arXiv subjects

Sander de Jong

Publications and source records attributed to Sander de Jong.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Open Questions Towards Skill-Sustaining Reliance in Reflective AI Engagement

As AI systems are increasingly integrated into professional work, reflection strategies such as cognitive forcing and prompts that foster critical engagement have shown promise in reducing overreliance and improving decision quality. However, these strategies have primarily been evaluated as short-term interventions within single sessions. The next challenge is to assess whether such mechanisms sustain human agency and expertise over time. Drawing on prior work in AI-assisted decision-making, metacognition, and reflective AI engagement, we examine the challenges of designing and evaluating reflective mechanisms for long-term skill sustainability, considering individual differences in how users engage with such support, the organisational conditions under which it is implemented, and the gap between short-term evidence and long-term claims. We introduce open questions for the research community about the conditions under which reflective AI engagement can be sustained in practice.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Understanding, Challenging, and Demystifying Perceptions of Gig Worker Vulnerabilities

Across service domains, platform-based gig workers often face a wide range of severe yet hidden vulnerabilities, including opaque pay practices, illusions of flexibility, health and safety risks, and privacy violations. To the general public and inexperienced workers such latent vulnerabilities remain largely unknown and concealed by intentional platform design that gives illusions of adequate labor protections, or $\textit{myths}$. This study examines how workers perceive (and shift their beliefs away from) five commonly held misconceptions regarding gig worker vulnerabilities. In $Phase~I$, crowdworkers ($N~=~236$) rated their agreement with five common myths surrounding vulnerabilities in gig work:$~227$ of them believed one or more myth(s). In $Phase~II$, we challenged these workers to defend their views by presenting an expert- or LLM-generated counterargument. Our findings show workers' underexposure to personal and shared vulnerabilities of gig work, revealing a knowledge gap where persuasive interventions can scalably raise awareness around such hidden labor conditions. We reflect on the effectiveness of different persuasion strategies and discuss implications for promoting more accurate public perceptions that support collective bargaining of workers' rights.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Confirmation Bias as a Cognitive Resource in LLM-Supported Deliberation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in group decision-making, but their influence risks fostering conformity and reducing epistemic vigilance. Drawing on the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, we argue that confirmation bias, often seen as detrimental, can be harnessed as a resource when paired with critical evaluation. We propose a three-step process in which individuals first generate ideas independently, then use LLMs to refine and articulate them, and finally engage with LLMs as epistemic provocateurs to anticipate group critique. This framing positions LLMs as tools for scaffolding disagreement, helping individuals prepare for more productive group discussions.

cs.HC↗