ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
How Cross-Cue Inconsistency Weakens the Adoption of AI-Generated Review Summaries: The Roles of Diagnosticity, Authenticity, and Review Dispersion.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As AI-generated review summaries are increasingly embedded in e-commerce review systems, consumers are no longer exposed to a single type of user review information. Instead, they encounter multiple evaluative cues consisting of aggregated user-generated ratings (AUGR), original user reviews, and AI-generated summaries (AIGS). From the perspective of cross-cue inconsistency, this study examines the mechanism underlying consumers' adoption of AIGS in a complex evaluative environment. This study adopts a scenario-based experimental method and simulates a product review page on an e-commerce platform. A 2 (AIGS: positive vs. negative) × 2 (AUGR: high vs. low) × 2 (review dispersion: low vs. high) between-subjects experimental design was employed. Data from 371 participants from mainland China recruited through Credamo online panel were analyzed using full factorial ANOVA and PROCESS-based mediation and moderated mediation analyses. AIGS-AUGR consistency/inconsistency was generated by combining the valence of AIGS with the level of AUGR, thereby capturing different manifestations of cross-cue consistency/inconsistency. Based on this design, consumers' perceived diagnosticity, perceived authenticity, and adoption intention were measured, and the proposed hypotheses were tested. The results show that AIGS-AUGR inconsistency significantly reduces consumers' adoption intention toward AIGS. In the overall mediation analysis, perceived diagnosticity and perceived authenticity both mediate this effect. Review dispersion differentially moderates the first-stage effects of inconsistency on the two mediators: high review dispersion strengthens its negative effect on perceived diagnosticity, whereas low review dispersion strengthens its negative effect on perceived authenticity. However, only the diagnosticity-based indirect effect on adoption intention varies significantly across dispersion levels, with high review dispersion strengthening this negative indirect effect; the moderated indirect effect through perceived authenticity is not significant.
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.