
arXiv abstract page (v1)(opens in a new tab) (primary)
Archived snapshot (Wayback Machine)(opens in a new tab) — preserved against link rot
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
Related Insights
Useless but Safe? Benchmarking Utility Recovery with User Intent Clarification in Multi-Turn Conversations
arXiv (Carnegie Mellon University; Allen Institute for AI; University of Washington); accepted at COLM 2026 · 29 Apr 2026
Safety-Filter Fallback on Consumer Health Questions During the Initial Claude Fable 5 Deployment: Observational Study
JMIR AI (JMIR Publications); Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School · 7 Oct 2026
Between Help and Manipulation: Youth Recognition of Dark Patterns and Value Tensions in LLM-Assisted Mental Health Support - A Qualitative Think-Aloud Study
JMIR Preprints (JMIR Publications) · 16 Aug 2026