From Tool Use to Deep Reliance: How Generative AI Induces Cognitive Substitution in University Students A Grounded Theory Study
Abstract
GAI tools such as DeepSeek, deeply integrating them into their studies and daily lives. This has led to increasing dependence and a growing
crisis of cognitive substitution. Based on grounded theory and semi-structured interviews with college students from various universities, this
study constructs a formation mechanism model of the transition from tool use to deep reliance. It provides theoretical and practical guidance
for balancing GAI's empowerment in education against the risks of cognitive substitution.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Xiong P, Zhang Y Y. Current application and improvement paths of generative AI technology in university teaching[J]. Science Technology Innovation and Productivity, 2025, 46(3): 51-54.
[2] Yu H Q, Guo Z X, Chen Y H, et al. Characteristics, group differences, and potential problems of generative AI use among university
students[J]. Journal of North University of China (Social Science Edition), 2025.
[3] Zhang S, Zhao X, Zhou T, et al. Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior[J]. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2024, 21(1): 1-14.
[4] Acosta-Enriquez A G, Araul-Aallesteros M A, Guzman-Valle M A, et al. The mediating role of academic stress, critical thinking and
performance expectations in the influence of academic self-efficacy on AI dependence: Case study in college students[J]. Computers and
Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2025: 100381.
[5] Morales-Garcia W C, Sairitupa-Sanchez L Z, Flores-Paredes A, et al. Influence of self-efficacy in the use of artificial intelligence (AI)
and anxiety toward AI use on AI dependence among Peruvian university students[J]. Data and Metadata, 2025, 4: 321.
[6] Zhong W, Luo J, Lyu Y. How do personal attributes shape AI dependency in Chinese higher education context? Insights from needs
frustration perspective[J]. PLoS ONE, 2024, 19(11): e0313314.
[7] Xie T L, Pentina I, Hancock T. Friend, mentor, lover: does chatbot engagement lead to psychological dependence?[J]. Journal of Service
Management, 2023, 34(4): 806-828.
[8] He Y, Shi D S. A probe into the grounded theory research method in social surveys[J]. The World of Survey and Research, 2009(5): 46-48.
[9] Glaser B G, Strauss A L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research[M]. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.
[10] Chen X M. The logic and method of grounded theory[J]. Educational Research and Experiment, 1999(4): 58-63, 73.
[11] Liu J L. AI education industry receives policy support as listed companies actively embrace large models[N]. Securities Times, 2025-04-
24(A07).
[12] Valkenburg P M, Peter J. The differential susceptibility to media effects model[J]. Journal of Communication, 2013, 63(2): 221-243.
[13] Cheng Z Y, Wang A Q. The pros and cons of herd mentality among college students and ideological and political education
countermeasures[J]. Journal of Shanxi Youth Vocational College, 2022, 35(4): 43-47.
[14] Jian Y F, Huang Y B. Human-robot interaction: Substituting or enhancing interpersonal interaction? A controlled experiment on social
robots from the perspective of role theory[J]. Journalism University, 2023(4): 75-90, 122.
[15] Cacioppo J T, Hawkley L C. Perceived social isolation and cognition[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2009, 13(10): 447-454.
[16] Turkle S. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
[17] Orr W, Davis J L. Attributions of ethical responsibility by artificial intelligence practitioners[J]. Information, Communication & Society,
2020, 23(5): 719-735.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/frim.v4i5.9378
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
