Cited by 32Misinformation and Its ImpactsNews Media Framing and Political CommunicationJournalism and Media Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The nudging effect of AIGC labeling on users’ perceptions of automated news: evidence from EEG

Open access
Liu, Yuhan, Wang, Shuining, Yu, Guoming·2023·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Introduction: In the context of generative AI intervention in news production, this study primarily focuses on the impact of AI-generated content (AIGC) labeling cues on users’ perceptions of automated news based on nudge theory. Methods: A 2 (authorship disclosure nudge cues: with vs. without AIGC label) × 2 (automated news type: descriptive vs. evaluative news) within-subject experiment was carried out. Thirty-two participants were recruited to read automated news, evaluate the perceived content trustworthiness, and record with an EEG device. Results: The results demonstrated that disclosure of AIGC labeling significantly reduced the trustworthiness perception of both fact-based descriptive and opinion-based evaluative news. In EEG, the delta PSD, theta PSD, alpha PSD, and beta PSD with disclosure of AIGC labeling were significantly higher than those without AIGC labeling. Meanwhile, in descriptive news conditions, TAR with AIGC labeling was higher than without AIGC labeling. Discussion: These results suggested that AIGC labeling significantly improves the degree of attention concentration in reading and deepens the degree of cognitive processing. Users are nudged by AIGC labeling to shift their limited attention and cognitive resources to re-evaluate the information quality to obtain more prudent judgment results. This helps to supplement the theoretical perspective on transparent disclosure nudging in the Internet content governance research field, and it can offer practical guidance to use content labeling to regulate the media industry landscape in the face of AI’s pervasive presence.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1277829

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Screenshots of four experimental conditions. (A) Descriptive news with AIGC labeling (condition LD). (B) Descriptive news without AIGC labeling (condition ND). (C) Evaluative news with AIGC labeling (condition LE). (D) Evaluative news without AIGC labeling (condition NE).
Figure 1 Screenshots of four experimental conditions. (A) Descriptive news with AIGC labeling (condition LD). (B) Descriptive news without AIGC labeling (condition ND). (C) Evaluative news with AIGC labeling (condition LE). (D) Evaluative news without AIGC labeling (condition NE).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Experimental procedure.
Figure 2 Experimental procedure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Scalp topographic maps of power spectral density in each frequency band of four experimental conditions (μV2/Hz). ND, descriptive news without AIGC labeling; NE, evaluative news without AIGC labeling; LD, descriptive news with AIGC labeling; LE, evaluative news with AIGC labeling.
Figure 3 Scalp topographic maps of power spectral density in each frequency band of four experimental conditions (μV2/Hz). ND, descriptive news without AIGC labeling; NE, evaluative news without AIGC labeling; LD, descriptive news with AIGC labeling; LE, evaluative news with AIGC labeling.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Power spectral density of each frequency band (0–30 Hz) (μV2/Hz). ND, descriptive news without AIGC labeling; NE, evaluative news without AIGC labeling; LD, descriptive news with AIGC labeling; LE, evaluative news with AIGC labeling.
Figure 4 Power spectral density of each frequency band (0–30 Hz) (μV2/Hz). ND, descriptive news without AIGC labeling; NE, evaluative news without AIGC labeling; LD, descriptive news with AIGC labeling; LE, evaluative news with AIGC labeling.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Borghini, 2014, Measuring neurophysiological signals in aircraft pilots and car drivers for the assessment of mental workload, fatigue and drowsiness, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 44, 58, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.003 · DOI
  2. Carlson, 2017, Automating judgment? Algorithmic judgment, news knowledge, and journalistic professionalism, New Media Soc., 20, 1755, 10.1177/1461444817706684 · DOI
  3. Castelo, 2019, Task-dependent algorithm aversion, J. Mark. Res., 56, 809, 10.1177/0022243719851788 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Chadha, 2014, Newsrooms and transparency in the digital age, Journal. Pract., 9, 215, 10.1080/17512786.2014.924737 · DOI
  5. Chaiken, 1980, Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 39, 752, 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Chen, 2023, Generative artificial intelligence and journalism: practical empowerment, conceptual challenge, and role reshaping, Press Circles, 6, 4, 10.15897/j.cnki.cn51-1046/g2.20230614.001 · DOI
  7. Choi, 2019, Determinant and consequence of online news authorship verification: blind news consumption creates press credibility, Int. J. Commun., 13, 75
  8. Clark, 2018, How advertisers can keep mobile users engaged and reduce video-ad blocking, J. Advert. Res., 58, 311, 10.2501/JAR-2018-036 · DOI
  9. Coan, 2004, Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion, Biol. Psychol., 67, 7, 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Curry, 2019, The effects of journalistic transparency on credibility assessments and engagement intentions, Journalism, 22, 901, 10.1177/1464884919850387 · DOI
  11. Das, 2013, Is there an author behind this text? A literary aesthetic driven approach to interactive media, New Media Soc., 16, 381, 10.1177/1461444813481296 · DOI
  12. Davies, 2011, An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights – artificial intelligence and intellectual property, Comput. Law Secur. Rev., 27, 601, 10.1016/j.clsr.2011.09.006 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Deuze, 2003, The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online, New Media Soc., 5, 203, 10.1177/1461444803005002004 · DOI
  14. Edwards, 2023, Why ChatGPT and Bing chat are so good at making things up
  15. Fernández, 1995, EEG activation patterns during the performance of tasks involving different components of mental calculation, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 94, 175, 10.1016/0013-4694(94)00262-J · DOI
  16. Flanagin, 2000, Perceptions of internet information credibility, Journal. Mass Communicat. Quart., 77, 515, 10.1177/107769900007700304 · DOI
  17. Graefe, 2016, Readers’ perception of computer-generated news: credibility, expertise, and readability, Journalism, 19, 595, 10.1177/1464884916641269 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Gruzelier, 2014, EEG-neurofeedback for optimising performance. I: a review of cognitive and affective outcome in healthy participants, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 44, 124, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.09.015 · DOI
  19. Han, 2020, The impact of media situation on people’s memory effect – an ERP study, Comput. Hum. Behav., 104, 106180, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106180 · DOI
  20. Hertwig, 2017, Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 12, 973, 10.1177/1745691617702496 · DOI
  21. Kahneman, 1972, Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness, Cogn. Psychol., 3, 430, 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 · DOI
  22. Krouwer, 2019, Moving towards transparency for native advertisements on news websites: a test of more detailed disclosures, Int. J. Advert., 39, 51, 10.1080/02650487.2019.1575107 · DOI
  23. Lal, 2001, Electroencephalography activity associated with driver fatigue: implications for a fatigue countermeasure device, J. Psychophysiol., 15, 183, 10.1027//0269-8803.15.3.183 · DOI
  24. Lee, 2015, The rise of online news aggregators: consumption and competition, Int. J. Media Manag., 17, 3, 10.1080/14241277.2014.997383 · DOI
  25. Liu, 2018, Machine authorship in situ, Digit. J., 7, 635, 10.1080/21670811.2018.1510740 · DOI
  26. Montal, 2016, I, robot. You, journalist. Who is the author?, Digit. J., 5, 829, 10.1080/21670811.2016.1209083 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Morrow, 2022, The emerging science of content labeling: contextualizing social media content moderation, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 73, 1365, 10.1002/asi.24637 · DOI
  28. Newman, 2017, Bias, bullshit and lies audience perspectives on low trust in the media, digital news project
  29. 2023, ChatGPT-4 produces more misinformation than predecessor - misinformation monitor: March 2023
  30. Otis, 2022, The effects of transparency cues on news source credibility online: an investigation of ‘opinion labels’, Journalism, 146488492211290, 10.1177/14648849221129001 · DOI
  31. Pennycook, 2022, Nudging social media toward accuracy, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci., 700, 152, 10.1177/00027162221092342 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Reich, 2014, Textual DNA, Journal. Pract., 8, 619, 10.1080/17512786.2014.883119 · DOI
  33. Rupar, 2006, How did you find that out? Transparency of the newsgathering process and the meaning of news, Journal. Stud., 7, 127, 10.1080/14616700500450426 · DOI
  34. Schulhofer-Wohl, 2012, Do newspapers matter? Short-run and long-run evidence from the closure of the cincinnati post, J. media Econ., 26, 60, 10.21034/sr.474 · DOI
  35. Shokri, 2021, Comparison of biofeedback and combined interventions on athlete’s performance, Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback, 46, 227, 10.1007/s10484-020-09498-5 · DOI
  36. Simon, 1955, A behavioral model of rational choice, Q. J. Econ., 69, 99, 10.2307/1884852 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Sundar, 2015, Toward a theory of interactive media effects (TIME) four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology, 47, 10.1002/9781118426456.ch3 · DOI
  38. Sunstein, 2021, The distributional effects of nudges, Nat. Hum. Behav., 6, 9, 10.1038/s41562-021-01236-z · DOI
  39. Tandoc, 2020, Man vs. machine? The impact of algorithm authorship on news credibility, Digit. Journal., 8, 548, 10.1080/21670811.2020.1762102 · DOI
  40. 2023, The new platform specification of Tiktok requires the identification of AIGC content, and industry compliance supervision begins to land
  41. Thaler, 2008, Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
  42. 2022, ChatGPT broke one million users in five days, but was suddenly banned by stack overflow
  43. Weinreich, 2008, Not quite the average, ACM Trans. Web, 2, 1, 10.1145/1326561.1326566 · DOI
  44. Wölker, 2018, Algorithms in the newsroom? News readers’ perceived credibility and selection of automated journalism, Journalism, 22, 86, 10.1177/1464884918757072 · DOI
  45. Xiu, 2023, The impact of conversational interaction on users’ cognitive absorption in mobile news reading context: evidence from EEG, Behav. Inform. Technol., 1, 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2163919 · DOI
  46. Yu, 2018, Cognitive neurocommunication: paradigm innovation and research framework, J. Zhejiang Institute Med. Communicat., 1, 13 + 9-140, 10.13628/j.cnki.zjcmxb.2018.01.002 · DOI
  47. Yu, 2021, Measurement of the transmission effect of synthetic speech news: EEG evidence on the influence of speech speed, Chin. J. Journal. Communicat., 2, 6, 10.13495/j.cnki.cjjc.2021.02.001 · DOI
  48. Zhang, 2010, Frontal EEG lateralization: an indicator of emotional regulation, Adv. Psychol. Sci., 11, 1679

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 32

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Y., Wang, S., & Yu, G.
Affiliations
Beijing Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yu, Guoming
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2023-12-22
Volume
14
Pages
1277829-1277829
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390111229
Cited by
32
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 3
FWCI
13.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
nudge theory, authorship disclosure, perceived trustworthiness, attentional resources, cognitive processes, AI in news production, content governance

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