Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction Artificial intelligence increasingly writes the news, and Chinese regulation has required explicit labels on AI-generated content since September 2025, yet what such labels do to readers’ trust remains an open question. This experiment tested whether an AI-generated news label changes perceived credibility, whether perceived human involvement explains the change, and whether readers’ AI literacy conditions it. Methods A sample of 1,024 Chinese adults (51.7% female; mean age 30.8 years) recruited through an online panel was randomly assigned to read one of two news stories that either carried a prominent AI-generated label or carried no authorship label, in a 2 (label: AI-generated vs. no label) × 2 (news topic: health technology vs. urban culture) between-subjects design with 256 per cell. Participants rated perceived human involvement, message credibility, and their own AI literacy. Results The label lowered perceived credibility (β = −0.31, p < 0.001) and perceived human involvement ( F (1, 1,020) = 218.60, p < 0.001). Involvement mediated the label effect on credibility: the indirect effect was β = −0.19, 95% CI [−0.23, −0.16], about three fifths of the total effect. AI literacy moderated the label-to-involvement path (β = 0.10, p < 0.001): the label penalty was β = −0.52 at low literacy and β = −0.32 at high literacy, and the index of moderated mediation was β = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.08]. Discussion The credibility cost of AI news labels travels through perceived human involvement and concentrates among readers with little AI literacy. Labeling regimes can keep AI-generated news transparent without flatlining trust, but they work best alongside AI literacy education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
海韵 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: