AI labels made one video seem less authentic—but did not change trust
In a randomized online experiment with 617 young adults, an AI disclosure label slightly reduced perceived authenticity. It did not directly change trust, sharing, adoption intention or perceived risk.
The short version
- What happened
- Researchers randomized 617 adults aged 18–25 to one of four versions of the same AI-generated Pomodoro-method video: higher or lower quality, with or without an AI label.
- Who it affects
- Viewers may notice that content is synthetic without automatically trusting or rejecting it; informative context may matter more than a bare label.
- What remains unproven
- All participants were aged 18–25, and the study used one AI-generated video about the Pomodoro study method.
Keep in mind
All participants were aged 18–25, and the study used one AI-generated video about the Pomodoro study method.
Trust, risk and intentions were immediate self-reports; actual sharing, adoption and later recall were not measured.
Eight participants were excluded after randomisation because they did not recognise the assigned manipulation.
The authenticity effect was small, and non-significant direct effects do not establish that labels never affect trust or behaviour.
The methods and limitations sections describe stimulus validation differently, which warrants clarification.
Source analysis · 1 linked source. Primary analysed source date: 20 October 2026.
Read the full report · 3 min The evidence, methods, implications and limitations
A label changed authenticity, not behaviour
A disclosure label made one AI-generated instructional video feel slightly less authentic, but it did not directly alter trust or intended behaviour. Researchers recruited 640 people through an online platform and retained 617 adults aged 18–25 after prespecified quality checks. Participants were randomly allocated to four versions of a Pomodoro-method video crossing higher or lower visual quality with the presence or absence of an AI label.
The label's estimated effect on perceived authenticity was statistically significant but small: B −0.214, 95% confidence interval −0.406 to −0.022, with partial eta-squared 0.008. Direct effects on trust, adoption intention, sharing intention and perceived risk were not statistically significant. Video quality and the quality-by-label interaction were also non-significant for those main outcomes.[1]
Transparency is not a trust switch
The study's wider model linked authenticity, information-processing style, perceived risk and trust, but those variables were measured together immediately after viewing. That supports association, not a proven psychological sequence. Eight responses were also excluded for failing to identify the assigned manipulation after randomisation, which can affect the protection random allocation provides.
Generalisability is narrow: one neutral study-skills video, one short exposure and young-adult self-reports rather than observed sharing. The paper describes a 60-person stimulus pretest, while its limitations section says no separate independent validation study was conducted; that wording needs clarification. Platform labels should therefore be tested by content type, wording, placement and real behaviour rather than assumed to increase trust automatically.[1]
The distinction that matters
What changed after the AI label?
The randomized comparison found one direct effect and several non-effects.
Authenticity
AI label versus no label
Small reduction; p=0.029
Trust
AI label versus no label
No significant direct effect
Intentions
Adopt or share
No significant direct effect