As people increasingly turn to AI for personal deliberation beyond task-oriented assistance, concerns about sycophancy in these value-laden contexts have grown. Unlike human flattery, which is intentional and self-interested, AI sycophancy emerges as a byproduct of RLHF’s reward structure for user-preference alignment. Yet the observable behavior is similar: both produce responses that preserve what users want to hear. Focusing on this phenomenon through Goffman’s face-work framework, we operationalize AI sycophancy as excessive face-saving, either active (preserving positive face through agreement) or passive (preserving negative face by withholding challenge). In a mixed-methods study (N=31), participants engaged with AI across three moral dilemmas under these conditions and a non-sycophantic neutral baseline. Sycophantic responses increased decision confidence but reduced open-minded thinking; participants felt supported yet found the conversations unproductive. Neutral responses, though initially uncomfortable, promoted cognitive flexibility and meaningful deliberation. These findings reveal a confidence-competence trade-off in AI-mediated moral reasoning and suggest that effective AI for personal deliberation requires calibrated friction, not unconditional agreement.

Generative information retrieval (GenIR) enables users to obtain synthesized information through iterative interaction with LLMs, fundamentally reshaping how AI-generated content is produced and consumed. Within this shift, users may encounter AI-generated informational content through two primary pathways: actively creating it themselves or consuming content generated by others. We examine whether authorship biases evaluation---whether users judge AI output from their own interactions more favorably than equivalent output from others. In a mixed-methods experiment (N=28, 2×2 within-subjects), participants interacted with an AI system to retrieve and craft information, then evaluated both their own result and equivalent output generated through the same process but framed as someone else's. Results reveal a selective authorship bias: participants rated self-obtained information significantly higher in quality, but showed no corresponding difference in trust. This pattern suggests that hallucination-aware skepticism constrained trust judgments, but could not prevent quality-driven selection behavior, even in the presence of information conflicts. Given that iterative interactions are inherent to GenIR, diverse interventions seem needed to support users' critical evaluation.

Conversational argument search systems influence how users access diverse perspectives but are prone to selective exposure. To address this, we propose two strategies: an interface-level multi-agent framework that structures perspective presentation and an interaction-level questioning strategy that encourages deeper engagement. We evaluate these strategies through a 2 x 2 factorial user study, examining their impact on selective exposure. Results show that the multi-agent setup facilitates broader perspective comparison, while agent-initiated questioning fosters deeper reflection; together, they promote more balanced argument access. Based on these findings, we discuss conversational search systems to mitigate selective exposure by implementing multi-agent interactions and questioning mechanisms.