Which Source is More Morally Negative? The Effect of Plagiarism From AI Versus Human on Consumer Immoral Judgments
研究通过五项实验发现，消费者认为从AI抄袭比从人类抄袭更不道德，因为觉得抄袭者对AI内容有更多所有权；但当AI被视为有感知时，这种差异减弱。
ABSTRACT With the rapid development of generative AI, plagiarism involving AI‐generated content has become increasingly prevalent, yet how consumers morally evaluate such acts remains unclear. Drawing on theories of mind perception and perceived ownership, five studies (three pre‐registered) provide convergent evidence that plagiarism from AI (vs. human) elicits consumers' less immoral judgments. This study further finds that consumers perceive the plagiarist plagiarizing AI (vs. human) as having more ownership of the content and hence make less immoral judgments. However, when AI is perceived as sentient, the effect of plagiarism source is attenuated. The effect is robust across various contexts including influencer marketing and advertising, and extends to downstream consequences such as social media engagement and brand attitudes. These findings contribute to literature on generative AI, plagiarism in marketing, and mind perception, as well as providing important practical implications for marketers, consumers, AI platforms, and policymakers navigating the ethical challenges of AI‐driven content creation.