Full Disclosure, Less Trust? How the Level of Detail about AI Use in News Writing Affects Readers' Trust

Pooja Prajod; Hannes Cools; Thomas Röggla; Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj; Amber Kusters; Alia ElKattan; Pablo Cesar; Abdallah El Ali

arXiv · 2601.09620

Full Disclosure, Less Trust? How the Level of Detail about AI Use in News Writing Affects Readers' Trust

Pooja Prajod·Hannes Cools·Thomas Röggla·Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj·Amber Kusters·Alia ElKattan·Pablo Cesar·Abdallah El Ali

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into news production, calls for transparency about the use of AI have gained considerable traction. Recent studies suggest that AI disclosures can lead to a ``transparency dilemma'', where disclosure reduces readers' trust. However, little is known about how the \textit{level of detail} in AI disclosures influences trust and contributes to this dilemma within the news context. In this 3$\times$2$\times$2 mixed factorial study with 40 participants, we investigate how three levels of AI disclosures (none, one-line, detailed) across two types of news (politics and lifestyle) and two levels of AI involvement (low and high) affect news readers' trust. We measured trust using the News Media Trust questionnaire, along with two decision behaviors: source-checking and subscription decisions. Questionnaire responses and subscription rates showed a decline in trust only for detailed AI disclosures, whereas source-checking behavior increased for both one-line and detailed disclosures, with the effect being more pronounced for detailed disclosures. Insights from semi-structured interviews suggest that source-checking behavior was primarily driven by interest in the topic, followed by trust, whereas trust was the main factor influencing subscription decisions. Around two-thirds of participants expressed a preference for detailed disclosures, while most participants who preferred one-line indicated a need for detail-on-demand disclosure formats. Our findings show that not all AI disclosures lead to a transparency dilemma, but instead reflect a trade-off between readers' desire for more transparency and their trust in AI-assisted news content.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC cs.AI cs.CY

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Pooja Prajod, Hannes Cools, Thomas Röggla, Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj, Amber Kusters, Alia ElKattan, Pablo Cesar, Abdallah El Ali. 2026-01-14. Full Disclosure, Less Trust? How the Level of Detail about AI Use in News Writing Affects Readers' Trust. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09620

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC↗