Abstract Without explicit cues that specify the AI-authorship, how would individuals evaluate AI-generated news? This study examines this question by focusing on user-level characteristics, encompassing cognitive dispositions, attitudinal orientations, and evaluative competencies. Our survey experiment randomly assigned participants to read a news article—for which the AI authorship was not disclosed—on one of three topics (banking, politics, and entertainment). Results highlight the double-edged roles of people’s actively open-minded thinking, media literacy, and fake news awareness: on one hand, these factors are associated with a more in-depth processing of AI-generated news, suggesting their positive impact on promoting a critical evaluation of AI-generated news; on the other hand, however, these cognitive factors are positively associated with AI-news’s perceived quality or credibility, indicating that readers with these cognitive capacities may simultaneously overestimate the trustworthiness of AI-generated news. These findings call for the media literacy education to go beyond teaching readers to spot misinformation or look for AI disclaimers; instead, it’s urgent to help people establish clear expectations for what human-generated journalism looks like.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mingxiao Sui
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mingxiao Sui (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69df2b04e4eeef8a2a6b00bc — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44382-026-00023-6
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: