ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
Generative AI as an External Cognitive Tool: Cognitive Dependence, AI Literacy, and Perceived Academic Creativity.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) provides a new context for examining how external intelligent systems are associated with human cognitive agency and perceived creative intellectual functioning. Drawing on cognitive offloading theory and AI literacy research, this cross-sectional study tested a moderated mediation model linking GenAI use intensity, GenAI cognitive dependence, AI literacy, and perceived academic creativity. Survey data were collected from 936 undergraduates at six universities in China. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the empirical distinctiveness of the four focal constructs, and latent structural equation modeling was used to examine the hypothesized associations. GenAI use intensity showed a positive direct association with perceived academic creativity and a positive association with GenAI cognitive dependence; cognitive dependence was negatively associated with perceived academic creativity. The standardized direct and indirect associations operated in opposite directions, leaving a small model-implied net association (β ≈ 0.040). AI literacy was negatively associated with cognitive dependence and positively associated with perceived academic creativity. The use-dependence association was weaker at higher levels of AI literacy, and the negative indirect association through dependence was correspondingly smaller. These cross-sectional results are interpreted as associations and do not establish temporal or causal ordering.
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.