ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
College students' metacognitive awareness of generative-AI reliance: an experimental study of decision confidence and attribution bias.
Article 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Generative AI is increasingly used by college students for explanation, evaluation, and decision support, raising the question of whether perceived reliance accurately tracks the extent to which AI advice shapes final judgments. Methods: In a three-condition between-subjects experiment, 342 undergraduate students completed reasoning and information-evaluation tasks under independent decision-making, open multi-turn ChatGPT support, or the same ChatGPT support with a brief metacognitive reflection prompt. Participants reported initial and final answers and confidence, and AI-assisted chat logs were coded for the final recommendation, its correctness, and behavioral reliance. Results: Open ChatGPT support increased final confidence and was associated with 62.4% acceptance of incorrect AI advice. Reflection reduced incorrect-advice acceptance to 39.7% (OR = 0.40, 95% CI [0.28, 0.56], Discussion: Brief metacognitive reflection improved immediate discrimination between useful and misleading AI advice without producing blanket rejection of AI. The exploratory association between calibration and overreliance is not interpreted as causal mediation, and the findings concern bounded academic decision tasks rather than long-term learning.
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.