Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Public Relations and Crisis CommunicationCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

AI Disclosure in Strategic CSR Communication: Examining the Impact of Narratives, Source Labels, Message Transparency, and Organizational Perceptions on Behavioral Intentions

Buckley, C., Norman, M., Troy, C., Yang, Y., Bao, J., Overton, H.K., Jung, Y.·2025·International Journal of Strategic Communication
DOI 10.1080/1553118x.2025.2514276
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite identified advantages, AI poses challenges for strategic communication practitioners when considering effective and ethical disclosure of such technologies. This study explores the labeling of AI within narrative messages about corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, building on source credibility theory (SCT) and theories of narrative communication. A 2 (message type: narrative vs. expository) × 4 (source label: human, AI-assisted human, AI, no source) between-subjects online experiment (N = 277) investigates how various AI and human source labels used in narrative or expository messaging impacted stakeholder perceptions and behavioral intentions. Results indicate that AI source labels elicited lower perceived message transparency (accuracy and disclosure) and organizational transparency in comparison to human source labels but did not otherwise impact stakeholder perceptions or behavioral intentions. Moreover, exposure to narrative (vs. expository) messaging generated higher perceptions of message transparency (accuracy and clarity) and organizational transparency. Theoretically, these findings contribute to applications of narrative communication and SCT in strategic communication contexts and provide a novel examination of AI disclosure in CSR communication. Practically, these findings provide guidance for practitioners to navigate stakeholders’ responses, or lack thereof, to disclosing AI use in strategic storytelling.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1553118x.2025.2514276

Cites

73 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Parrish A. J. (2015). Investigating the effects and persuasive mechanisms of expository and narrative HPV vaccine messages [Doctoral dissertation. University of Kentucky. UKnowledge. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/comm_etds/44/

Cited by

See all 12

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Buckley, C., Norman, M., Troy, C., Yang, Y., Bao, J., Overton, H. K., & Jung, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Buckley, C.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Strategic Communication
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2025-07-06
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
696-719
ISSN
  • 1553-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-1198
DOI
10.1080/1553118x.2025.2514276
OpenAlex
W4412097654
Cited by
12
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 11
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Strategic Communication (publishedVersion)
Funders
Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
AI disclosure, CSR communication, organizational transparency, narrative communication, source credibility theory, behavioral intention, stakeholder perspectives, strategic storytelling

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

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.