When people seek advice from AI on social situations, the system may recommend a decision they fully agree with but justify it through reasoning they disagree with. Conversely, it may offer reasoning they agree with, and yet reach a decision they reject. We distinguish decision alignment, whether an advisor recommends the option favored by a user's measured values, from reason alignment, whether its stated reasons align with the user's values. In this work, we ask how these two forms of alignment shape people's preferences for AI advisors and their willingness to use them in different roles. We conducted a within-subjects study (N=121) in which participants evaluated three AI advisors varying in decision and reason alignment across eight everyday moral dilemmas. Participants then chose which advisors they would consult, allow to draft messages for review, or allow to act on their behalf in new tasks. When seeking advice, participants most often preferred an advisor that reasoned through their prioritized values while recommending the opposing decision (40%). However, when participants had to pick advisors for new tasks, their preferences shifted toward advisors that also recommended decisions aligned with their values, rather than those that only shared their reasons. Also, as participants considered tasks that gave AI advisors greater autonomy, they became more likely to opt out of using any advisor, from 12% when consulting to 38% when allowing an advisor to act on their behalf. Our findings suggest that decision and reason alignment shape advisor preferences differently across contexts of AI use, and that alignment with a user's values does not necessarily imply willingness to delegate.

翻译：暂无翻译