ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Artificial intelligence dependency in college students: a critical narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modeling and measuring graduate students' generative AI literacy: a study based on Marzano's taxonomy.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language model (LLM) applications, has fundamentally reshaped university students' learning, problem-solving, and socio-emotional practices. Alongside clear benefits in efficiency and personalized support, concerns are emerging about AI dependency, understood here as an emerging, non-diagnostic educational-psychological construct rather than a formal clinical disorder. This critical narrative review synthesizes evidence from the past decade on AI dependency among college students, focusing on conceptualizations, theoretical frameworks, prevalence and demographic variations, measurement tools, determinants, intervention strategies, and research gaps. Across studies, an "ask-AI-first" pattern appears increasingly common, although frequency of use should not be equated with maladaptive dependency. The central concern is not AI use itself but patterns of cognitive delegation, emotional reliance, and reduced self-regulation that may be associated with weaker independent engagement, academic-integrity risks, and distress when AI is unavailable. The literature also reveals substantial fragmentation in assessment, although several emerging tools demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Determinants appear multi-level, involving individual vulnerabilities, academic pressure, contextual norms, and technological affordances. Current recommendations emphasize promoting augmentation over automation, strengthening AI literacy and critical evaluation skills, redesigning assessments to preserve cognitive engagement, and implementing supportive interventions for at-risk students. Future research should prioritize longitudinal, cross-cultural, and multi-method designs to clarify developmental trajectories, thresholds for maladaptation, and evidence-based intervention pathways.
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.