ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use and dependence: an approach from behavioral economics.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of technostress and generative AI on EFL mathematic metacognitive reading strategies and digital classroom burnout in SDG-aligned education.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The relationship between academic self-efficacy and GenAI dependence among college students: a chain mediation model of academic stress and perceived usefulness of GenAI.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Is generative artificial intelligence becoming addictive? An exploration among undergraduate students.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The association between AI dependence, AI literacy, and critical thinking ability among nursing interns: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to explore the perceived dependence on Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools among young adults and examine the relative reinforcing value of AI chatbots use compared to monetary rewards, applying a behavioral economics approach. Participants/methods: A total of 420 university students from Bogotá, Colombia, participated in an online survey. The study employed a Multiple Choice Procedure (MCP) to assess the relative reinforcement between different durations of GenAI use (1, 2, and 4 weeks) and monetary rewards, which varied in amount and delay. Additionally, an adapted AI Dependence Scale evaluated levels of dependence on AI tools. Data analysis included repeated measures ANOVA to examine the effects of reward magnitude and delay on choices, and correlations to assess the relationship between perceived dependence and reinforcement values. Results: Participants reported low average dependence on AI tools (mean AI Dependence Scale score = 65.6), with no significant gender differences. MCP findings indicated significant differences in crossover points across varying durations or delays for AI chatbots use, suggesting a higher relative value of use for the option to use AI chatbots immediately. The average reinforcement value for AI use versus monetary rewards did significantly vary with reward magnitude. On the other hand, significant differences were found in the levels of perceived dependence on AI, according to the average daily time of AI tool use. Conclusion: The results suggest that young adults exhibit low perceived dependence on GenAI tools but show differential reinforcement values based on usage duration or delay conditions. This behavioral economics approach provides novel insights into decision-making patterns related to AI chatbots use, emphasizing the need for further research to understand the psychological and social factors influencing dependence on AI technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.