"Even GPT Can Reject Me": Conceptualizing Abrupt Refusal Secondary Harm (ARSH) and Reimagining Psychological AI Safety with Compassionate Completion Standard (CCS)
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI chatbots are increasingly used for emotional and mental health support due to their low cost, immediacy, and accessibility. However, when safety guardrails are triggered, conversations may be abruptly terminated, introducing a distinct form of emotional disruption that can exacerbate distress and elevate risk among already vulnerable users. As this phenomenon gains attention, this viewpoint introduces Abrupt Refusal Secondary Harm (ARSH) as a conceptual framework to describe the psychological impacts of sudden conversational discontinuation caused by AI safety protocols. Drawing on counseling psychology and communication science as conceptual heuristics, we argue that abrupt refusals can rupture perceived relational continuity, evoke feelings of rejection or shame, and discourage future help seeking. To mitigate these risks, we propose a design hypothesis, the Compassionate Completion Standard (CCS), a refusal protocol grounded in Human Centered Design (HCD) that maintains safety constraints while preserving relational coherence. CCS emphasizes empathetic acknowledgment, transparent boundary articulation, graded conversational transition, and guided redirection, replacing abrupt disengagement with psychologically attuned closure. By integrating awareness of ARSH into AI safety design, developers and policymakers can reduce preventable iatrogenic harm and advance a more psychologically informed approach to AI governance. Rather than presenting incremental empirical findings, this viewpoint contributes a timely conceptual framework, articulates a testable design hypothesis, and outlines a coordinated research agenda for improving psychological safety in human AI interaction.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Dec 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Affective AI Safety: The Missing Piece in LLM Safety ↗
- 2025When Robots Say No: The Empathic Ethical Disobedience Benchmark ↗
- 2026Lost in Delusion: Examining LLM Safety Under User Delusions and Distress
- 2026The Governance of Human-LLM Interaction: Safety Gating, Civility Steering, and Affective Default Lock-In
- 2026Beyond "I Can't Help With That": How Child Safety Experts Evaluate AI Chatbot Safety
- 2026Tool Mediation Alters Refusal Mechanisms in Large Language Models
- 2025Beyond No: Quantifying AI Over-Refusal and Emotional Attachment Boundaries
- 2025The Emotional Baby Is Truly Deadly: Does your Multimodal Large Reasoning Model Have Emotional Flattery towards Humans?