Generative AI vs. Human Sources for Sexual Health Information: Credibility, Trust, and Behavioral Intentions in a U.S. College Sample

Limited access to comprehensive sexual health education has prompted a need to consider the utility of alternative strategies, such as generative artificial intelligence (genAI), for delivering accurate and accessible sexual health information. Although genAI tools can generate health information, less is known about how perceptions of the source of information shape evaluations of content (e.g., human vs. genAI). The present study examined whether college students' perceptions of sexual health information diffe…

By the Truvace deskOctober 20, 20262 min read1 sourcePeer-reviewedTRV-2026-2009· cite & verify

In brief

Researchers randomly assigned 266 students at one southeastern U.S. university in 2025 to read three identical sexual health passages. Each group was led to believe the author was generative AI, an academic expert, a community health professional, or a peer or social media influencer.

The result suggests that how credible people think a source is can matter as much as the content itself when health information is delivered. It is unclear how far this applies beyond a single-campus student sample, but the authors suggest AI tools may work best when paired with human guidance.

Main points

The sample was 266 students from a single university in the southeastern USA, recruited in 2025.
Passages covered sexual communication, body image, and sexual pleasure and safety, and were identical across conditions.
AI-attributed text scored lower on accuracy, clarity, warmth, helpfulness, trustworthiness, self-efficacy and willingness to act.
Source effects on willingness to act were strongest for sexual pleasure/safety and weakest for sexual communication.
Results held after controlling for familiarity with and use of genAI and attitudes toward it.

The problem

Students who believed generative AI wrote the sexual health passages judged identical content as less accurate, trustworthy and actionable than content attributed to human sources, which may limit AI's value for sexual health education.

The rundown

The study was motivated by limited access to comprehensive sexual health education, which has led to interest in generative AI as an accessible way to deliver accurate information. Less was known about whether the perceived source changes how people evaluate that information.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four source-attribution conditions: generative AI, an academic expert, a community health professional, or a peer or social media influencer. The text was the same in every condition, so differences reflect the attribution rather than the content.

The authors conclude that evaluations depend on perceived source legitimacy as well as informational content. They suggest AI-based tools may be most effective when combined with human guidance to support trust and actionability.