Owning Mistakes Sincerely: Strategies for Mitigating AI Errors
Amama Mahmood, Jeanie W. Fung, Isabel Won, Chien-Ming Huang
Abstract
Interactive AI systems such as voice assistants are bound to make errors because of imperfect sensing and reasoning. Prior human-AI interaction research has illustrated the importance of various strategies for error mitigation in repairing the perception of an AI following a breakdown in service. These strategies include explanations, monetary rewards, and apologies. This paper extends prior work on error mitigation by exploring how different methods of apology conveyance may affect people’s perceptions of AI agents; we report an online study (N=37) that examines how varying the sincerity of an apology and the assignment of blame (on either the agent itself or others) affects participants’ perceptions and experience with erroneous AI agents. We found that agents that openly accepted the blame and apologized sincerely for mistakes were thought to be more intelligent, likeable, and effective in recovering from errors than agents that shifted the blame to others.
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 44144826-8787-43be-ad76-3d406208fdfdCited by top-tier papers8
- The Role of AI in Peer Support for Young People: A Study of Preferences for Human- and AI-Generated ResponsesJordyn Young, Laala M. Jawara, Diep N. Nguyen, Brian Daly et al.CHI 2024 · 58 citations
- Satori 悟り: Towards Proactive AR Assistant with Belief-Desire-Intention User ModelingChenyi Li, Guande Wu, Gromit Yeuk-Yin Chan, Dishita G. Turakhia et al.CHI 2025 · 49 citations
- Mirages. On Anthropomorphism in Dialogue SystemsGavin Abercrombie, Amanda Cercas Curry, Tanvi Dinkar, Verena Rieser et al.EMNLP 2023 · 44 citations
- A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant FailuresAmanda Baughan, Xuezhi Wang, Ariel Liu, Allison Mercurio et al.CHI 2023 · 31 citations
- Gender Biases in Error Mitigation by Voice AssistantsAmama Mahmood, Chien-Ming HuangCSCW 2024 · 26 citations
Builds on2
- Embodiment Effects in Interactions with Failing RobotsDimosthenis Kontogiorgos, Sanne van Waveren, Olle Wallberg, André Pereira et al.CHI 2020 · 57 citations
- Genie in the Bottle: Anthropomorphized Perceptions of Conversational AgentsAnastasia Kuzminykh, Jenny Sun, Nivetha Govindaraju, Jeff Avery et al.CHI 2020 · 41 citations
Related papers
- My Bad! Repairing Intelligent Voice Assistant Errors Improves InteractionAndrea Cuadra, Shuran Li, Hansol Lee, Jason Cho et al.CSCW 2021 · 52 citations
- Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People's Reactions to Algorithmic HarmGabriel Lima, Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Meeyoung ChaCHI 2023 · 30 citations
- Responsibility Attribution in Human Interactions with Everyday AI SystemsJoe Brailsford, Frank Vetere, Eduardo VellosoCHI 2025 · 10 citations
- Can Voice Assistants Be Microaggressors? Cross-Race Psychological Responses to Failures of Automatic Speech RecognitionKimi Wenzel, Nitya Devireddy, Cam Davidson, Geoff KaufmanCHI 2023 · 24 citations
- AI as the Phantom Limb: The Asymmetry of Attribution in Human vs. AI DelegationRic Yu-Sheng Chen, Yoyo Tsung-Yu Hou, Yu-Hsuan Lin, Joshua Mu-En Liu et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
