Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42404698›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026

The guarded engagement loop: risk salience and interaction-driven underperformance in generative AI adoption.

Connie Mosher Syharat, Arash Zaghi, Sarira Motaref

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Connie Mosher SyharatCollege of Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.
Arash ZaghiSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.
Sarira MotarefSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative AI adoption is often framed primarily as a question of learning technical skills. It is thought that if users learn better prompting and evaluation practices, useful outputs will follow, leading to greater reliance on the technology. This perspective overlooks a defining feature of large language models (LLMs): their output quality depends heavily on how users engage with them. Because LLM performance varies substantially with depth of disclosure, contextual richness, and iterative refinement, user interaction strategies directly shape perceived usefulness and observed performance. This paper develops a conceptual framework that proposes how risk salience may shape these interaction dynamics. Drawing on research in trust in automation, privacy calculus, algorithm aversion, and the social amplification of risk, we propose the guarded engagement loop, a multilevel feedback mechanism in which risk perceptions may shape interaction strategies that influence observed performance and, in turn, recalibrate trust in generative AI systems. At the micro level, elevated risk salience related to privacy, safety, or ethical concerns may lead users to adopt guarded interaction strategies characterized by reduced contextual disclosure and limited iteration. These constrained interactions can lower output quality and increase the likelihood of visible errors, which may further erode trust and reinforce cautious engagement. At the macro level, values-driven withdrawal from AI use has the potential to narrow the diversity of visible applications, amplifying risk-focused narratives, reinforcing perceptions of harm in public discourse. The guarded engagement loop framework conceptualizes generative AI adoption as a feedback process in which risk perceptions may shape interaction conditions that, in turn, can influence observed performance and subsequent trust calibration. We articulate testable propositions and discuss implications for organizational governance, AI system design, and institutional conditions that enable bounded openness and calibrated reliance.

Indexed as

algorithm aversiongenerative AI adoptionguarded engagement loophuman-AI interactionlarge language modelsrisk saliencetrust in automation

Identifiers

PMID42404698
PMCPMC13328372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.