The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The case for friction in AI-mediated information seeking and learning
Open accessAbstract
Introduction. This paper challenges the assumption that frictionless AI-mediated information seeking represents progress. We argue that AI systems eliminating productive friction, such as uncertainty, exploration, and reflective processes, undermine intellectual virtues essential for critical thinking in an AI-saturated information environment. Method. This conceptual article employs a theory synthesis approach, drawing on library information science (LIS) theories of information behaviour, experience, and literacy, virtue epistemology, and human–computer interaction (HCI) friction design literature. Analysis. We map intellectual virtues such as curiosity, thoroughness, and intellectual humility onto the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, building on and extending previous analyses. We connect dimensions of virtuous search to AI system design principles and align friction types with specific intellectual virtues. Results. We propose three design principles for human-centred AI systems (representation, affordance, and facilitation) and develop a typology that maps friction interventions to intellectual virtues, providing concrete examples for each. Conclusion. Productive friction should be understood as a feature supporting intellectual development, not a barrier to efficiency. The design choices made today will determine whether AI serves as intellectual scaffolding or cognitive crutch.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines
Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Smith, J. (2008) · doi:10.1163/9789460911477 · Cited by 311
Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892410 · Cited by 218
Protecting Human Cognition in the Age of AI
Singh, A., Taneja, K., Guan, Z., & Ghosh, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.12447 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Archambault, S. G., & Kizhakkethil, P.
- Affiliations
- Loyola Marymount University (US)
- Texas Woman's University (US)
- Venue
- Information Research an international electronic journal
- Publisher
- University of Borås
- Published
- 2026-05-15
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 234-256
- ISSN
- 1368-1613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7161230531
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Information Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- friction, intellectual virtues, critical thinking, information literacy, ACRL Framework for Information Literacy, virtue epistemology, curiosity, intellectual humility, exploration, uncertainty, information behavior
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