ArticleApplied psychology. Health and well-being2026
Perceptions of AI-generated informational texts and effects of the source: An online experiment.
Article in Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 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.
- Perceptions of AI-generated informational texts and effects of the source: An online experiment.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly common for health information seeking, yet many people are still skeptical of its performance. This between-subjects online experiment tested whether informing readers that a text was produced by AI influenced their ratings in 774 participants. They were randomly assigned to read one of six brief texts and rated trustworthiness, interest, and perceived understanding, as well as intention to act upon the received information and willingness to share the information with others. Source information did not influence ratings, but only 41.5% of participants in the AI source condition noticed the source. Source awareness was associated with higher education and greater nutrition knowledge. Nutrition information produced by AI chatbots is generally seen as trustworthy, although source information is often ignored. Our research highlights critical implications for public health messaging in the digital age as consumers may not differentiate between information generated by AI versus other sources, although future research is required to assess source perceptions in AI-generated texts in more detail.
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.