Disclosure without the Social Penalty: A Trust-Preserving Standard for AI Transparency

Calls for transparency in AI use are increasing. Yet experimental evidence has shown that people trust an actor less after an AI use disclosure, 1,2 which can trigger legitimacy concerns such that the behavior is perceived as atypical and the discloser is seen as insufficiently committed and inauthentic. This AI disclosure penalty can create a policy trap in which blanket disclosure rules can unintentionally penalize conscientious actors and encourage concealment. This article aims to translate recent evidence on the AI disclosure trust penalty into recommendations for a disclosure standard that preserves transparency without undermining the perceived legitimacy of AI-assisted work. The coauthors offer four recommendations: (a) normalizing approved AI use before establishing mandates, (b) tiering disclosure obligations according to the stakes, (c) pairing disclosure with an ownership and accountability statement, and (d) backing mandates with enforcement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavioral Science & Policy
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/23794607261483325
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Disclosure without the Social Penalty: A Trust-Preserving Standard for AI Transparency

Oliver S. Schilke, Martin Reimann
3 links
Behavioral Science & Policy
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Disclosure without the Social Penalty: A Trust-Preserving Standard for AI Transparency

Oliver S. Schilke, Martin Reimann
article en

Abstract

Calls for transparency in AI use are increasing. Yet experimental evidence has shown that people trust an actor less after an AI use disclosure, 1,2 which can trigger legitimacy concerns such that the behavior is perceived as atypical and the discloser is seen as insufficiently committed and inauthentic. This AI disclosure penalty can create a policy trap in which blanket disclosure rules can unintentionally penalize conscientious actors and encourage concealment. This article aims to translate recent evidence on the AI disclosure trust penalty into recommendations for a disclosure standard that preserves transparency without undermining the perceived legitimacy of AI-assisted work. The coauthors offer four recommendations: (a) normalizing approved AI use before establishing mandates, (b) tiering disclosure obligations according to the stakes, (c) pairing disclosure with an ownership and accountability statement, and (d) backing mandates with enforcement.

Behavioral Science & Policy
University of Arizona (US)
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
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.

Laika access coming soon