Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages

Lim, Sue, Schmälzle, Ralf·2024·Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans
DOI 10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Abalo, 2007, Importance values for importance–performance analysis: A formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings, Journal of Business Research, 60, 115, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ali, 2012, Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: Using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods, British Medical Bulletin, 103, 21, 10.1093/bmb/lds020 · DOI
  3. Allem, 2017, Campaigns and counter campaigns: Reactions on twitter to e-cigarette education, Tobacco Control, 26, 226, 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052757 · DOI
  4. Alwin, 1985, The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings, Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 535, 10.1086/268949 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Arendt, 2019, Selective exposure and news media brands: Implicit and explicit attitudes as predictors of news choice, Media Psychology, 22, 526, 10.1080/15213269.2017.1338963 · DOI
  6. Asscher, 2023, Human evaluations of machine translation in an ethically charged situation, New Media & Society, 25, 1087, 10.1177/14614448211018833 · DOI
  7. Atkin, 1983, Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers, Journal of Advertising Research, 23, 57, 10.1080/00218499.1983.12468060 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Baig, 2019, UNC perceived message effectiveness: Validation of a brief scale, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53, 732, 10.1093/abm/kay080 · DOI
  9. Bates, 2014, Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, arXiv
  10. Bettinghaus, 1970, Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 614
  11. Boakye, 2022, Assessment of patterns in e-cigarette use among adults in the US, 2017-2020, JAMA Network Open, 5, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.23266 · DOI
  12. Boynton, 2023, Perceived effectiveness of objective elements of vaping prevention messages among adolescents, Tobacco Control, 32, e228, 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057151 · DOI
  13. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Buda, 2000, Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9, 229, 10.1108/10610420010344022 · DOI
  15. Castelo, 2019, Task-dependent algorithm aversion, Journal of Marketing Research, 56, 809, 10.1177/0022243719851788 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Castelo, 2021, Conservatism predicts aversion to consequential Artificial Intelligence, PLoS One, 16, 10.1371/journal.pone.0261467 · DOI
  17. Chaiken, 1990, Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752, 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 · Paper page
  18. Clark, 2016, Vaporous marketing: Uncovering pervasive electronic cigarette advertisements on Twitter, PLoS One, 11, 10.1371/journal.pone.0157304 · DOI
  19. Clark, 2012, Source expertise and persuasion: The effects of perceived opposition or support on message scrutiny, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 90, 10.1177/0146167211420733 · DOI
  20. Claudy, 2022, Artificial intelligence can’t be charmed: The effects of impartiality on laypeople’s algorithmic preferences, Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 898027, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898027 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Collins, 2019, E-cigarette marketing and communication: How e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes and the public engages with e-cigarette information, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 21, 14, 10.1093/ntr/ntx284 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Grummon, 2022, Reactions to messages about smoking, vaping and COVID-19: Two national experiments, Tobacco Control, 31, 402, 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055956 · DOI
  23. Ismagilova, 2020, The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101736, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Jussupow, 2020, Why are we averse towards algorithms? A comprehensive literature review on algorithm aversion, ECIS 2020 Proceedings
  25. Lagerkvist, 2013, Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct ranking and best–worst scaling for measurement of attribute importance, preference intensity and attribute dominance, Food Quality and Preference, 29, 77, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.005 · DOI
  26. Lim, 2023, Artificial intelligence for health message generation: An empirical study using a large language model (LLM) and prompt engineering, Frontiers in Communication, 8
  27. Liu, 2020, Incorporating message framing into narrative persuasion to curb e‐cigarette use among college students, Risk Analysis, 40, 1677, 10.1111/risa.13502 · DOI
  28. Luo, 2013, Impact of informational factors on online recommendation credibility: The moderating role of source credibility, Decision Support Systems, 56, 10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.005 · DOI
  29. Lyu, 2021, Vaping discussion in the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study using Twitter data, PLoS One, 16, 10.1371/journal.pone.0260290 · DOI
  30. Ma, 2017, User generated content and credibility evaluation of online health information: A meta analytic study, Telematics and Informatics, 34, 472, 10.1016/j.tele.2016.09.009 · DOI
  31. Marcus, 2020, The next decade in AI: Four steps towards robust artificial intelligence, arXiv
  32. Miles, 2021, Health chatbots acceptability moderated by perceived stigma and severity: A cross-sectional survey, Digital Health, 7, 10.1177/20552076211063012 · DOI
  33. Noar, 2020, Evaluating the actual and perceived effectiveness of e-cigarette prevention advertisements among adolescents, Addictive Behaviors, 109, 106473, 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106473 · DOI
  34. O’Keefe, 2003, Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research, Communication Theory, 13, 251, 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x · Paper page
  35. Ozawa, 2017, Using best-worst scaling to rank factors affecting vaccination demand in northern Nigeria, Vaccine, 35, 6429, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.079 · DOI
  36. Prasetyo, 2021, The evaluation of preference and perceived auality of health communication icons associated with COVID-19 prevention measures, Healthcare, 9, 10.3390/healthcare9091115 · DOI
  37. Priester, 1995, Source attribution and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637, 10.1177/0146167295216010 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Priester, 2003, The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 408, 10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_08 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Ratneshwar, 1991, Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52, 10.1086/209240 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Rohde, 2021, Comparison of message and effects perceptions for the Real Cost e-cigarette prevention ads, Health Communication, 36, 1222, 10.1080/10410236.2020.1749353 · DOI
  41. Rollins, 2021, Effects of endorser type and testimonials in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising (DTCA), International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 15, 1, 10.1108/IJPHM-06-2019-0042 · DOI
  42. Roy, 2013, The moderating role of consumer personality and source credibility in celebrity endorsements, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5, 72, 10.1108/17574321311304549 · DOI
  43. Scao, T.L., Fan, A., Akiki, C., Pavlick, E., Ilić, S., Hesslow, D., & Manica, M. (2022). Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.05100. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Schepman, 2023, The General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39, 2724, 10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Shank, 2023, AI composer bias: Listeners like music less when they think it was composed by an AI, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29, 676
  46. Shannon, 1948, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, 379, 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · DOI · Paper page
  47. Smith, 2013, Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 193, 10.1177/0146167212472374 · DOI
  48. Sülflow, 2019, Selective attention in the news feed: An eye-tracking study on the perception and selection of political news posts on Facebook, New Media & Society, 21, 168, 10.1177/1461444818791520 · DOI
  49. Tannenbaum, 1956, Initial attitude toward source and concept as factors in attitude change through communication, Public Opinion Quarterly, 20, 413, 10.1086/266638 · DOI
  50. Thurstone, 1931, The measurement of social attitudes, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 249, 10.1037/h0070363 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Tubaishat, 2014, An investigation into the attitudes of nursing students toward technology, Journal of Nursing Research, 22, 119, 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000029 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Van Der Heide, 2016, On the conditional cueing of credibility heuristics: The case of online influence, Communication Research, 43, 672, 10.1177/0093650214565915 · DOI
  53. Villanti, 2021, Identifying message content to reduce vaping: Results from online message testing trials in young adult tobacco users, Addictive Behaviors, 115, 106778, 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106778 · DOI
  54. von Eschenbach, 2021, Transparency and the black box problem: Why we do not trust AI, Philosophy & Technology, 34, 1607, 10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Wang, 2021, Characteristics of e-cigarette use behaviors among US youth, 2020, JAMA Network Open, 4, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11336 · DOI
  56. Wang, 2023, Moralization of e-cigarette use and regulation: A mixed-method computational analysis of opinion polarization, Health Communication, 38, 1666, 10.1080/10410236.2022.2027640 · DOI
  57. Wilson, 1993, Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101, 10.1007/BF02894421 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Winter, 2012, Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80, 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x · DOI
  59. Zhou, 2023, An artificially intelligent, natural language processing chatbot designed to promote COVID-19 vaccination: A proof-of-concept pilot study, Digital Health, 9, 10.1177/20552076231155679 · DOI

Cited by

See all 81

Metadata

Authors
Lim, S., & Schmälzle, R.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
100058
ISSN
2949-8821
DOI
10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058
Cited by
81
References
20
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Michigan State University College of Communication Arts and Sciences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058
The paper
Lim, S., & Schmälzle, R. (2024). The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.