Hallucinations in organization-backed AI advisors: Evidence about skepticism, verification, and reliance in goal-directed use

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems are increasingly used by organizations to deliver information to consumers, patients, students, employees, and citizens. These systems can hallucinate, producing plausible but inaccurate responses. A central question for AI-advised decisions is therefore not only whether users rely on inaccurate information, but whether they recognize that a response may require verification. To answer this question, we review emerging empirical evidence relevant to hallucination detection in goal-directed interactions, with a focus on organization-backed AI advisors. We distinguish three constructs that existing studies often conflate: whether users are skeptical of information presented, whether they verify it (distinguishing attempted from successful verification), and whether the result of verification affects reliance on the information. Across studies examining product search, medical decision-making, content generation, and chatbot-assisted tasks, several patterns emerge. Nearly all studies measure reliance, while variables such as user skepticism and verification of the information are more often targeted by an intervention than measured directly. The cues used to prompt scrutiny of the AI response are predominantly related to the AI output, such as source citations. Whereas general warnings about the risk of hallucinations are among the most deployable interventions for organizations, they show the weakest and most mixed effects in the studies reviewed. More targeted cues about where AI systems tend to fail appear promising, however evidence remains limited. Although the existing literature posits that users may be more likely to scrutinize responses related to particular areas of content, no studies varied the content category, leaving this question open for further research.