Gih‐Keong Lau

Gabriel R. Lau, Wei Yan Low, Louis Tay et al.

Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value. The present research conceptualises critical thinking in AI use as a dispositional tendency to verify the source and content of AI-generated information, to understand how models work and where they fail, and to reflect on the broader implications of relying on AI. Across six studies (N = 1365), we developed and validated the 13-item critical thinking in AI use scale and mapped its nomological network. Study 1 generated and content-validated scale items. Study 2 supported a three-factor structure (Verification, Motivation, and Reflection). Studies 3, 4, and 5 confirmed this higher-order model, demonstrated internal consistency and test-retest reliability, strong factor loadings, sex invariance, and convergent and discriminant validity. Studies 3 and 4 further revealed that critical thinking in AI use was positively associated with openness, extraversion, positive trait affect, and frequency of AI use. Lastly, Study 6 demonstrated criterion validity of the scale, with higher critical thinking in AI use scores predicting more frequent and diverse verification strategies, greater veracity-judgement accuracy in a novel and naturalistic ChatGPT-powered fact-checking task, and deeper reflection about responsible AI. Taken together, the current work clarifies why and how people exercise oversight over generative AI outputs and provides a validated scale and ecologically grounded task paradigm to support theory testing, cross-group, and longitudinal research on critical engagement with generative AI outputs.

G. R. Lau, W. Y. Low, S. M. Koh et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in psychological research and practice, yet traditional benchmarks reveal little about the values they express in real interaction. We introduce PAPERS, an output-based evaluation of the values LLMs prioritise in their text. Study 1 thematically analysed responses from eleven LLMs, identifying five recurring dimensions (Purposeful Contribution, Adaptive Growth, Positive Relationality, Ethical Integrity, and Robust Functionality) with Self-Actualised Autonomy appearing only under a hypothetical sentience prompt. These results suggest that LLMs are trained to prioritise humanistic and utility values as dual objectives of optimal functioning, a pattern supported by existing AI alignment and prioritisation frameworks. Study 2 operationalised PAPERS as a ranking instrument across the same eleven LLMs, yielding stable, non-random value priorities alongside systematic between-model differences. Hierarchical clustering distinguished "human-centric" models (e.g., ChatGPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4) that prioritised relational/ethical values from "utility-driven" models (e.g., Llama 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro) that emphasised operational priorities. Study 3 benchmarked four LLMs against human judgements (N = 376) under matched prompts, finding near-perfect rank-order convergence (r = .97-.98) but moderate absolute agreement; among tested models, ChatGPT-4o showed the closest alignment with human ratings (ICC = .78). Humans also showed limited readiness to endorse sentient AI systems. Taken together, PAPERS enabled systematic value audits and revealed trade-offs with direct implications for deployment: human-centric models aligned more closely with human value judgments and appear better suited for humanistic psychological applications, whereas utility-driven models emphasised functional efficiency and may be more appropriate for instrumental or back-office tasks.