Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Large Language Model Use Impact Locus of Control

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.11406 v1 pith:GPLACRLF submitted 2025-05-16 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

Large Language Model Use Impact Locus of Control

classification cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL
keywords controllocusagencyimpactparticipantspersonalrelianceresults
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As AI tools increasingly shape how we write, they may also quietly reshape how we perceive ourselves. This paper explores the psychological impact of co-writing with AI on people's locus of control. Through an empirical study with 462 participants, we found that employment status plays a critical role in shaping users' reliance on AI and their locus of control. Current results demonstrated that employed participants displayed higher reliance on AI and a shift toward internal control, while unemployed users tended to experience a reduction in personal agency. Through quantitative results and qualitative observations, this study opens a broader conversation about AI's role in shaping personal agency and identity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ChatMuse: Supporting In-Person Small-Group Conversation Experience with a Proactive Assistive AI Agent in Mixed Reality

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A proactive mixed-reality AI agent that privately suggests speech and nonverbal behavior can help one participant feel more engaged in small-group conversations, according to an 18-person within-subject study.