aiqbench analysis
This paper reframes human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) by integrating psychological models of information-seeking behavior, arguing that explanations should be designed to match user motives rather than simply being available. It highlights how cognitive biases can distort the perceived utility of explanations, leading to either fragmented attention or missed risks in agentic AI systems. The core contribution is a shift toward designing systems where users actively seek out necessary insights based on instrumental, hedonic, and cognitive needs.
Not All Explanations Are Sought: Information-Seeking Psychology for Human-Centered XAI
arXiv:2608.27464v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This position paper argues that human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) should incorporate insights from the psychology of information seeking. Drawing on Sharot and Sunstein's framework of information-seeking motives, we propose that people evaluate whether to engage with explanations based on three types of expected utility: instrumental (will it help me act better?), hedonic (will it make me feel better?), and cognitive (will it improve my understanding?). Each utility is estimated through a lens shaped by well-documented cognitive biases, including illusion of control, automation bias, unrealistic optimism, impact bias, overconfidence, and confirmation bias. These biases can lead to two failure modes: excessive information-seeking that fragments attention without improving decisions, and insufficient information-seeking that leaves critical risks and misunderstandings unexamined. This challenge is particularly acute for agentic AI systems, where explanations must support not just understanding a single output but anticipating cascading actions, assessing risks, and deciding when to intervene. By integrating information-seeking psychology into HCXAI, we advocate for a shift from making explanations available to making them sought: designing systems that account for when and why users actually want to know.
Abstract:This position paper argues that human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) should incorporate insights from the psychology of information seeking. Drawing on Sharot and Sunstein's framework of information-seeking motives, we propose that people evaluate whether to engage with explanations based on three types of expected utility: instrumental (will it help me act better?), hedonic (will it make me feel better?), and cognitive (will it improve my understanding?). Each utility is estimated through a lens shaped by well-documented cognitive biases, including illusion of control, automation bias, unrealistic optimism, impact bias, overconfidence, and confirmation bias. These biases can lead to two failure modes: excessive information-seeking that fragments attention without improving decisions, and insufficient information-seeking that leaves critical risks and misunderstandings unexamined. This challenge is particularly acute for agentic AI systems, where explanations must support not just understanding a single output but anticipating cascading actions, assessing risks, and deciding when to intervene. By integrating information-seeking psychology into HCXAI, we advocate for a shift from making explanations available to making them sought: designing systems that account for when and why users actually want to know.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2608.27464 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.27464v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.27464 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 274 words
Related coverage

The Alignment Journal: Organization, Personnel, and Scope
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 1, 2026

I Did This Without Your Knowledge
LessWrong · Oct 17, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

The People of Utah vs. Kevin O’Leary
The Verge · Oct 1, 2026