Human-AI Interactions and the Psychological Triad: A Multi-Domain Survey of Cognitive, Behavioral, and Emotional Impacts
Organizations: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA · Texas A&M University-Kingsville, RELLIS Campus, Bryan, TX 77807, USA
Abstract
As human-AI interactions increasingly reshape social and research landscapes, the risks of overreliance, cognitive offloading, and the nuanced degradation of human agency have become more apparent. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a novel conceptual framework based on the psychological triad: cognition, behavior, and emotion. Through a comprehensive survey of recent research, we observe that while AI can substantially enhance outcomes such as memory, creativity, and engagement, it simultaneously introduces systemic risks, including diminished critical thinking, skill erosion, and increased anxiety. Emotional outcomes are shown to be similarly mixed, with AI systems offering support and stress reduction while raising critical concerns regarding dependency, inappropriate attachments, and ethical oversight. By synthesizing these findings into the TRIAD model, a recursive framework of appraisal, execution, and regulation, this paper moves beyond isolated metrics toward a systems-level understanding of how AI shapes cognitive depth, behavioral patterns, and emotional development over time. The proposed model underscores the need for responsible, context-aware AI integration and establishes a grounded evaluation framework capable of capturing the complex, human-centered trade-offs inherent in modern technological advancement.
Figures & tables
| Impact Focus | Study Topic / Focus | Study Type | Sample Size (N) | Key Metrics / Questions Used |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge Acquisition | ChatTutor vs. ChatGPT for Learning ( Makransky et al., 2025 ) | Between-subjects experiments | N=175 (Uni); N=234 (HS) | 9-item conceptual knowledge test; Likert scales (1-5) for self-efficacy, trust, and enjoyment. |
| Critical Thinking Skills | AI and Critical Thinking Skills ( Gerlich, 2025 ) | Mixed-method (Survey + Int.) | N=666 (Sur.); N=50 (Int.) | Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA); Terenzini’s measures of development. |
| Memory | Alzheimer’s VR-AI Intervention ( Al-Rajab et al., 2025 ) | Comparative pilot study | N=23 (Int.); N=10 (Ctrl) | Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); task completion rate; caregiver feedback. |
| Knowledge Retention | ChatGPT-Assisted Retrieval Practice ( Yusof, 2025 ) | Retrospective cohort study | N=128 | Final exam scores (60 MCQs); Feedback questionnaire on AI feedback quality. |
| Knowledge Retention | LLM-Generated Retrieval Practice ( An et al., 2025 ) | Quasi-experiment | N=58 | Quiz accuracy (percentage correct) comparing weeks with/without LLM questions. |
| Skill Degradation | Cognitive Skill Degradation (Aviation) ( K. et al., 2016 ) | Between-subject experiment | N=59 (Init); N=46 (Final) | NASA-TLX (subjective workload); objective error rates in flight planning. |
| Impact Focus | Study Topic / Focus | Study Type | Sample Size (N) | Key Metrics / Questions Used |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependence | AI Dependence and Mental Health ( Huang et al., 2024 ) | Longitudinal cohort study | N=3,843 | 5-item AI dependence scale; PHQ-9; GAD-7. |
| Engagement | Alzheimer’s VR-AI Intervention ( Al-Rajab et al., 2025 ) | Comparative pilot study | N=23 (Int.); N=10 (Ctrl) | Task completion rate; caregiver feedback; MoCA scores. |
| Adherence | AI Virtual Coach for Perfectionism ( Johnson et al., 2024 ) | Randomised feasibility trial | N=85 | Adherence rates; DASS-21 (stress/anxiety); EDEQ-7. |
| Communication Speed | "Smart Replies" in Communication ( Hohenstein et al., 2023 ) | Randomized experiments | N=1,036 | Messages per minute; Perceived Cooperative Communication scale; VADER sentiment. |
| Productivity | Workplace Psychological Safety ( Association et al., 2024 ) | Online survey (Harris Poll) | N=2,027 | Likert scales (1-4) on job satisfaction and performance self-ratings. |
| Efficiency | AI Decision Support in ICT ( Funda and Francke, 2024 ) | Case study / Questionnaire | N=28 | Constructs for Decision Support, Efficiency, Integration, and Scalability. |
| Focus | Topic / Focus | Design | N | Measures / Metrics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust | ChatTutor vs. ChatGPT learning ( Makransky et al., 2025 ) | Between-subj. | 175/234 | Likert (1–5): self-efficacy, trust, enjoyment |
| Stress | AI venting vs. journaling ( Hu et al., 2025 ) | Pre-reg. within | 150 | Circumplex affect; UCLA-LS; stress (11-pt) |
| Anxiety | AI dependence + mental health ( Huang et al., 2024 ) | Longitudinal | 3,843 | PHQ-9; GAD-7; AI-dep. (5-item) |
| Well-being | ChatGPT user perception ( Salah et al., 2023 ) | Survey | 732 | Ryff PWB; Rosenberg SES; Trust-in-AI |
| Isolation | Loneliness decoding via XAI ( Wang et al., 2024 ) | Proof-of-concept | 97 | UCLA-LS; LIWC-22 features |
| Stress | Virtual coach (perfectionism) ( Johnson et al., 2024 ) | RCT (feas.) | 85 | DASS-21; EDEQ-7; Frost perfectionism |
| Study Domain | Intent | Findings | Triad Link | Out. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hanc (2024) (Cognitive) | Evaluate GenAI on creative writing | Improved output but led to overconfidence | Reduced Metacognitive Monitoring | Mixed |
| Babashahi (2024) | Review workforce skill shifts | Role-shift from “Executor” to “Editor” | Routine Skill Erosion | Mixed |
| Education (Math) | Compare standard vs. guardrailed AI tutors | Standard GPT improved practice scores but caused drop in unassisted exams | Cognitive Offloading, “Crutch” effect | Negative |
| Psychology (Perceptual) | Assess bias amplification in human–AI feedback loops | AI amplified human “sad-face” bias; users internalized it | Perceptual Bias, Internalization | Negative |
| Education (Neuro-cog) | Measure neural connectivity during AI-assisted writing | LLM users showed 55% reduced neural connectivity and inability to recall their own work | Neural Engagement, Cognitive Debt | Negative |
| Creativity (Fiction) | Measure AI impact on individual vs. collective novelty | AI boosted individual novelty but reduced collective content diversity | Homogenization, Social Dilemma | Mixed |
| Study Domain | Intent | Findings | Triad Link | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EmoPal/ASD (Emotional) | AI as predictable social partner | Reduced anxiety during transitions | Affective stabilizer | Positive |
| VR-AI Ger. (Emotional) | Reduce agitation via avatars | Improved regulation; dependency noted | Emotional Regulation | Mixed |
| Well-being (Longitudinal) | Long-term impacts of voice and task type on well-being | High usage correlated with increased loneliness, dependence, and lower socialization | Social Withdrawal, Problematic Use | Mixed |
| FTC (2025) (Ethical) | Regulatory review of Companion AI | High risk of data & privacy breaches | Inappropriate Attachment | Negative |
| Ethics (Integrity) | Examine “AI Guilt” in pure vs. applied disciplines | Guilt deters usage in “pure” fields (humanities) more than “applied” (engineering) | Moral Dissonance, Rationalization | Mixed |
| Mental Health | DL efficacy in student mental health diagnosis | 76.8% agree DL can easily diagnose mental illness; AI improves intervention decisions | Early Detection, Diagnostic Efficacy | Positive |
Human-AI Interaction
Human-AI interaction studies how people and AI systems communicate, collaborate, make decisions, and shape one another over time.
See all 329 papers