A multitude of explainability methods and associated fidelity performance metrics have been proposed to help better understand how modern AI systems make decisions. However, much of the current work has remained theoretical -- without much consideration for the human end-user. In particular, it is not yet known (1) how useful current explainability methods are in practice for more real-world scenarios and (2) how well associated performance metrics accurately predict how much knowledge individual explanations contribute to a human end-user trying to understand the inner-workings of the system. To fill this gap, we conducted psychophysics experiments at scale to evaluate the ability of human participants to leverage representative attribution methods for understanding the behavior of different image classifiers representing three real-world scenarios: identifying bias in an AI system, characterizing the visual strategy it uses for tasks that are too difficult for an untrained non-expert human observer as well as understanding its failure cases. Our results demonstrate that the degree to which individual attribution methods help human participants better understand an AI system varied widely across these scenarios. This suggests a critical need for the field to move past quantitative improvements of current attribution methods towards the development of complementary approaches that provide qualitatively different sources of information to human end-users.