Chatgpt Reliance and Cognitive Offloading As Predictors of Critical Thinking in the Workplace: Evidence from Corporate Organizations and Higher Education Institutions

This study examined ChatGPT reliance and cognitive offloading as predictors of critical thinking in the workplace among employees from corporate organizations and higher education institutions. Using a quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional predictive-correlational design, the study involved 384 employees and assessed ChatGPT reliance, cognitive offloading, and workplace critical thinking through a structured survey questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, multiple regression, and independent-samples t tests were employed. Findings indicated high levels of ChatGPT reliance (M = 3.18), cognitive offloading (M = 3.01), and critical thinking (M = 3.25). ChatGPT reliance was positively associated with cognitive offloading (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), while ChatGPT reliance (r = −0.29, p < 0.001) and cognitive offloading (r = −0.46, p < 0.001) were negatively associated with critical thinking. Collectively, ChatGPT reliance and cognitive offloading significantly predicted critical thinking, explaining 22.1% of its variance (R² = 0.221), with cognitive offloading (β = −0.37) demonstrating a stronger unique predictive relationship than ChatGPT reliance (β = −0.10). Corporate and higher education employees did not significantly differ in ChatGPT reliance or critical thinking, although corporate employees reported significantly higher cognitive offloading. Based on these findings, the Human–AI Cognitive Sustainability Framework (HAICSF) was developed to promote appropriate ChatGPT reliance, strategic cognitive offloading, human verification, and preservation of higher-order cognitive capabilities in AI-assisted workplaces.

ChatGPT reliance, cognitive offloading, critical thinking, generative artificial intelligence, human–AI collaboration, workplace cognition, cognitive sustainability

1. Betito, A. D. L. R. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence adoption, critical thinking, and digital research competency as predictors of graduate research quality: Developing an AI-assisted research excellence framework. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 13(8), 1–18. DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1308000001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Betito, A. D. L. R., Saludario, R. A., Bonanciar, S. A., II, Jimenez, J. M., Mangahas, R., Jr., & Bugay, I. B. (2026). Leadership, artificial intelligence capability, and total quality management as strategic determinants of sustainable operational excellence across industries. International Journal of Special Education, 41(10s), 983–1002. https://internationalsped.com/index.php/ijse/article/view/3765 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hong, H., Vate-U-Lan, P., & Viriyavejakul, C. (2025). Cognitive offload instruction with generative AI: A quasi-experimental study on critical thinking gains in English writing. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(7), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.10072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Jain, P., Shajit, D., Maini, A., Shahin, Y., & Panda, A. (2026). Cognitive offloading, critical thinking and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in the era of ChatGPT: A comparative study of artificial intelligence-assisted and manual task performance in young adults. Cognitive Processing. https DOI: 10.1007/s10339-026-01375-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–22. DOI: 10.1145/3706598.3713778. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Retkowsky, J., Hafermalz, E., & Huysman, M. (2024). Managing a ChatGPT-empowered workforce: Understanding its affordances and side effects. Business Horizons, 67(5), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.04.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 680, pp. 1–24). Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/3613904.3642902. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Impact of AI Tools on Student Learning
• Repogent: An Autonomous Multi-Agent System for End-To-End Repository Maintenance
• Trust-Centric Federated Learning Using Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts: An Analysis of Data Privacy, Model Integrity, and Decentralized AI Governance
• Can AI Care? Rethinking Ethics, Clinical Integrity, and Professional Responsibility in the Digital Age of Mental Healthcare
• AI-Based Smart Irrigation System Using IoT and Machine Learning for Precision Agriculture