Experimental evidence of the effects of large language models versus web search on depth of learning
Open accessAbstract
The effects of using large language models (LLMs) versus traditional web search on depth of learning are explored. A theory is proposed that when individuals learn about a topic from LLM syntheses, they risk developing shallower knowledge than when they learn through standard web search, even when the core facts in the results are the same. This shallower knowledge accrues from an inherent feature of LLMs—the presentation of results as summaries of vast arrays of information rather than individual search links—which inhibits users from actively discovering and synthesizing information sources themselves, as in traditional web search. Thus, when subsequently forming advice on the topic based on their search, those who learn from LLM syntheses (vs. traditional web links) feel less invested in forming their advice, and, more importantly, create advice that is sparser, less original, and ultimately less likely to be adopted by recipients. Results from seven online and laboratory experiments (n = 10,462) lend support for these predictions, and confirm, for example, that participants reported developing shallower knowledge from LLM summaries even when the results were augmented by real-time web links. Implications of the findings for recent research on the benefits and risks of LLMs, as well as limitations of the work, are discussed.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Tool-supported performance must be distinguished from durable capability development: performance gains produced by GenAI do not necessarily constitute learning or skill acquisition.
“Tool-supported performance must also be distinguished from durable capability development: performance gains produced by GenAI do not necessarily constitute learning or skill acquisition (Fauth and González-Martínez, 2021; Melumad and Yun, 2025; Yan et al., 2025).”
From Responsible use of generative AI in Chinese vocational education: eye-tracking evidence on source verification and immediate near-transfer across three information-seeking conditions (2026) · cites this paper as Melumad and Yun, 2025
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
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463 · see citing works
Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh2586 · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569 · Cited by 844 · see citing works
Abbas, M., Jam, F. A., & Khan, T. I. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study
Mahapatra, S. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9 · Cited by 398 · see citing works
Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2422633122 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Searching as learning: A systematization based on literature
Vakkari, P. (2016) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551515615833 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- [1]J. Kaddour, et al Challenges and applications of large language models [preprint], 2023, arXiv:2307.10169, http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10169 [Accessed 2025 Jan 10]. · arXiv
- [2]Meincke L, Mollick ER, Terwiesch C. Prompting diverse ideas: increasing AI idea variance [preprint], 2024, arXiv:2402.01727, http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01727 [Accessed 2025 Jan 10]. · arXiv
- [4]Naveed H, et al A comprehensive overview of large language models [preprint], 2024, arXiv:2307.06435, http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06435 [Accessed 2025 Jan 10]. · arXiv
- [8]Rieh SY, Collins-Thompson K, Hansen P, Lee H-J. 2016. Towards searching as a learning process: a review of current perspectives and future directions. J Inf Sci. 42: 19– 34.
- [10]Kung TH, et al 2023. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health. 2: e0000198. 36812645 PMC9931230
- [11]Terwiesch C, Meincke L, Nave G. The AI ethicist: fact or fiction? [preprint], 2023, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4609825 [Accessed 2024 Jul 31].
- [12]Dell’Acqua F, et al, Navigating the jagged technological frontier: field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality [preprint], 2023, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4573321 [Accessed 2025 Jan 10].
- [14]Si C, Yang D, Hashimoto T. Can LLMs generate novel research ideas? A large-scale human study with 100+ NLP researchers [preprint], 2024, arXiv:2409.04109, http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04109 [Accessed 2025 Jan 10]. · arXiv
- [15]Lee BC, Chung J. 2024. An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. Nat Hum Behav. 8: 1906– 1914. 39134737
- [16]Lyu W, Wang Y, Chung T, Sun Y, Zhang Y. 2024. Evaluating the effectiveness of LLMs in introductory computer science education: a semester-long field study. Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. p. 63–74.
- [17]Deng R, Jiang M, Yu X, Lu Y, Liu S. 2025. Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Comput Educ. 227: 105224.
- [20]J. Zhang, et al Investigation of the effectiveness of applying ChatGPT in dialogic teaching of electronic information using electroencephalography. 2024 6th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE). IEEE; 2024. p. 150–154.
- [22]Fernández-Pichel M, Pichel JC, Losada DE. 2025. Evaluating search engines and large language models for answering health questions. NPJ Digit Med. 8: 153. 40065094 PMC11894092
- [23]Spatharioti SE, Rothschild DM, Goldstein DG, Hofman JM. Comparing traditional and LLM-based search for consumer choice: a randomized experiment [preprint], 2023, arXiv:2307.03744, http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03744 [Accessed 2025 Jan 10]. · arXiv
- [24]Xu RR, Feng YK, Chen H. ChatGPT vs. Google: a comparative study of search performance and user experience [preprint], 2023, arXiv:2307.01135, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4498671 [Accessed 2024 May 29]. · arXiv
- [25]Ghosh S, Rath M, Shah C. Searching as learning: exploring search behavior and learning outcomes in learning-related tasks. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval, CHIIR ’18. Association for Computing Machinery; 2018. p. 22–31.
- [26]von Hoyer J, et al 2022. The search as learning spaceship: toward a comprehensive model of psychological and technological facets of search as learning. Front Psychol. 13: 827748. 35369228 PMC8964633
- [31]Cockburn A, Kristensson PO, Alexander J, Zhai S. Hard lessons: effort-inducing interfaces benefit spatial learning. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’07. Association for Computing Machinery; 2007. p. 1571–1580.
- [33]Diemand-Yauman C, Oppenheimer DM, Vaughan EB. 2011. Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition. 118: 111– 115. 21040910
- [39]Navarro G. 2001. A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Comput Surv. 33: 31– 88.
- [43]Zhai C, Wibowo S, Li LD. 2024. The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. SLE. 11: 28.
- [46]Meincke L, Nave G, Terwiesch C. 2025. ChatGPT decreases idea diversity in brainstorming. Nat Human Behav. 9: 1107– 1109. 40369212
- [48]Yannier N, et al 2021. Active learning: “hands-on” meets “minds-on.”. Science. 374: 26– 30. 34591619
- [49]Zosh JN, et al Learning through play: a review of the evidence. LEGO Fonden, Billund, Denmark, 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ma, J., Yue, H., & Li, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1946196
- Authors
- Melumad, S., & Yun, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- New Mexico State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Melumad, Shiri
- Venue
- PNAS Nexus
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2025-09-30
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- pgaf316-pgaf316
- ISSN
- 2752-6542 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12560091
- OpenAlex
- W4415615340
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 39.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PNAS Nexus (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Keywords
- large language models, web search, depth of learning, depth of knowledge, LLM-generated summaries, information synthesis, information seeking, search result presentation
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