Impact of Artificial Intelligence–Generated Content Labels On Perceived Accuracy, Message Credibility, and Sharing Intentions for Misinformation: Web-Based, Randomized, Controlled Experiment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, has added complexity and richness to the virtual environment by increasing the presence of AI-generated content (AIGC). Although social media platforms such as TikTok have begun labeling AIGC to facilitate the ability for users to distinguish it from human-generated content, little research has been performed to examine the effect of these AIGC labels. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of AIGC labels on perceived accuracy, message credibility, and sharing intention for misinformation through a web-based experimental design, aiming to refine the strategic application of AIGC labels. METHODS: The study conducted a 2×2×2 mixed experimental design, using the AIGC labels (presence vs absence) as the between-subjects factor and information type (accurate vs inaccurate) and content category (for-profit vs not-for-profit) as within-subjects factors. Participants, recruited via the Credamo platform, were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (with labels) or a control group (without labels). Each participant evaluated 4 sets of content, providing feedback on perceived accuracy, message credibility, and sharing intention for misinformation. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 29 and included repeated-measures ANOVA and simple effects analysis, with significance set at P<.05. RESULTS: As of April 2024, this study recruited a total of 957 participants, and after screening, 400 participants each were allocated to the experimental and control groups. The main effects of AIGC labels were not significant for perceived accuracy, message credibility, or sharing intention. However, the main effects of information type were significant for all 3 dependent variables (P<.001), as were the effects of content category (P<.001). There were significant differences in interaction effects among the 3 variables. For perceived accuracy, the interaction between information type and content category was significant (P=.005). For message credibility, the interaction between information type and content category was significant (P<.001). Regarding sharing intention, both the interaction between information type and content category (P<.001) and the interaction between information type and AIGC labels (P=.008) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that AIGC labels minimally affect perceived accuracy, message credibility, or sharing intention but help distinguish AIGC from human-generated content. The labels do not negatively impact users' perceptions of platform content, indicating their potential for fact-checking and governance. However, AIGC labeling applications should vary by information type; they can slightly enhance sharing intention and perceived accuracy for misinformation. This highlights the need for more nuanced strategies for AIGC labels, necessitating further research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».