Are AI hallucinations the same as error information? A qualitative exploration of hallucination tolerance and resistance strategies

Chenxu Liu & Cong Lin

Online Information Review2026https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-04-2025-0233article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Purpose This study aims to examine the phenomenon of “AI hallucinations” – instances when AI-generated information, although produced confidently and coherently, deviates from the user's intent, contains factual inaccuracies or is contextually inappropriate. It investigates how both end users and AI algorithm engineers perceive these hallucinations and distinguishes them from conventional errors. Design/methodology/approach This study conducted in-depth interviews with large language model (LLM) engineers and users (N = 29). The interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to explore perceptions of AI hallucinations. Findings The study finds that AI algorithm engineers view hallucinations as a normal phenomenon in the early stage of technology development, while users show varying tolerance depending on the context. Based on the degree of hallucination tolerance, the analysis builds the “intention–criterion” framework to clearly delineate the boundary between hallucinations and errors. This framework also facilitates the categorization of user responses into three strategic types: total resistance, compromise and concession, and proactive adaptation. Originality/value This study introduces a novel “intention–criterion” framework that distinguishes AI hallucinations from traditional errors, offering a fresh perspective on user tolerance and information adaptive behaviors in human–machine interaction. The insights not only enhance understanding of user behavior in human–machine communication but also offer practical guidance for optimizing LLM performance and establishing robust industry standards. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-04-2025-0233

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-04-2025-0233

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{chenxu2026,
  title        = {{Are AI hallucinations the same as error information? A qualitative exploration of hallucination tolerance and resistance strategies}},
  author       = {Chenxu Liu & Cong Lin},
  journal      = {Online Information Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-04-2025-0233},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Are AI hallucinations the same as error information? A qualitative exploration of hallucination tolerance and resistance strategies

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.