TRV-2026-2667Version 1 · Published

Saved · see the current record

Why this version exists

Certified into the record

The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2667
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T16:58:11.018273Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: business
headline: When Old Is Not Gold: The Interactive Effect of Brand Age and AI Disclosure on Ad-Clicking Interest
dek: Artificial intelligence (AI) disclosure in advertising is increasingly common, yet prior research reports mixed findings, with evidence of both favorable and unfavorable consumer responses. Drawing on schema congruity theory, this research proposes that brand age represents an important but overlooked boundary condition of consumer responses to AI disclosure. Three experiments demonstrate that AI disclosure reduces consumers’ interest in clicking advertisements for old brands, whereas this negative effect does n…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: In three experiments, disclosing that advertising involved AI reduced consumers' interest in clicking ads for old brands, while ads for young brands showed no such drop.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: In three experiments, disclosing that advertising involved AI reduced consumers' interest in clicking ads for old brands, while ads for young brands showed no such drop.
problem_evidence: AI disclosure reduces consumers’ interest in clicking advertisements for old brands
quick_read: Researchers ran three experiments on how consumers react when advertising discloses the use of AI. Interest in clicking ads dropped when AI use was disclosed for old brands, but not for young brands.

The authors trace the drop to a mismatch between consumers' expectations of an established brand and the idea of AI-made marketing. That mismatch weakened perceived brand authenticity, which lowered perceived product quality and, in turn, ad-clicking interest.

The work addresses earlier research that found mixed reactions to AI disclosure, some favourable and some unfavourable, by pointing to brand age as the condition that separates them.
limitation: The negative effect of AI disclosure was found only for old brands and did not emerge for young brands, so the result does not apply to advertising in general.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: Three experiments tested how AI disclosure in advertising affects consumers' interest in clicking ads. | AI disclosure lowered ad-clicking interest for old brands. | The negative effect did not appear for young brands. | AI disclosure created greater schema incongruity for old brands, according to the authors' analyses. | The reported chain runs from incongruity to lower perceived brand authenticity, then lower perceived product quality, then lower ad-clicking interest.
rundown: The study draws on schema congruity theory, which holds that people respond to information depending on how well it fits what they already expect. The authors argue that brand age is an overlooked boundary condition explaining why earlier studies of AI disclosure in advertising found both favourable and unfavourable consumer responses.

Further analyses in the experiments indicate the effect works through perception. For old brands, AI disclosure created more schema incongruity, which undermined perceived brand authenticity and lowered perceived product quality, ending in reduced interest in clicking the ad. For young brands, no such negative effect emerged.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Journal of Interactive Advertising | https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2026.2707403 | 2026-08-11
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
SHA-256 hash
2a30dacb26d4d01bb403b1a08008ada10a91408fbc5c3add24d27d23928713e4
Previous version’s hash
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2667 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.