Authorship Drift: How Self-Efficacy and Trust Evolve During LLM-Assisted Writing
Yeon Su Park, Nadia Azzahra Putri Arvi, Seoyoung Kim, Juho Kim
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as collaborative partners in writing. However, this raises a critical challenge of authorship, as users and models jointly shape text across interaction turns. Understanding authorship in this context requires examining users' evolving internal states during collaboration, particularly self-efficacy and trust. Yet, the dynamics of these states and their associations with users' prompting strategies and authorship outcomes remain underexplored. We examined these dynamics through a study of 302 participants in LLM-assisted writing, capturing interaction logs and turn-by-turn self-efficacy and trust ratings. Our analysis showed that collaboration generally decreased users' self-efficacy while increasing trust. Participants who lost selfefficacy were more likely to ask the LLM to edit their work directly, whereas those who recovered self-efficacy requested more review and feedback. Furthermore, participants with stable self-efficacy showed higher actual and perceived authorship of the final text. Based on these findings, we propose design implications for understanding and supporting authorship in human-LLM collaboration.
• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3b9541bd-cfcb-49ac-812f-a55e32b60a70Builds on27
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingZana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, Krzysztof Z. GajosCSCW 2021 · 962 citations
- Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team PerformanceGagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok et al.CHI 2021 · 713 citations
- CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model CapabilitiesMina Lee, Percy Liang, Qian YangCHI 2022 · 340 citations
- The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AILev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott et al.CHI 2024 · 279 citations
Related papers
- Timing Matters: How Using LLMs at Different Timings Influences Writers' Perceptions and Ideation Outcomes in AI-Assisted IdeationPeinuan Qin, Chi-Lan Yang, Jingshu Li, Jing Wen et al.CHI 2025 · 19 citations
- "It Felt Like Having a Second Mind": Investigating Human-AI Co-creativity in Prewriting with Large Language ModelsQian Wan, Siying Hu, Yu Zhang, Piaohong Wang et al.CSCW 2024 · 86 citations
- Partnering with Generative AI: Experimental Evaluation of Model-Led and Human-Led Interaction in Human-AI Co-CreationSebastian Maier, Manuel Schneider, Stefan FeuerriegelCHI 2026 · 5 citations
- An Empirical Study to Understand How Students Use ChatGPT for Writing EssaysAndrew Jelson, Daniel Manesh, Alice Jang, Daniel Dunlap et al.CHI 2026 · 3 citations
- LLM or Human? Perceptions of Trust and Quality in Research SummariesNil-Jana Akpinar, Sandeep Avula, Chia-Jung Lee, Brandon Dang et al.CHI 2026 · 2 citations
