Trial reportFrontiers in public health2026
High- versus low-anthropomorphic-cue packages and health-information trust: social presence and source credibility under explicit AI disclosure.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: AI virtual opinion leaders are increasingly used in health communication, but it remains unclear whether bundled anthropomorphic-cue packages foster initial trust and information-adoption intention when AI identity is explicitly disclosed. Methods: Guided by the Computers Are Social Actors paradigm, Social Presence Theory, Source Credibility Theory, and the Information Adoption Model, we conducted a single-factor between-subjects randomized experiment comparing overall high- and low-anthropomorphic-cue packages. The packages differed simultaneously in avatar realism, gesture behavior, interpersonal/linguistic framing, and video duration; AI disclosure and the response-button structure were held constant. A total of 536 valid responses were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Social presence, source credibility, trust, and adoption intention were measured by participant self-report immediately after a single branched-video exposure. Results: The overall high-versus-low package contrast increased social presence. Social presence was positively associated with source credibility; source credibility was positively associated with trust in AI-generated health information; and information trust was positively associated with health information adoption intention. The direct effect of the package contrast on information trust was not significant, whereas the bootstrapped serial indirect effect through social presence and source credibility was significant. Conclusion: Within the present Chinese sample and single-exposure setting, the randomized contrast supports an effect of the overall cue package on initial social presence, while the mediation estimates are consistent with the hypothesized indirect pathway to information trust. The design cannot identify the independent contribution of any visual, gestural, linguistic, vocal, interactive, or duration component. The outcome is self-reported adoption intention, not observed health behavior.
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.