Cited by 61Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesExpert finding and Q&A systems

Experimental evidence of the effects of large language models versus web search on depth of learning

Open access
Melumad, Shiri, Yun, Jin Ho·2025·PNAS Nexus

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf316

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [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. [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
  3. [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
  4. [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.
  5. [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
  6. [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].
  7. [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].
  8. [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
  9. [15]Lee BC, Chung J. 2024. An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. Nat Hum Behav. 8: 1906– 1914. 39134737
  10. [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.
  11. [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.
  12. [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.
  13. [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
  14. [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
  15. [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
  16. [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.
  17. [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
  18. [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.
  19. [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
  20. [39]Navarro G. 2001. A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Comput Surv. 33: 31– 88.
  21. [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.
  22. [46]Meincke L, Nave G, Terwiesch C. 2025. ChatGPT decreases idea diversity in brainstorming. Nat Human Behav. 9: 1107– 1109. 40369212
  23. [48]Yannier N, et al 2021. Active learning: “hands-on” meets “minds-on.”. Science. 374: 26– 30. 34591619
  24. [49]Zosh JN, et al Learning through play: a review of the evidence. LEGO Fonden, Billund, Denmark, 2017.

Authors
Melumad, S., & Yun, J. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • New Mexico State University (US)
Corresponding author
Melumad, Shiri
Venue
PNAS Nexus
Published
2025-09-30
Volume
4
Issue
10
Pages
pgaf316-pgaf316
ISSN
2752-6542 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415615340
Cited by
61
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 9
FWCI
39.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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