Learners' AI dependence and critical thinking: The psychological mechanism of fatigue and the social buffering role of AI literacy
Open accessAbstract
With the growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in education, understanding its cognitive implications has become increasingly important. This study examines how university students' AI dependence influences their critical thinking, exploring cognitive fatigue as a mediating mechanism and information literacy as a moderating factor. Data were collected from 580 Chinese university students, and a moderated mediation model (PROCESS Model 8) was tested. Results indicated that greater AI dependence was associated with lower levels of critical thinking, with cognitive fatigue partially mediating this relationship. Information literacy buffered the negative impact of AI dependence on critical thinking but also amplified cognitive fatigue when AI reliance was high. These findings extend theories of cognitive offloading and automation bias by revealing the dual role of information literacy in AI-supported learning. Practical implications include the need for digital literacy programs and instructional designs that manage cognitive fatigue in AI-integrated education.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
1 retracted
Wang, J., & Fan, W. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y · Cited by 322 · see citing works
RetractedPodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554 · see citing works
Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/02.09.18.pr0.110.2.501-517 · Cited by 1,884 · see citing works
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002 · Cited by 1,502 · see citing works
AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking
Gerlich, M. (2025) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc15010006 · Cited by 1,248 · see citing works
Walter, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3 · Cited by 1,113 · see citing works
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881 · Cited by 807 · see citing works
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
de la Puente, M., Torres, J., Troncoso, A. L. B., Meza, Y. Y. H., & Carrascal, J. X. M. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00347-0 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Babar, A., Davin, K. J., & Dornburg, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.27638
“…reliance on GenAI can promote cognitive offloading and weaken independent reasoning, creating situations in which AI improves immediate task performance without producing equivalent gains in learning or subsequent unaided performance (Bastani et al. 2025; Jose et al. 2025; Tian and Zhang 2025).”
- Authors
- Tian, J., & Zhang, R.
- Affiliations
- Wuhan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Ronghua
- ORCID
- Zhang, Ronghua
- Venue
- Acta Psychologica
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-10
- Volume
- 260
- Pages
- 105725
- ISSN
- 0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4415069314
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 225 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 147.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Keywords
- AI dependency, critical thinking, mental fatigue, information literacy, AI literacy, cognitive offloading, automation bias, university students, AI-assisted learning, digital literacy
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, China, Mental Fatigue, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Students, Thinking, Universities, Young Adult, Information Literacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
