ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Family-school autonomy support for children's responsible use of generative artificial intelligence: a self-determination theory synthesis and developmental research agenda.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence is becoming embedded in children's and adolescents' learning, yet guidance often oscillates between uncritical adoption and restrictive control. This mini review applies self-determination theory to ask how autonomy-supportive guidance from families and schools might foster responsible use, and it audits how far the available evidence can carry that account. Of the 46 primary-data studies reviewed, 35 sampled university students and 8 included participants under 18; 26 were cross-sectional, and none measured family and school inputs in the same participants. Within those limits, current evidence suggests that educational outcomes depend less on frequency of use than on whether learners retain cognitive agency, engage reflectively, and regulate when and why they delegate tasks to artificial intelligence. Autonomy support may strengthen learning engagement by satisfying needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness and by supporting intrinsic motivation, hope, self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning. It may also protect academic integrity by facilitating moral internalization, authentic self-attribution, and reasoned decision-making within clear institutional boundaries. Conversely, controlling or weakly structured environments may promote dependent cognitive offloading, unreflective use, and overreliance. Because direct evidence in minors is scarce, we treat the developmental claim as an agenda rather than a finding: we present family-side and school-side evidence separately, state their synergy as three competing and falsifiable hypotheses, and grade each proposed link by the strength of evidence behind it. We identify priorities for longitudinal, behavioral, cross-cultural, and participatory research.
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.