Using AI to verify human advice could damage your professional relationships

New research published in Computers in Human Behavior suggests that consulting artificial intelligence (AI) for advice may unintentionally strain relationships with human professionals.

AI tools are rapidly becoming part of everyday decision-making, promising quick answers, personalised guidance, and lower costs. Many individuals utilize these tools alongside human professionals to double-check information or get a second opinion.

Previous studies have demonstrated that human advisors sometimes react negatively when clients consult multiple experts. In those situations, advisors may interpret the search for a second opinion as a lack of trust. Yet until recently, little attention had been given to how advisors respond when the second opinion originates from a computer algorithm rather than another person.

Hence, researchers Gerri Spassova (Monash University, Australia) and Mauricio Palmeira (University of South Florida, USA) set out to explore how human advisors react when clients consult AI in addition to seeking professional advice.

To investigate, the pair conducted four experiments involving roughly 180 to 300 adult participants each. In the first experiment, the participants had actual real-world advisory experience. In the subsequent three studies, participants were general adults asked to imagine working in advisory roles such as travel planning, finance, and nutrition. All participants read scenarios in which they had already provided professional advice to a client.

For example, in one experiment, financial advisors were told that after receiving their investment recommendation, the client also sought advice from either another human financial advisor or an artificial intelligence system. The advisors then rated how motivated they felt about the situation and if it affected their willingness to continue working with the client.

Across all four studies, a clear pattern emerged: advisors were noticeably less motivated to work with clients who had also consulted AI. In fact, the negative reaction was stronger than when clients consulted another human advisor.

The researchers suggested the motivation behind the negative response lies in professional identity. Advisors often view AI systems as far less capable than trained professionals. As a result, when clients place an AI tool alongside a human expert as a comparable source of advice, the comparison can feel insulting.

The study also uncovered another surprising effect: advisors tended to judge clients who used AI more negatively. Participants rated those clients as less competent and less warm compared to clients who sought advice from another human expert.

Importantly, the negative reaction persisted even when the AI system was used only for initial background information (rather than a final decision), or as a complementary service (rather than a replacement for the human expert’s advice). In other words, simply checking an AI tool could be enough to change how advisors view their clients.

“Our findings suggest that learning that the client consults AI may, consciously or not, change how the advisor perceives the client and how much effort they are willing to invest in the relationship. Such negative effects, even if subtle, could, in the long run, undermine the advisor’s relationship with the client and potentially result in missed opportunities,” Spassova and Palmeira concluded.

However, the study has several limitations. The research relied heavily on experimental roleplaying scenarios rather than real-world advisory relationships, meaning actual reactions may vary in practice. Additionally, it remains unclear whether these negative responses persist, diminish, or disappear entirely within longer‑term advisor-client relationships, particularly when the advisor knows the client well.

The study, “Offended by the Algorithm: The Hidden Interpersonal Costs of Clients Seeking AI Second Opinion,” was authored by Gerri Spassova and Mauricio Palmeira.