Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When AI moderates online content: effects of human collaboration and interactive transparency on user trust

Molina, Maria D, Sundar, S Shyam·2022·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
DOI 10.1093/jcmc/zmac010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Given the scale of user-generated content online, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to flag problematic posts is inevitable, but users do not trust such automated moderation of content. We explore if (a) involving human moderators in the curation process and (b) affording “interactive transparency,” wherein users participate in curation, can promote appropriate reliance on AI. We test this through a 3 (Source: AI, Human, Both) × 3 (Transparency: No Transparency, Transparency-Only, Interactive Transparency) × 2 (Classification Decision: Flagged, Not Flagged) between-subjects online experiment (N = 676) involving classification of hate speech and suicidal ideation. We discovered that users trust AI for the moderation of content just as much as humans, but it depends on the heuristic that is triggered when they are told AI is the source of moderation. We also found that allowing users to provide feedback to the algorithm enhances trust by increasing user agency.

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 · 10.1093/jcmc/zmac010

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Cortiz, 2021, Ethical and technical challenges of AI in tackling hate speech, The International Review of Information Ethics, 29, 10.29173/irie416 · DOI
  2. Gunning, 2019, DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence program, AI Magazine, 40, 44, 10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hayes, 2018, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach
  4. Kittur, 2019, Scaling up analogical innovation with crowds and AI, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 1870, 10.1073/pnas.1807185116 · DOI
  5. Lepri, 2018, Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes: The premise, the proposed solutions, and the open challenges, Philosophy & Technology, 31, 611, 10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Li, 2020, Dimensions of artificial intelligence anxiety based on the integrated fear acquisition theory, Technology in Society, 63, 1, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101410 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Meikle, 2016, Social media: Communication, sharing and visibility, 10.4324/9781315884172 · DOI
  8. Oh, 2015, How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes, Journal of Communication, 65, 213, 10.1111/jcom.12147 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Pirson, 2011, Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders?, Organization Science, 22, 1087, 10.1287/orsc.1100.0581 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Sherman, 1984, Handbook of social cognition, 189
  11. Soh, 2009, Measuring trust in advertising: Development and validation of the ADTRUST scale, Journal of Advertising, 38, 83, 10.2753/JOA0091-3367380206 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Sundar, 2008, Digital media, youth, and credibility, 72
  13. Sundar, 2015, The handbook of the psychology of communication technology, 47, 10.1002/9781118426456.ch3 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Sundar, 2010, Personalization versus customization: The importance of agency, privacy, and power usage, Human Communication Research, 36, 298, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Suzor, 2019, What do we mean when we talk about transparency? Toward meaningful transparency in commercial content moderation, International Journal of Communication, 13, 1526
  16. Wang, 2020, When expert recommendation contradicts peer opinion: Relative social influence of valence, group identity and artificial intelligence, Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 1, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106278 · DOI
  17. Wang, 2021, Moderating uncivil user comments by humans or machines? The effects of moderation agent on perceptions of bias and credibility in news content, Digital Journalism, 9, 64, 10.1080/21670811.2020.1851279 · DOI
  18. West, 2018, Censored, suspended, shadowbanned: User interpretations of content moderation on social media platforms, New Media & Society, 20, 4366, 10.1177/1461444818773059 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Zhang, 2019, The tendency of trust in a distrustful environment: The mediation role of contextual perceptions in eWOM, Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 13

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Molina, M. D., & Sundar, S. S.
Affiliations
  • College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University , USA
  • Bellisario College of Communications, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects, Donald P. , PA 16802-5101, USA
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2022-07-01
Volume
27
Issue
4
ISSN
1083-6101
DOI
10.1093/jcmc/zmac010
Cited by
170
References
10
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor, 21 d)

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: When AI moderates online content: effects of human collaboration and interactive transparency on user trust. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jcmc/zmac010
The paper
Molina, M. D., & Sundar, S. S. (2022). When AI moderates online content: effects of human collaboration and interactive transparency on user trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac010

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.