Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42054401›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Social friction vs. cognitive efficiency: A comparative analysis of help-seeking behaviors in human communities and generative AI.

Li Qi, Lanlan Zhao

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Li QiSchool of Humanities and Education, Jiangmen Polytechnic, Jiangmen, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5080-7589
Lanlan ZhaoBeijing Science and Technology Education Center, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative AI agents (e.g., ChatGPT) provide a private, low-latency environment for knowledge acquisition, distinct from public online communities where social evaluation is prevalent. This study investigates how the removal of social evaluation threats in AI interactions alters learners' help-seeking strategies. We analyzed a matched corpus of 30,000 dialogue turns from LMSYS-Chat-1M (Human-AI) and Stack Exchange (Human-Human) using computational linguistic methods (LIWC-22 and RoBERTa). Results show that in AI interactions, learners almost completely abandon defensive impression management strategies (such as hedges) and politeness markers that are mandatory in human communities. Furthermore, contrary to the expectation that users would "confess" ignorance to AI, we found that learners adopt an authoritative "Director" stance rather than a humble "Petitioner" role. These findings suggest that AI is not merely a social substitute but a functional tool that allows users to bypass the cognitive costs of social negotiation. The shift implies a trade-off: AI maximizes information retrieval efficiency but potentially reduces the 'desirable difficulties' associated with problem formulation. This transformation highlights a potential for reduced practice in the cognitive processes traditionally required to structure ambiguity in collaborative settings.

Indexed as

CognitionHelp-Seeking BehaviorGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID42054401
PMCPMC13127939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.