Intentional or Designed? The Impact of Stance Attribution on Cognitive Processing of Generative AI Service Failures

Background: With the rapid expansion of the generative AI market, conducting in-depth research on cognitive conflicts in human–computer interaction is crucial for optimizing user experience and improving the quality of interactions with AI systems. However, existing studies insufficiently explore the role of user cognitive conflicts and the explanation of stance attribution in the design of human–computer interactions. Methods: This research, grounded in mental models theory and employing an improved version of the oddball paradigm, utilizes Event-Related Spectral Perturbations (ERSP) and functional connectivity analysis to reveal how task types and stance attribution explanations in generative AI influence users’ unconscious cognitive processing mechanisms during service failures. Results: The results indicate that under design stance explanations, the ERSP and Phase Locking Value (PLV) in the theta frequency band were significantly lower for emotional task failures than mechanical task failures. In the case of emotional task failures, the ERSP and PLV in the theta frequency band induced by intentional stance explanations were significantly higher than those induced by design stance explanations. Conclusions: This study found that stance attribution explanations profoundly affect users’ mental models of AI, which determine their responses to service failure.