ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
When Thinking Is Outsourced: Cognitive Offloading and the Heterogeneity of Critical Thinking Among Chinese University Students Using Generative Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative AI Use and Critical Thinking Dispositions in Higher Education: A Cross-Sample Study of the Sequential Role of Metacognitive Weakness and Epistemic Laziness.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- The synthetic position: generative artificial intelligence and the suspension of self-authorship in emerging adulthood.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Family-school autonomy support for children's responsible use of generative artificial intelligence: a self-determination theory synthesis and developmental research agenda.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
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
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) enables students to offload cognitive tasks to an external system, yet the consequences of such cognitive offloading for the development of critical thinking-a core dimension of human intelligence-remain underexplored. Drawing upon cognitive offloading theory and distributed cognition theory, this study investigates the heterogeneity of critical thinking outcomes among Chinese university students who use GAI, focusing on how different patterns of human-AI collaboration relate to cognitive autonomy relinquishment. A questionnaire survey was administered to 353 university students across multiple provinces in China. Cluster analysis and regression analysis were employed to identify distinct user profiles and to examine predictors of critical thinking gains and cognitive autonomy. Four distinct user profiles emerged, ranging from "simple Q&A users" (25.2%) to "critical co-thinkers" (15.6%). Learning motivation was the strongest predictor of both critical thinking gains (β = 0.42) and lower cognitive autonomy relinquishment (β = -0.35). Notably, offloading depth positively predicted cognitive autonomy relinquishment (β = 0.25), revealing a paradoxical pattern: sophisticated GAI use was associated with greater dependence. A "high depth-high dependence" subgroup (25.8%) was identified, disproportionately composed of female students and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) majors. The findings challenge the assumption that deeper GAI engagement automatically yields cognitive benefits. Because all constructs were measured through self-report, the findings are interpreted as reflecting students' perceptions of their cognitive behaviors and abilities; the methodological implications of this design are discussed in detail. Educational interventions should prioritize metacognitive training over technical skill development to ensure that cognitive offloading enhances rather than undermines critical thinking.
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.