Synthetic News, Natural Doubts? A Meta-Analysis of Credibility Perceptions of AI-Generated News

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into news production, concerns about the credibility of synthetic news content are intensifying. While some studies report that audiences find AI-generated news less credible than human-written content, others reveal mixed or even reversed findings. This meta-analysis synthesizes findings across 31 studies (41 effect sizes) to assess how the source label (AI vs. human) influences news users' evaluations of source credibility and message credibility. Results show a small but statistically significant penalty for AI-labeled (vs. human-labeled) news on both credibility measures. To better understand variability across studies, we put forth three moderators: (1) the value-ladenness of the topic, (2) participants' source orientation, and (3) actual authorship of the text. Although the first two moderators showed descriptive trends consistent with expectations, only the third reached statistical significance, with effects being more pronounced when the news articles were actually written by human only (vs. AI). These findings contribute to ongoing debates about the role of automation in journalism by clarifying when and why audiences mind the source.