User Reliance on AI Support for Collaborative Partner Selection
Authors
Whether choosing teammates for a project or partners for everyday life tasks, people constantly decide with whom to work. However, in these decisions, they often overemphasize characteristics that are not directly relevant to task performance. For example, prioritizing a partner’s trustworthiness for a task where competence is more important for good task performance. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to mitigate these judgment errors by guiding decision-makers toward placing greater weight on traits that are more predictive of success for the specific task at hand. Although the potential usefulness of such systems is evident, previous work leaves unclear under what conditions and for what type of AI support people are willing to rely on and trust AI systems for such relational decisions (i.e., selecting a collaboration partner). To bridge this gap, our study examined how different forms of AI support shape users’ perceptions of the AI’s intellectual and social capabilities, their sense of autonomy, and their willingness to rely on and trust in AI when selecting a partner for a collaborative task. To do this, a total of 397 participants designed ideal partners for two collaborative tasks while receiving one of three forms of AI support: (1) recommendation, (2) explanation, or (3) knowledge nudges. This was tested in two different tasks: a competency-based task and a trustworthiness-based task. We found that richer AI support (through explanations or nudges) enhances perceived AI’s social and intellectual capabilities, but not autonomy. Perceptions of intellectual capabilities, rather than social capabilities, predict greater reliance. Both perceptions of AI capabilities mediate the effect of the type of AI support on reliance. Overall, the study advances understanding of human–AI collaboration by revealing how AI design features shape user perceptions and reliance when users need to evaluate and select their collaborators.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 100%
Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation
CHI '25· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 100%
Co-Disclosing the Computer: LLM-Mediated Computing through Reflective Conversation
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 100%
What can AI do for me: Evaluating Machine Learning Interpretations in Cooperative Play
IUI '19· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 100%
CAIM: Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive AI Memory Framework for Long-Term Interaction with Intelligent Agents
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 83%
Effects of LLM-based Search on Decision Making: Speed, Accuracy, and Overreliance
CHI '25· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 83%
More Isn't Always Better: Balancing Decision Accuracy and Conformity Pressures in Multi-AI Advice
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 83%
Invisible Saboteurs: Sycophantic LLMs Mislead Novices in Problem-Solving Tasks
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 83%
The Impact of Response Latency and Task Type on Human-LLM Interaction and Perception
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 83%
Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 83%
“Do I Trust the AI?” Towards Trustworthy AI-Assisted Diagnosis: Understanding User Perception in LLM-Supported Clinical Reasoning
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)