The Impact of AI‐Generated Content on Decision Making for Topics Requiring Expertise
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 23039823 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Shangqian Li (0009-0004-5530-3911, Queensland University of Technology, corresponding author), Tianwa Chen (0000-0002-5135-0313, Queensland University of Technology), Gianluca Demartini (0000-0002-7311-3693, Queensland University of Technology) |
| Editors | Reza Rostamzadeh (0000-0002-6161-7173) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 2026 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2578-1863 • E-ISSN: 2578-1863 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1155/hbe2/3410621 |
| OpenAlex | W7134268925 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 50 |
Modelling users′ online decision making and opinion change is a complex issue that needs to consider users′ personal determinants, the nature of the topic and the information retrieval activities. Furthermore, generative AI‐based products like ChatGPT gradually become an essential element for the retrieval of online information. However, the interaction between domain‐specific knowledge and AI‐generated content during online decision making is unclear. We conducted a lab‐based explanatory sequential study with university students to overcome this research gap. In the experiment, we surveyed participants about a set of general domain topics that are easy to grasp and another set of domain‐specific topics that require adequate levels of chemical science knowledge to fully comprehend. We provided participants with decision‐supporting information that was either produced using generative AI or collected from selected expert human‐written sources to explore the role of AI‐generated content compared with ordinary information during decision making. Our results revealed that participants are less likely to change opinions on domain‐specific topics. Since participants without professional knowledge had difficulty performing in‐depth and independent reasoning based on the information, they favoured relying on conclusions presented in the provided materials and tended to stick to their initial opinion. Besides, information that is labelled as AI‐generated is equivalently helpful as information labelled as dedicatedly human‐written for participants in this experiment, indicating the vast potential as well as concerns for AI replacing human experts to help users tackle professional topics or issues.
Content (measure theory) · Domain (mathematical analysis) · Domain knowledge · Element (criminal law) · Generative grammar · Generative model · GRASP · Set (abstract data type) · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Machine Learning in Materials Science
Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI
The Technology Acceptance Model
The Dunning–Kruger Effect
Technology acceptance model
A Personal Resource for Technology Interaction
Trust and Sources of Health Information
Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs—Principles and Practices
A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models
Celebrity Endorsements and Promotions
Exploring University Students’ Adoption of ChatGPT Using the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Sentiment Analysis With Gender Dimension
The Role of Game Involvement on Attention to Ads
Spot the bot
Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election
Impacts of Authority and Unanimity on Social Conformity in Online Chats about Climate Change
Sex Differences in Conformity
The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots
Quantifying determinants of social conformity in an online debating website
Impact of contextual and personal determinants on online social conformity
Conformity Voting and the Value of Public Information
A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data
| Highly cited | No |
|---|