Abstract

This study captured the perspectives of 887 working adults to explore views of professionalism, authenticity, and effectiveness of AI-generated messages. With a 3 (message type) × 2 (disclosed vs. undisclosed) × 2 (ChatGPT-generated vs. Google-generated AI messages) design, professionals generally view AI-generated content favorably in all conditions. Across all messages, professionals consistently rated the AI-generated messages as professional, effective, efficient, confident, and direct. They rate sincerity and caring slightly lower in some disclosed conditions, particularly for ChatGPT-generated messages, suggesting the importance of tool selection when using generative AI for workplace writing. Those professionals who use AI more frequently for work are more likely to view AI-assisted writing as authentic, effective, and confidence-building. Implications for teaching business communication, including the need to address AI literacy, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Journal
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Published
2024-03-11
DOI
10.1177/23294906241233224
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (9)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  5. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Show all 9 →
  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Show all 6 →
  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/23294884221126489
  2. 10.1080/08824090409359963
  3. 10.5465/amr.2008.31193163
  4. 10.1177/23294884211025735
  5. 10.31235/osf.io/b3ezy
  6. 10.1177/23294884211037009
  7. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107628
  8. Dell’Acqua F., McFowland E.III, Mollick E., Lifshitz-Assaf H., Kellogg K. C., Rajendran S., Krayer L., Candel…
  9. 10.1145/3544548.3581351
  10. Fu Y., Foell S., Xu X., Hiniker A. (2023). From text to self: Users’ perceptions of potential of AI on interp…
  11. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107592
  12. 10.1093/jcmc/zmz022
  13. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106190
  14. 10.1038/s41598-023-30938-9
  15. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925
  16. 10.1177/1080569913480234
  17. 10.1080/1062726X.2022.2068553
  18. 10.1145/3449091
  19. 10.2139/ssrn.4375283
  20. 10.1038/s42256-023-00720-7
  21. 10.1177/002194369503200401
  22. 10.1177/0893318920979828
  23. 10.1145/3411764.3445557
  24. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00333.x
  25. 10.1177/009365096023001001
  26. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0863
CrossRef global citation count: 20 View in citation network →