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-2026-2750
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:18:41.076746Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: business
headline: Not all AI is created equal: A meta-analysis revealing drivers of AI resistance across markets, methods, and time
dek: While artificial intelligence (AI) is used by billions of consumers daily through tools like ChatGPT, prior research often documents that consumers are resistant to it. The current research proposes that such resistance is strongly context-dependent, rapidly evolving, and often an artifact of how researchers study it. We provide a comprehensive synthesis of consumer responses to AI by analyzing 440 effect sizes from 76,142 unique participants across two decades of experimental research. Our meta-analysis reveals…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: A meta-analysis of 440 effect sizes from 76,142 participants found consumers responded more negatively to AI than to humans doing the same task (Cohen's d = -0.21), and far more negatively to robots (d = -0.83).
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: A meta-analysis of 440 effect sizes from 76,142 participants found consumers responded more negatively to AI than to humans doing the same task (Cohen's d = -0.21), and far more negatively to robots (d = -0.83).
problem_evidence: analyzing 440 effect sizes from 76,142 unique participants | with the most negative responses to embodied forms of AI (e.g., robots)
quick_read: Researchers at the University of St.Gallen, ESADE and Baruch College pooled two decades of experiments that compared people's reactions to AI with their reactions to humans performing identical tasks. Across 440 effect sizes from 76,142 participants, reactions to AI were on average slightly negative (Cohen's d = -0.21), and 289 effects were negative against 146 positive.

How AI was described mattered. Robots drew the strongest negative reaction (d = -0.83), while algorithms (-0.24), assistants (-0.22) and general AI systems (-0.17) clustered together. Transportation (-0.80), legal and public-safety uses (-0.45) and social welfare (-0.40) provoked more resistance than operations and management (-0.12).

The authors report that aversion has faded over time, particularly for judgements of competence and performance, and is approaching zero in the most recent years. The studies vary widely, with a 95 percent prediction interval from -1.20 to 0.78, so future experiments could show aversion, no effect or a preference for AI.
limitation: The studies differ widely (I2 = 96.15%, effects from -2.43 to 1.66), so the single pooled effect of d = -0.21 describes an average rather than what any one AI product or setting will produce.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The meta-analysis covered 72 publications and 172 studies published between 2002 and 2023, and pooled 440 effect sizes from 76,142 participants using a three-level random-effects model. | Of the effects, 289 were negative, 146 positive and 5 null, so 66 percent of studies showed aversion; the pooled effect was small (d = -0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.14). | Robots (13 effects) triggered d = -0.83, significantly worse than algorithms, AI systems or AI assistants, which did not differ significantly from one another. | By outcome type, affective responses such as trust and fairness were most negative (d = -0.31), then behavioral responses such as choice and advice acceptance (-0.22), then cognitive judgements of competence (-0.11). | Extensive AI autonomy produced aversion (d = -0.28), while limited autonomy produced none (d = -0.05); AI described as inferior to humans drew d = -0.53, while superior AI showed no significant aversion. | Studies from 2020 to 2025 (300 effects) averaged d = -0.12, versus -0.47 for 2010 to 2014 and -0.42 for 2015 to 2019; the time trend was positive (0.09). | When the human comparison was a layperson, there was no aversion (d = 0.01); against a human expert it was d = -0.27.
rundown: The team searched PsycInfo, Business Source Complete and Web of Science up to January 10, 2024, and also scanned reference lists and expert tips. Of 1,096 initial records, an AI-based screener removed non-experimental work, and the first author handled duplicates and full-text screening. Eligible studies compared differently labeled AI with humans doing identical tasks, and participants had to know whether they were evaluating an AI or a human.

Domain results ranged widely. Transportation (7 effects) averaged d = -0.80 and legal and public safety (28 effects) -0.45, while healthcare (55 effects) was -0.19, entertainment and lifestyle (81) -0.18 and investing and finance (60) -0.26. Operations and management (167 effects) was the mildest at -0.12 and was not statistically significant on its own.

Most studies used text-only descriptions (397 of 440 effects) and online samples (256), and only 21 effects came from field settings. Age and gender did not significantly predict aversion, and the geographic split (America -0.24, Europe -0.16, Asia -0.27) was not significant.

Publication-bias checks gave mixed signals: Egger's test and rank correlation found no asymmetry, while trim-and-fill and selection models suggested the true aversion could be larger, with bias-adjusted estimates between -0.13 and -0.54. The authors judged the risk of systematic publication bias to be low.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | International Journal of Research in Marketing | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2025.02.005 | 2025-02-13
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

a13cb573486f0ce3fe31ca0d67371f929266c6d99775c1042cdd11d5c7b8e0b9

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000