Understanding Critical Thinking in Generative Artificial Intelligence Use: Development, Validation, and Correlates of the Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12413v1
• Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 17:56:12 GMT
• Title: Understanding Critical Thinking in Generative Artificial Intelligence Use: Development, Validation, and Correlates of the Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale
• Authors: Gabriel R. Lau, Wei Yan Low, Louis Tay, Ysabel Guevarra, Dragan Gašević, Andree Hartanto,
• Abstract summary: This research conceptualises critical thinking in AI use as a dispositional tendency to verify the source and content of AI-generated information.<n>We developed and validated the 13-item critical thinking in AI use scale and mapped its nomological network.<n>Studies 3 and 4 revealed that critical thinking in AI use was positively associated with openness, extraversion, positive trait affect, and frequency of AI use.
• Score: 1.0946458347622612
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value. The present research conceptualises critical thinking in AI use as a dispositional tendency to verify the source and content of AI-generated information, to understand how models work and where they fail, and to reflect on the broader implications of relying on AI. Across six studies (N = 1365), we developed and validated the 13-item critical thinking in AI use scale and mapped its nomological network. Study 1 generated and content-validated scale items. Study 2 supported a three-factor structure (Verification, Motivation, and Reflection). Studies 3, 4, and 5 confirmed this higher-order model, demonstrated internal consistency and test-retest reliability, strong factor loadings, sex invariance, and convergent and discriminant validity. Studies 3 and 4 further revealed that critical thinking in AI use was positively associated with openness, extraversion, positive trait affect, and frequency of AI use. Lastly, Study 6 demonstrated criterion validity of the scale, with higher critical thinking in AI use scores predicting more frequent and diverse verification strategies, greater veracity-judgement accuracy in a novel and naturalistic ChatGPT-powered fact-checking task, and deeper reflection about responsible AI. Taken together, the current work clarifies why and how people exercise oversight over generative AI outputs and provides a validated scale and ecologically grounded task paradigm to support theory testing, cross-group, and longitudinal research on critical engagement with generative AI outputs.

Related papers

• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• AI as Cognitive Amplifier: Rethinking Human Judgment in the Age of Generative AI [0.65268245109828]
  I propose a three-level model of AI engagement.<n>I argue that the transition between levels requires not technical training but development of domain expertise and metacognitive skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T11:55:34Z)
• Do Students Rely on AI? Analysis of Student-ChatGPT Conversations from a Field Study [10.71612026319996]
  This study analyzed 315 student-AI conversations during a brief, quiz-based scenario across various STEM courses.<n>Students exhibited overall low reliance on AI and many of them could not effectively use AI for learning.<n>Certain behavioral metrics strongly predicted AI reliance, highlighting potential behavioral mechanisms to explain AI adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T20:00:27Z)
• The next question after Turing's question: Introducing the Grow-AI test [51.56484100374058]
  This study aims to extend the framework for assessing artificial intelligence, called GROW-AI.<n>GROW-AI is designed to answer the question "Can machines grow up?" -- a natural successor to the Turing Test.<n>The originality of the work lies in the conceptual transposition of the process of "growing" from the human world to that of artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T10:19:42Z)
• A Review of Generative AI in Computer Science Education: Challenges and Opportunities in Accuracy, Authenticity, and Assessment [2.1891582280781634]
  This paper surveys the use of Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Claude, in computer science education.<n>Generative AI raises concerns such as AI hallucinations, error propagation, bias, and blurred lines between AI-assisted and student-authored content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T19:20:58Z)
• Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor [83.99510317617694]
  We argue that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed.<n>We aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:44:41Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Beyond Detection: Designing AI-Resilient Assessments with Automated Feedback Tool to Foster Critical Thinking [0.0]
  This research proposes a proactive, AI-resilient solution based on assessment design rather than detection.<n>It introduces a web-based Python tool that integrates Bloom's taxonomy with advanced natural language processing techniques.<n>It helps educators determine whether a task targets lower-order thinking such as recall and summarization or higher-order skills such as analysis, evaluation, and creation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T23:13:00Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Heuristics and Biases in AI Decision-Making: Implications for Responsible AGI [0.0]
  We investigate the presence of cognitive biases in three large language models (LLMs): GPT-4o, Gemma 2, and Llama 3.1.<n>The study uses 1,500 experiments across nine established cognitive biases to evaluate the models' responses and consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T05:34:00Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.