Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42352790›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

How AI-Generated Content Shapes User Trust: The Roles of Cognitive Processing, Perceived Risk, and Transparency Labels.

Junting Liu, Liangdong Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Junting LiuBusiness School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China.
Liangdong LuBusiness School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to produce multimedia content, raising important questions about how users evaluate and respond to such content. While prior research has examined AI transparency and technology adoption, the cognitive mechanisms linking external cues to user trust and behavioral outcomes remain insufficiently understood. Grounded in the heuristic-systematic model (HSM), this study investigates how transparency labels and presentation quality influence cognitive processing, perceived authenticity, trust, and perceived risk in AI-generated video content. A 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment was conducted with 617 participants. The results show that AI transparency labels reduce perceived authenticity but do not directly affect trust or adoption intention. Higher presentation quality reduces reliance on heuristic processing. Perceived authenticity is associated with lower cognitive load and greater systematic processing, systematic processing is positively associated with trust, whereas heuristic processing is negatively associated with trust. Trust is positively associated with both adoption intention and sharing intention, whereas perceived risk is negatively associated with these outcomes. These findings highlight the central roles of cognitive processing and trust-risk dynamics in shaping user responses to AI-generated content and provide implications for transparency design and trust development in AI-mediated environments.

Indexed as

adoption intentionAI-generated contentartificial intelligencecognitive processingperceived risksharing intentiontransparency labelstrust

Identifiers

PMID42352790
PMCPMC13295875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.