Prompt to Press: Evaluating Human Perception of AI Involvement in News Writing Across Prompt Specificity

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a common feature in content creation tools, prompting important questions about how design choices influence user trust and engagement in AI-assisted journalism. Beyond output quality, factors such as prompt specificity, model choice, and authorship disclosure are themselves interaction design parameters that influence how users interpret and evaluate AI contributions. Yet, little is known about how these design decisions affect reader perceptions in journalistic contexts. To address this gap, we conducted an experiment with 150 participants who evaluated news articles on the sensitive topic of assisted suicide. The articles systematically varied in authorship (human-written, AI-edited, or AI-generated), stance (pro- or anti-legalization), and prompt specificity (vague, moderate, or highly detailed). Participants rated each article on engagement, subjectivity, and perceived AI involvement, and also provided open-ended justifications for their authorship judgments. Our findings show that prompt specificity and model choice significantly influence perceptions of authorship, underscoring how technical design decisions in AI tools can shape public trust in journalism.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2026-03-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3742414.3795097
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Prompt to Press: Evaluating Human Perception of AI Involvement in News Writing Across Prompt Specificity

Julia Neidhardt, Thomas Elmar Kolb, Bruce Ferwerda, Marko Tkalčič et al.
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Prompt to Press: Evaluating Human Perception of AI Involvement in News Writing Across Prompt Specificity

Julia Neidhardt, Thomas Elmar Kolb, Bruce Ferwerda, Marko Tkalčič, Uroš Sergaš, Ahmadou Wagne
article en

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a common feature in content creation tools, prompting important questions about how design choices influence user trust and engagement in AI-assisted journalism. Beyond output quality, factors such as prompt specificity, model choice, and authorship disclosure are themselves interaction design parameters that influence how users interpret and evaluate AI contributions. Yet, little is known about how these design decisions affect reader perceptions in journalistic contexts. To address this gap, we conducted an experiment with 150 participants who evaluated news articles on the sensitive topic of assisted suicide. The articles systematically varied in authorship (human-written, AI-edited, or AI-generated), stance (pro- or anti-legalization), and prompt specificity (vague, moderate, or highly detailed). Participants rated each article on engagement, subjectivity, and perceived AI involvement, and also provided open-ended justifications for their authorship judgments. Our findings show that prompt specificity and model choice significantly influence perceptions of authorship, underscoring how technical design decisions in AI tools can shape public trust in journalism.

University of Primorska (SI), TU Wien (AT), Christian Doppler Laboratory for Thermoelectricity (AT), Jönköping University (SE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.