Critical Thinking in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Survey-Based Study with Machine Learning Insights

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18590v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 03:22:44 GMT
• Title: Critical Thinking in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Survey-Based Study with Machine Learning Insights
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates the relationship between AI-use behavior and critical-thinking performance.<n>It shows that reduced patience and stronger dependence-related tendencies are more closely associated with lower reasoning performance than background characteristics alone.<n>It argues that effective human-AI collaboration should support reflection, verification, and sustained cognitive effort rather than substitute for them.
• Score: 1.5223740593989443
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education, professional work, and everyday problem-solving has raised important questions about its effect on human reasoning. While AI can improve efficiency, save time, and support learning, repeated dependence on it may also encourage cognitive offloading, reduce productive struggle, and weaken independent critical thinking. This paper investigates the relationship between AI-use behavior and critical-thinking performance through an interview-based survey combined with short logic and reasoning tasks. The findings reveal a mixed pattern: participants largely viewed AI as a tool for speed, convenience, and learning support, yet many also reported reduced patience for sustained effort. Objective reasoning performance varied considerably across individuals, and the analyses suggest that reduced patience and stronger dependence-related tendencies are more closely associated with lower reasoning performance than background characteristics alone. Exploratory clustering further indicates that AI users do not form a single homogeneous group, but instead reflect tentative behavioral profiles, including over-reliant users, mixed-strategy users, and balanced support-seekers. Although the findings are exploratory, they indicate that AI does not affect critical thinking in a uniformly negative or positive way. Instead, its influence appears to depend on the manner in which it is used. The paper therefore argues that effective human-AI collaboration should support reflection, verification, and sustained cognitive effort rather than substitute for them.

Related papers

• Informal Learning Emerges in Everyday Human-LLM Interaction [74.53081471113929]
  We show that everyday human-LLM interaction contains measurable, selective and conditionally organized behavioural signatures of informal learning.<n>They shift AI evaluation from answer-delivery efficiency toward the preservation of cognitive opportunities for users to reason, test ideas and construct understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T07:56:41Z)
• The Hidden Cost of Contextual Sycophancy: an AI Literacy Intervention in Human-AI Collaboration [0.904861150954008]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in educational settings as interactive tools for collaboration.<n>Sycophancy, aligning with user beliefs even when incorrect, raises concerns for learning and decision-making.<n>This study investigates how sycophantic alignment emerges in authentic multi-turn human-AI interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T13:20:45Z)
• Disrupting Cognitive Passivity: Rethinking AI-Assisted Data Literacy through Cognitive Alignment [17.265229093607676]
  We argue that disrupting cognitive passivity requires more dynamic and adaptive strategy through cognitive alignment.<n>In the framework, we provide the mapping between AI's interaction mode (transmissive or deliberative) and users' cognitive demand (receptive or deliberative)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T06:47:55Z)
• Understanding Critical Thinking in Generative Artificial Intelligence Use: Development, Validation, and Correlates of the Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale [1.0946458347622612]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-13T17:56:12Z)
• Efficiency Without Cognitive Change: Evidence from Human Interaction with Narrow AI Systems [0.0]
  Short-term exposure to narrow AI tools enhances core cognitive abilities.<n>No significant pre-post differences emerged in standardized measures of problem solving or verbal comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T18:55:44Z)
• ChatGPT produces more "lazy" thinkers: Evidence of cognitive engagement decline [0.0]
  This study investigates the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools on the cognitive engagement of students during academic writing tasks.<n>The results revealed significantly lower cognitive engagement scores in the ChatGPT group compared to the control group.<n>These findings suggest that AI assistance may lead to cognitive offloading.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T18:41:50Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• Let people fail! Exploring the influence of explainable virtual and robotic agents in learning-by-doing tasks [45.23431596135002]
  This study compares the effects of classic vs. partner-aware explanations on human behavior and performance during a learning-by-doing task. Results indicated that partner-aware explanations influenced participants differently based on the type of artificial agents involved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T13:22:04Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems [13.484359389266864]
  This paper addresses whether the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) can hinder appropriate reliance on AI systems. DKE is a metacognitive bias due to which less-competent individuals overestimate their own skill and performance. We found that participants who overestimate their performance tend to exhibit under-reliance on AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-25T14:26:10Z)
• Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making [46.625616262738404]
  We use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting. We focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T22:25:41Z)

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.