Better awareness calibration co-occurs with lower incorrect-advice acceptance and lower attribution bias, interpreted associationally only¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Among AI-assisted participants, awareness calibration was negatively associated with acceptance of incorrect AI advice and with attribution bias; the authors do not interpret this causally. → Ren S 2026

Evidence¶

Ren S 2026¶

Ren S (2026) College students’ metacognitive awareness of generative-AI reliance: an experimental study of decision confidence and attribution bias. Front. Psychol. 17:1926110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1926110

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Correlation analysis (Table 4) among participants in the two AI-assisted conditions. The article reports that "Awareness calibration was negatively associated with acceptance of incorrect AI advice and attribution bias"; because variables were measured within the same decision episode, the correlations are not interpreted causally. No standardized coefficients appear in the quoted text.

"Awareness calibration was negatively associated with acceptance of incorrect AI advice and attribution bias. These associations indicate that closer perceived–behavioral correspondence co-occurred with lower incorrect-advice acceptanceandlowerattributionbias"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Access to AI advice roughly doubled reported confidence in answers in one experiment — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• A brief metacognitive reflection prompt reduces acceptance of incorrect AI advice compared with open ChatGPT support alone — related
• Reflection produced selective rather than blanket rejection of AI: alignment with correct advice stayed high while alignment with incorrect advice dropped — related
• Open ChatGPT support produces stronger self-serving attribution bias than ChatGPT support with reflection — related
• Warning labels alone did not improve performance or reduce reliance on GenAI advice, and students sometimes adopted incorrect AI answers — related
• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
• Reflection improves correspondence between perceived and behavioral reliance on ChatGPT — related
• Trust and reliance can diverge, and self-reported reliance measures cannot classify calibration without output-quality ground truth — related
• Better metacognitive awareness of trial-to-trial VSTM performance is associated with lower error, higher precision, and fewer misbinding errors, but not with item capacity, and this association is invariant across age — related
• Individual acceptance of group constructions depends on reflection and reconciliation processes triggered by differing opinions, sometimes occurring after the group session — related
• ChatGPT recommendation accuracy was comparable between the open-support and reflection conditions, ruling out unequal exposure to erroneous advice — related
• Open ChatGPT support increases college students' final decision confidence relative to independent decision-making, and reflection attenuates the boost — related