•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This study examines how people evaluate factual claims attributed to human journalists versus artificial intelligence (AI) news bots, and how these evaluations are shaped by individual endorsement of the machine heuristic. An online experiment (N = 233) used a 2 (Agent: human vs. AI) × 2 (Information Veracity: accurate vs. inaccurate) design in which participants viewed a short tweet embedded in either a human or AI profile and then rated perceptions of source credibility, objectivity, bias, and accuracy. Endorsement of an AI-focused machine heuristic was significantly associated with higher source credibility, perceived objectivity, and perceived accuracy, and lower perceived bias, whereas agent type showed no significant effects in the full sample. In post hoc analyses, the difference by agent emerged only among participants high in the machine heuristic. These findings suggest boundary conditions of the machine heuristic: while it shapes perceptions, its operation appears increasingly agnostic to human versus AI source cues. We call this the evanishing effect, wherein source cues (human vs. AI) are recognized but do not systematically alter evaluations, so neither human nor machine agents are consistently preferred.

DOI

10.30658/hmc.12.7

Author ORCID Identifier

Bumju Jung: 0009-0004-2779-950XORCID logo

Cameron W. Piercy: 0000-0003-1431-3086ORCID logo

Patric R. Spence: 0000-0002-1793-6871ORCID logo

Download

Share

COinS
 

Accessibility Statement

This item was created or digitized prior to April 24, 2027, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the University Libraries provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.