Trial reportJMIR formative research2024
Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content Labels On Perceived Accuracy, Message Credibility, and Sharing Intentions for Misinformation: Web-Based, Randomized, Controlled Experiment.
Trial report in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Generative AI and health misinformation: production, propagation, and mitigation-a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- AI-Generated Content Disclosure and Prolonged Short-Video Engagement: A Heuristic-Systematic Risk-Trust Model Among Late-Adolescent and Emerging-Adult TikTok Users.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- How AI-Generated Content Shapes User Trust: The Roles of Cognitive Processing, Perceived Risk, and Transparency Labels.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The paradox of AI content labeling: how clarity influences information avoidance via cognitive dissonance on social platforms.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Digital Anatomy: A New Frontier in Health and Medical Science Education.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Human-made vs. AI-generated: how provenance labels drive strategic curation via perceived effort.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Labeling AI-generated media online.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Digital anchors vs. human anchors: a study of the effects of credibility endorsement and psychological distance on policy adoption intention.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, has added complexity and richness to the virtual environment by increasing the presence of AI-generated content (AIGC). Although social media platforms such as TikTok have begun labeling AIGC to facilitate the ability for users to distinguish it from human-generated content, little research has been performed to examine the effect of these AIGC labels.
objectiveThis study investigated the impact of AIGC labels on perceived accuracy, message credibility, and sharing intention for misinformation through a web-based experimental design, aiming to refine the strategic application of AIGC labels.
methodsThe study conducted a 2×2×2 mixed experimental design, using the AIGC labels (presence vs absence) as the between-subjects factor and information type (accurate vs inaccurate) and content category (for-profit vs not-for-profit) as within-subjects factors. Participants, recruited via the Credamo platform, were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (with labels) or a control group (without labels). Each participant evaluated 4 sets of content, providing feedback on perceived accuracy, message credibility, and sharing intention for misinformation. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 29 and included repeated-measures ANOVA and simple effects analysis, with significance set at P<.05.
resultsAs of April 2024, this study recruited a total of 957 participants, and after screening, 400 participants each were allocated to the experimental and control groups. The main effects of AIGC labels were not significant for perceived accuracy, message credibility, or sharing intention. However, the main effects of information type were significant for all 3 dependent variables (P<.001), as were the effects of content category (P<.001). There were significant differences in interaction effects among the 3 variables. For perceived accuracy, the interaction between information type and content category was significant (P=.005). For message credibility, the interaction between information type and content category was significant (P<.001). Regarding sharing intention, both the interaction between information type and content category (P<.001) and the interaction between information type and AIGC labels (P=.008) were significant.
conclusionsThis study found that AIGC labels minimally affect perceived accuracy, message credibility, or sharing intention but help distinguish AIGC from human-generated content. The labels do not negatively impact users' perceptions of platform content, indicating their potential for fact-checking and governance. However, AIGC labeling applications should vary by information type; they can slightly enhance sharing intention and perceived accuracy for misinformation. This highlights the need for more nuanced strategies for AIGC labels, necessitating further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.