Scholarlink

<p>Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, like ChatGPT, are now widely integrated into a plethora of contexts. Although they present potential benefits like increased efficiency and reduced lower-level cognitive load, they are accompanied by serious risks such as over reliance and impacted independent critical reasoning. Research on how critical thinking and cognitive offloading interact with AI use is limited. Furthermore, research on attitudes towards AI and how they may influence how people offload cognition and engage in critical thinking is further understudied. Our mixed-methods study aims to reduce this gap. Initially, 124 participants were considered for the study. After filtering out the outliers, 120 young adults (AI group <i>n</i> = 57, Manual group <i>n</i> = 63) participated, with a subsample of 54 who were thematically analysed. Our experimental design incorporated a logical fallacies identification task (with/without ChatGPT) and three quantitative questionnaires: <i>Artificial Intelligence Attitude Scal</i>e, <i>Critical Thinking Rubric</i> and <i>Mental Effort Rating Scale</i>. Nonparametric analyses (Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman’s rho) revealed that the AI group were able to attain higher correct responses (H = 7.044, <i>p</i> &lt; .01). Additionally, they reported significantly lower mental effort (H = 27.434, <i>p</i> &lt; .01) for the experimental task. Qualitative trends saw high independent reasoning, verification, and metacognitive monitoring in manual participants. Conversely, a mix of complete delegation and selective use/strategic engagement was observed under the AI condition. Overall, we conclude that although AI improves task accuracy and lowers mental effort, it does not necessarily save time or uniformly enhance or reduce critical thinking. Moreover, we suggest that a user’s approach to AI (delegation vs. strategic engagement) determines whether it acts as a replacement or scaffold. We highlight the need for intentional, reflective use of AI in educational contexts.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cognitive offloading, critical thinking and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in the era of ChatGPT: a comparative study of artificial intelligence-assisted and manual task performance in young adults

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月30日

查看全文
  • Purvi Jain,
  • Deshna Shajit,
  • Ansh Maini,
  • Yasmeen Shahin,
  • Ayush Panda

摘要

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, like ChatGPT, are now widely integrated into a plethora of contexts. Although they present potential benefits like increased efficiency and reduced lower-level cognitive load, they are accompanied by serious risks such as over reliance and impacted independent critical reasoning. Research on how critical thinking and cognitive offloading interact with AI use is limited. Furthermore, research on attitudes towards AI and how they may influence how people offload cognition and engage in critical thinking is further understudied. Our mixed-methods study aims to reduce this gap. Initially, 124 participants were considered for the study. After filtering out the outliers, 120 young adults (AI group n = 57, Manual group n = 63) participated, with a subsample of 54 who were thematically analysed. Our experimental design incorporated a logical fallacies identification task (with/without ChatGPT) and three quantitative questionnaires: Artificial Intelligence Attitude Scale, Critical Thinking Rubric and Mental Effort Rating Scale. Nonparametric analyses (Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman’s rho) revealed that the AI group were able to attain higher correct responses (H = 7.044, p < .01). Additionally, they reported significantly lower mental effort (H = 27.434, p < .01) for the experimental task. Qualitative trends saw high independent reasoning, verification, and metacognitive monitoring in manual participants. Conversely, a mix of complete delegation and selective use/strategic engagement was observed under the AI condition. Overall, we conclude that although AI improves task accuracy and lowers mental effort, it does not necessarily save time or uniformly enhance or reduce critical thinking. Moreover, we suggest that a user’s approach to AI (delegation vs. strategic engagement) determines whether it acts as a replacement or scaffold. We highlight the need for intentional, reflective use of AI in educational contexts.