ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Independent judgment before viewing generative AI recommendations reduces susceptibility to misleading advice: a randomized scenario-based experiment with preservice teachers.
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 can support preservice teachers' pedagogical decisions, but fluent recommendations may also redirect attention away from diagnostic classroom evidence. We compared an independent-judgment-before-recommendation sequence with a recommendation-before-judgment sequence under expert-keyed and misleading generative AI recommendations. Methods: A three-arm randomized scenario-based experiment enrolled 240 preservice teachers from one Chinese university. Group A recorded an independent judgment before viewing an AI recommendation, Group B viewed the recommendation before its first recorded judgment, and Group C completed the tasks without AI as a contextual benchmark and did not enter the primary sequence × recommendation-quality hypothesis test. Groups A and B completed 12 fixed-order items, including six expert-keyed and six misleading recommendations. Expert-keyed joint accuracy-agreement with the expert-designated plan and rationale-was the primary outcome. After data-quality exclusions, 218 participants remained in the main analysis. Participant-clustered logistic generalized estimating equations tested sequence, recommendation quality, and their interaction. Results: Under misleading recommendations, Group A had higher expert-keyed joint accuracy than Group B, OR = 1.912, 95% CI [1.413, 2.589], Discussion: Recording an independent judgment before viewing AI was associated with lower susceptibility to misleading recommendations in the selected controlled scenarios. The result supports further evaluation of independent-first workflows in teacher education, but it does not isolate a single cognitive mechanism or establish transfer to authentic classroom decision-making. These findings extend research on cognitive-forcing designs to contextualized pedagogical judgments that require both instructional action selection and evidence-based justification.
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.