Skip to content
Review Open access

Is It Mine or Not Mine? Cognitive Offloading to Generative AI and Concern over the Erosion of Cognitive Ownership

Aug 2026 · Journal of Intelligence · Vol 14 · 1 citation · 68 references
Medicine

TL;DR

This work surveyed pre-service teachers, operationalizing the felt loss of cognitive ownership as concern over the erosion of teaching-design subjectivity (TSC)—the metacognitive appraisal that AI-assisted work is not genuinely one’s own and that independent capacity is declining.

Abstract

Cognitive offloading—delegating cognitive work to external tools—is basic to human cognition, but generative AI (GenAI) amplifies it radically: entire cognitive products can now be produced on request. This sharpens a question about agency over one’s own thinking: when cognition is habitually offloaded, does its product still feel like one’s own? We surveyed 239 pre-service teachers, operationalizing the felt loss of cognitive ownership as concern over the erosion of teaching-design subjectivity (TSC)—the metacognitive appraisal that AI-assisted work is not genuinely one’s own and that independent capacity is declining. Guided by the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model, we tested whether AI anxiety/fear of missing out (affective) and impulsivity (self-regulatory) relate to this concern through behavioral GenAI dependency—habitual offloading. In a structural equation model with bias-corrected bootstrapping, dependency strongly predicted TSC and partially mediated the effect of AI anxiety; impulsivity raised dependency but showed a suppression pattern (a positive indirect effect offset by a null total effect), and the model explained 35% of the variance in the concern. Habitual offloading—that is, GenAI dependency—rather than generic AI use, accompanies the metacognitive loss of cognitive ownership.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

From Substitution to Scaffolding: Breaking the Self-Reinforcing Harm Cycle of AI in Education (and Beyond)

An integrative framework of four interrelated dimensions -cognition, agency, emotional well-being, and ethics- linked by a self-reinforcing cycle where cognitive offloading reduces effort, weakens agency, and compounds emotional and ethical harm is organized.

Lucile Favero, J. A. Pérez-Ortiz, Tanja Käser et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

The critical-thinking paradox in generative AI-integrated learning: distinguishing efficiency from cognitive depth—a differentiated framework and testable propositions

A theoretical reading of apparently contradictory findings is offered of apparently contradictory findings—improved academic products alongside qualitative, neuroscientific, and behavioral signs of reduced cognitive engagement—which is term the critical-thinking paradox of GenAI-integrated learning.

Jia-Yin Lin, N. M. Al-Hada · 1 citation
Open access Jul 2026

Generativa Between Cognitive Offloading and Thinking: A Theoretical Framework of Metacognitive Tension in the Use of Generative AI

The threshold model of metacognitive tension is proposed, which defines a mediating mechanism, the preservation versus suppression of the diagnostic cues of monitoring and the occupation of the metalevel, three moderators, including learner expertise, and a threshold located as a transition band within a plane of two d...

R. Guerrero-Chirinos · 1 citation
Review Open access Jul 2026

Not all cognitive offloading is equal: distinguishing dependent and autonomous offloading to generative AI

The manner of AI engagement is highlighted—not merely its frequency—as a key factor in understanding its associations with perceived cognitive functioning, and point to practical strategies for educators, learners, and AI tool designers seeking to harness AI without undermining cognitive autonomy.

Qiu-Han Zhu, Xiang-Nan Li, Yiang Dong et al. · 10 citations · ⚡1
Open access Jul 2026

“Overdependence on algorithms?”: how artificial intelligence ethical leadership can safeguard self-efficacy and spur innovation

It is found that AI dependence does not have a significant direct negative effect on innovative behavior, and inhibits innovation exclusively through a full mediation pathway by eroding employee self-efficacy, indicating that the suppression of innovation is caused not by the technology itself, but by the “deprivation...

Byung‐Jik Kim, Yeon-Jun Choi, Julak Lee · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.