The case for friction in AI-mediated information seeking and learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31263104Keywords:
AI literacy, intellectual virtues, friction, Information literacy, information seeking, Generative AI, virtue epistemologyAbstract
Introduction. This paper challenges the assumption that frictionless AI-mediated information seeking represents progress. We argue that AI systems eliminating productive friction, such as uncertainty, exploration, and reflective processes, undermine intellectual virtues essential for critical thinking in an AI-saturated information environment.
Method. This conceptual article employs a theory synthesis approach, drawing on library information science (LIS) theories of information behaviour, experience, and literacy, virtue epistemology, and human–computer interaction (HCI) friction design literature.
Analysis. We map intellectual virtues such as curiosity, thoroughness, and intellectual humility onto the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, building on and extending previous analyses. We connect dimensions of virtuous search to AI system design principles and align friction types with specific intellectual virtues.
Results. We propose three design principles for human-centred AI systems (representation, affordance, and facilitation) and develop a typology that maps friction interventions to intellectual virtues, providing concrete examples for each.
Conclusion. Productive friction should be understood as a feature supporting intellectual development, not a barrier to efficiency. The design choices made today will determine whether AI serves as intellectual scaffolding or cognitive crutch.
References
Aal, K., Aal, T., Navumau, V., Unbehaun, D., Müller, C., Wulf, V., & Rüller, S. (2025). Feeling guilty being a c(ai)borg: Navigating the tensions between guilt and empowerment in AI use. arXiv:2506.00094. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.00094
Allison, L. & DeRewal, T. (2024). Where knowledge begins? Generative search, information literacy, and the problem of friction. Critical AI, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1215/2834703x-11556038
Ali, R. & Wilson, M. L. (2025). Information literacy in the artificial intelligence era: A proposed framework. Communications in Information Literacy, 19(2), 242–270. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2025.19.2.6-
Archambault, S. G., Ramachandran, S., Acosta, E., & Fu, S. (2024). Ethical dimensions of algorithmic literacy for college students: Case studies and cross-disciplinary connections. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102865
Archambault, S. G. (2023). Expanding on the frames: Making a case for algorithmic literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 17(2), 530–553. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.11
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. American Library Association. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (Archived at: https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/acrl/content/issues/infolit/Framework_ILHE.pdf)
Baehr, J. S. (2015). Cultivating good minds: A philosophical & practical guide to educating for intellectual virtues. Educating for Intellectual Virtues. https://intellectualvirtues.org/why-should-we-educate-for-intellectual-virtues-2-2/ (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412043102/https://intellectualvirtues.org/why-should-we-educate-for-intellectual-virtues-2-2/)
Baehr, J. S. (2016). Intellectual virtues and education: Essays in applied virtue epistemology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714127
Baehr, J. (2021). Deep in thought: A practical guide to teaching for intellectual virtues. Harvard Education Press.
Baehr, J. (2024, June 5). Intellectual virtues and information literacy [PowerPoint slides]. Brigham Young University.
Baillie, C., Bowden, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. (2013). Threshold capabilities: Threshold concepts and knowledge capability linked through variation theory. Higher Education, 65(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9540-5
Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5(1), 133–143. (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260415084501/https://tefkos.comminfo.rutgers.edu/Courses/612/Articles/BelkinAnomolous.pdf)
Bivens-Tatum, W. (2021). Scholarly conversations, intellectual virtues, and virtue information literacy. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–30. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4981/
Boymal, J. (2025, November 26). There is a story by Italian writer, translator and literary critic Tommaso Landolfi, about a writer who studies what he [Post]. LinkedIn. (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412043941/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jonathan-boymal-448b5870_there-is-a-story-by-italian-writer-translator-activity-7399487482968510464-KeHj/ )
Cai, A., Arawjo, I., & Glassman, E. L. (2024). Antagonistic AI [Preprint]. arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.07350
Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Information needs, motivations and use. In Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior (pp. 79–96). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23778
Chalmers, M., & Galani, A. (2004). Seamful interweaving: Heterogeneity in the theory and design of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 243–252). Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013149
Chapekis, A., & Lieb, A. (2025, July 22). Google users are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the results. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/4lIqbsM (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412044052/https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/)
Charette, C. & Ghosh, S. (2025). From queries to conversations: Examining human–GenAI information-seeking through Belkin’s cognitive communication model. In Proceedings of the 88th annual meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology (pp. 105–116). ASIS&T. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fpra2.1240
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016). Design frictions for mindful interactions: The case for microboundaries. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1389–1397). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892410
Danry, V., Pataranutaporn, P., Mao, Y., & Maes, P. (2023). Don't just tell me, ask me: AI systems that intelligently frame explanations as questions improve human logical discernment accuracy over causal AI explanations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580672
Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673279810249369
Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28), eadn5290. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290
Drosos, M., Alkhatib, G., Wang, D., Welsh, R., DeFilippo, T.T., & Czerwinski, M. (2025). “It makes you think”: Provocations help restore critical thinking to AI-assisted knowledge work. [Preprint] arXiv:2501.17247 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.17247 (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412044623/https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.17247)
Eisenberg, M. B., Murray, J., & Bartow, C. (2016). The Big6 curriculum: Comprehensive information and communication technology (ICT) literacy for all students. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171–212. https://doi.org/doi:10.1108/eb026843
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
Fulkerson, D. M., Ariew, S. A., & Jacobson, T. E. (2017). Revisiting metacognition and metaliteracy in the ACRL framework. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2017.11.1.45
Georgiou, G. P. (2025). ChatGPT produces more “lazy” thinkers: Evidence of cognitive engagement decline [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.00181
Gerlich, M. (2025a). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
Gerlich, M. (2025b). From offloading to engagement: An experimental study on structured prompting and critical reasoning with generative AI. Data, 10(11), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/data10110172
Gorichanaz, T. (2024). Virtuous search: A framework for intellectual virtue in online search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(5), 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24832
Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2019). Invisible search and online search engines: The ubiquity of search in everyday life. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448546
Hanegan, M., & Rosser, C. (2025). Introduction. In M. Hanegan & C. Rosser (Eds.), Generative AI and libraries: Claiming our place in the center of a shared future. ALA Editions. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2026.2600723
Heersmink, R. (2018). A virtue epistemology of the internet: Search engines, intellectual virtues and education. Social Epistemology, 32(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1383530
Holtz, P., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2018). Using big data techniques for measuring productive friction in mass collaboration online environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9285-y
Hong, H. (2025). Enhancing critical thinking: Interactive cognitive offload instruction with generative AI in English essay writing. In Proceedings of the 2025 international Conference on AI-enabled education (AIEE ’25) (pp. 148–152). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3768421.3768447
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
Hsiao, C.-H., & Chiu, C.-H. (2025). A comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT-assisted learning: A systematic exploration from learning outcomes to student behavior patterns. In 2025 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and education (ICAIE) (pp. 423–428). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIE64856.2025.11158580
Hur, P., Twidale, M., & Bosch, N. (2025). “Like driving in a storm at night”: How students use metaphors to describe confusion during learning. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference of the learning sciences-ICLS 2025, (pp. 2973–2975). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2025.443156
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Ji, Y., Zhan, Z., Li, T., Zou, X., & Lyu, S. (2025). Human–machine cocreation: The effects of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, AI awareness, critical thinking, and cognitive load in a STEM course toward entrepreneurship. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 18, 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3554584
Ju, Q. (2023). Experimental evidence on negative impact of generative AI on scientific learning outcomes (A pilot research): AI can help you with writing, but at what cost? [Preprint]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3371292/v1)
Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y.T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A.V., Braunstein, I., P. Maes, P. (2025). Your brain on chatgpt: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of documentation, 49(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026918
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2001, July 9). Rethinking libraries for the information age school: Vital roles in inquiry learning [Keynote address]. International Association of School Librarianship Conference. https://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/iasl_notes/ (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412045734/https://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/iasl_notes/)
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Libraries Unlimited.
Lee, C. S., & Nguyen, T. M. C. (2025). Learning with generative AI: Evaluating acceptability of fact- checking digital nudges. In Proceedings of the 88th annual meeting of the Association for Information Science (pp. 995–1000). ASIS&T. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1328
Liu, S. & Almeda, S. G. (2025). Agency among agents: Designing with hypertextual friction in the algorithmic web. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th ACM Conference on hypertext and social media (HT Adjunct 2025) (pp. 30–34). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3720533.3750065
Lo, L. S. (2026). The CARE approach for academic librarians: From search first to answer first with generative AI. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 52(1), 103186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103186
Loru, E., Nudo, J., Di Marco, N., Santirocchi, A., Atzeni, R., Cinelli, M., Cestari, V., Rossi-Arnaud, C., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2025). The simulation of judgment in LLMs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(42), e2518443122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2518443122
Marchionini, G. (1997). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2014). Metaliteracy: Reinventing information literacy to empower learners. American Library Association.
McKay, D., Twidale, M., & Buchanan, G. (2025). Not all who wander are lost: An argument for searching to browse as a separate information behaviour. Information Research, 30(CoLIS), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30CoLIS52351
McMenemy, D., & Buchanan, S. (2019). Character building in children’s online information behaviours: Applying a virtue epistemology perspective to information literacy. In J. Boustany, L. Roy, Y. Ünal, S. Spiranec, S. Kurbanoğlu, E. Grassian, M. L. Huotari, & D. Mizrachi (Eds.), Information literacy in everyday life (pp. 73–82). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13472-3_7
Nasr, N. R., Tu, C.-H., Werner, J., Bauer, T., Yen, C.-J., & Sujo-Montes, L. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI ChatGPT on critical thinking in higher education: Passive AI-directed use or human–AI supported collaboration? Education Sciences, 15(9), 1198. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091198
Ndungu, M. W. (2024). Integrating basic artificial intelligence literacy into media and information literacy programs in higher education: A framework for librarians and educators. Journal of Information Literacy, 18(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.11645/18.2.641
Perc, M. (2025). Counterfeit judgments in large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(48), e2528527122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2528527122
Pickens, J. (2021, August 8). Dancing through the digital landscape: Friction, control, and the need for information proprioception. Information Matters, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4145790
Ravuri, B., & Mardis, M. A. (2025). AI on the shoulders of giants: Using Kuhlthau's information search process to improve AI support for information-seeking. Library Trends, 73(3), 267– 296. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2025.a961195
Rieger, A., Draws, T., Theune, M., & Tintarev, N. (2024). Nudges to mitigate confirmation bias during web search on debated topics: Support vs. manipulation. ACM Transactions on the Web 18(2),1–27. https://doi. org/10.1145/3635034
Rieger, A., Bredius, F., Tintarev, N., & Pera, M. S. (2023). Searching for the whole truth: Harnessing the power of intellectual humility to boost better search on debated topics. In Extended abstracts of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing Systems (pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi/10.1145/3544549.3585693
Savin-Baden, M. (2019). Learning ecologies: Liminal states and student transformation. In R. Barnett & N. Jackson (Eds.), Ecologies for learning and practice (pp. 46–60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351020268
Sarkar, A. (2024). AI should challenge, not obey. Communications of the ACM, 67(10), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3649404
Shah, C., & Bender, E. M. (2022). Situating search. In Proceedings of the 2022 conference on human information interaction and retrieval (pp. 221–232). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505816
Shibani, A., Knight, S., Kitto, K., Karunanayake, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2024). Untangling critical interaction with AI in students' written assessment. In Extended abstracts of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA '24). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3651083
Sidoti, O., & Gottfried, J. (2023, November 16). About 1 in 5 U.S. teens who've heard of ChatGPT have used it for schoolwork. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/?p=7836 (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412072336/https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/16/about-1-in-5-us-teens-whove-heard-of-chatgpt-have-used-it-for-schoolwork/)
Singh, A., Guan, Z. & Rieh, S. Y. (2025a), Enhancing critical thinking in generative AI search with metacognitive prompts. Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology,(pp. 672–684). ASIS&T. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1287
Singh, A., Taneja, K., Guan, Z., & Ghosh, A. (2025b). Protecting human cognition in the age of AI. [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.12447
Smith, C. L., & Matteson, M. L. (2018). Information literacy in the age of machines that learn: Desiderata for machines that teach. Libri, 68(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2017-0025
Sundin, O. (2025). Theorising notions of searching, (re)sources and evaluation in the light of generative AI. Information Research, 30(CoLIS). 291–302. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30colis52258
Sung, I. (2021). Productive and Unproductive Friction in Game Design. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2511928892 (Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260412073845/https://www.proquest.com/docview/2511928892 )
Tang, Z. & Zhang, P. (2025). Reshaping teamwork: Understanding AI usage in student group projects. In Proceedings of the 88th annual meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology (pp. 1099–1104). ASIS&T. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1346
Tomalin, M. (2023). Rethinking online friction in the information society. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211067812
Townsend, L., Hofer, A., Hanick, S. L., & Brunetti, K. (2016). Identifying threshold concepts for information literacy: A Delphi study. Communications in Information Literacy, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.1.13
Trafford, V. (2008). Conceptual frameworks as a threshold concept in doctorateness. In R. Land, J.H.I. Meyer, & J Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 273–288). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911477
Tucker, V. M. (2016) Learning experiences and the liminality of expertise. In: R. Land, J. Meyer, & and M. T. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold Concepts in Practice (pp. 93–106). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8
Willson, R. (2019). Transitions theory and liminality in information behaviour research: Applying new theories to examine the transition to early career academic. Journal of Documentation, 75(4), 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-12-2018-0207
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Susan Gardner Archambault, Priya Kizhakkethil
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
