ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Beliefs and sharing intentions of human- and AI-generated fake news: Evidence from 27 European countries.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Information bubble and skill evolution: a theoretical framework for integrating distributed cognition, cognition offloading, and metacognitive regulation based on AIOE.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
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
Misinformation remains a major challenge in today's information environment, and rapid advances in AI-driven content generation risk amplifying this problem. Generative AI represents a double-edged sword: beyond its growing utility for detecting misinformation, it can also facilitate democratic deliberation, counter conspiracy narratives, and promote reliable information, even as the same technologies enable the rapid, large-scale production of persuasive false content. Understanding how people perceive AI-generated misinformation is therefore crucial for designing effective interventions and safeguarding information integrity. To address this, we embedded a preregistered experiment in a large-scale web survey conducted across 27 European countries. Participants were presented with eight short news headlines related to the Russo-Ukrainian war: four AI-generated and four human-generated, evenly split between real and fake news. For each headline, respondents assessed its perceived veracity and their willingness to share it. Our findings show that fake news is consistently viewed as less accurate and less likely to be shared, with systematic differences across countries and individual characteristics such as cognitive reflection, ideology, and trust. While differences between human- and AI-generated content were minimal, the results reveal broader and robust patterns in how people evaluate misinformation across diverse European contexts. These insights highlight the need to strengthen individuals' cognitive and informational resilience to counter the spread of misleading content in increasingly complex media environments.
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.