ArticleCognitive processing2026
Cognitive offloading, critical thinking and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in the era of ChatGPT: a comparative study of artificial intelligence-assisted and manual task performance in young adults.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, like ChatGPT, are now widely integrated into a plethora of contexts. Although they present potential benefits like increased efficiency and reduced lower-level cognitive load, they are accompanied by serious risks such as over reliance and impacted independent critical reasoning. Research on how critical thinking and cognitive offloading interact with AI use is limited. Furthermore, research on attitudes towards AI and how they may influence how people offload cognition and engage in critical thinking is further understudied. Our mixed-methods study aims to reduce this gap. Initially, 124 participants were considered for the study. After filtering out the outliers, 120 young adults (AI group n = 57, Manual group n = 63) participated, with a subsample of 54 who were thematically analysed. Our experimental design incorporated a logical fallacies identification task (with/without ChatGPT) and three quantitative questionnaires: Artificial Intelligence Attitude Scale, Critical Thinking Rubric and Mental Effort Rating Scale. Nonparametric analyses (Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's rho) revealed that the AI group were able to attain higher correct responses (H = 7.044, p < .01). Additionally, they reported significantly lower mental effort (H = 27.434, p < .01) for the experimental task. Qualitative trends saw high independent reasoning, verification, and metacognitive monitoring in manual participants. Conversely, a mix of complete delegation and selective use/strategic engagement was observed under the AI condition. Overall, we conclude that although AI improves task accuracy and lowers mental effort, it does not necessarily save time or uniformly enhance or reduce critical thinking. Moreover, we suggest that a user's approach to AI (delegation vs. strategic engagement) determines whether it acts as a replacement or scaffold. We highlight the need for intentional, reflective use of AI in educational contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377671What 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.