Is That Clear? The Impacts of Clarifying Questions on Human-LLM Interaction

Abstract

LLM assistants increasingly ask clarifying questions (CQs) to elicit preferences and tailor recommendations. Although prior work emphasizes improvements in answer quality and user experience, how CQs shape users' subsequent engagement and reliance remains unclear. We conducted a controlled experiment (N=180) across six everyday decision scenarios, comparing human-LLM interaction with and without CQs. We further manipulated whether responses violated explicit constraints and whether violations occurred in the sub-decisions the CQs addressed, while preserving elicited preferences. CQs increased perceived understanding and satisfaction, yet participants spent less time reviewing and evaluating responses and accepted more responses unchanged, including erroneous ones. Within the CQ condition, participants more often accepted responses containing CQ-adjacent violations than nonadjacent violations. These findings demonstrate that LLM's proactive CQs shape subsequent engagement and reliance with preference elicitation. We discuss implications for designing and evaluating proactive assistants that support continued user scrutiny of answers alongside personalization.