TRV-2026-2735Version 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-2026-2735
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:16:37.696950Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: science
headline: Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis
dek: Abstract The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has enabled AI agents to take on various roles as communicators, such as virtual assistants, robot journalists, and AI doctors. This study meta-analyzed 121 randomized experimental studies (N = 53,977) that compared the effects of AI and human agency on persuasion outcomes, including perceptions, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. The results showed that AI agents were as persuasive as humans in terms of overall persuasion outcomes. With…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: A meta-analysis of 121 randomized experiments (N = 53,977) found AI agents were less effective than humans at shaping people's behavioral intentions.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: A meta-analysis of 121 randomized experiments (N = 53,977) found AI agents were less effective than humans at shaping people's behavioral intentions.
problem_evidence: AI was less effective than humans at shaping behavioral intentions
quick_read: A meta-analysis in the Journal of Communication pooled 121 randomized experiments with 53,977 participants that compared AI and human communicators on persuasion outcomes. Overall, AI agents were as persuasive as humans.

Results varied by outcome type. AI was less effective than humans at shaping behavioral intentions, but did not differ significantly from humans in changing perceptions, attitudes or actual behaviors.

The authors also found uneven patterns across AI communicator roles, directions of communication, experimental settings and demographic groups, so the overall parity does not hold in every context.
limitation: The authors report heterogeneous patterns across AI roles, communication directions, experimental settings and demographic segments, so the pooled results do not apply uniformly.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The analysis combined 121 randomized experimental studies with 53,977 participants in total. | Studies compared AI and human agency on perceptions, attitudes, intentions and behaviors. | Overall persuasion outcomes did not differ between AI agents and humans. | AI was less effective than humans at shaping behavioral intentions. | No significant AI-human difference appeared for perceptions, attitudes or actual behaviors. | Effects differed by AI communicator role, direction of communication, experimental setting and demographic segment.
rundown: The study examined AI agents acting as communicators, including virtual assistants, robot journalists and AI doctors, and asked whether they persuade as well as humans do. It pooled randomized experiments that directly compared AI with human agency.

The pooled result was parity on overall persuasion. Breaking results down by outcome, only behavioral intentions showed a gap, with AI performing worse, while perceptions, attitudes and actual behaviors showed no significant difference.

The authors report heterogeneous patterns by AI role, direction of communication, experimental setting and demographic segment, and discuss implications for human-machine communication and persuasion.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Journal of Communication | https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024 | 2023-07-30
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
SHA-256 hash
e3195bee81748d90829c33c14cfcf00b12afeb339094cc14e8e0d08d3a373c41
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-2026-2735 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.