What if we can’t tell the difference between reviews written by AI or a person?

Customers find it difficult to tell the difference between product reviews written by a person or ChatGPT, according to new research by emlyon business school and Toulouse School of Management.

Customers find it difficult to tell the difference between product reviews written by a person or ChatGPT, according to new research*.

The researchers also found that AI-reviews were much more overwhelmingly positive, but these reviews were often less-detailed and more likely to include false information.

These findings come from a study by Yingting Wen, Professor of Marketing at emlyon business school, alongside her colleague, Sandra Laporte, also a Professor of Marketing at Toulouse School of Management.

The researchers wanted to examine whether or not generative-AI tools, like ChatGPT, were able to create narratives that resonate with humans to a similar level that human marketers were – focusing on marketing content, such as social media posts, product reviews and ad copy.

To do so, the researchers conducted three separate studies comparing generative-AI content to human-created content. The researchers focused on the sensory experiences of two products; whisky and chocolate.

The first study used a text analysis tool to compare AI-generate product reviews to human-generated reviews, finding that human-written content was more genuine, and less positive than AI-generated content.

Then, in the second study, the researchers used human raters to review the content too, as opposed to a text analysis tool, of which the raters came to the same conclusion.

In the final study, the researchers reviewed social media posts; of which half were branded content, and half unbranded. Some of the posts were written by ChatGPT, and some by human social media marketers – with human raters reviewing the content, judged the sentiment of the post and reviewed the engagement too.

The researchers found that AI still struggles with creating rich, varied, and detailed content compared to humans. However, AI is effective at creating content with positive emotions and persuasive appeal, and can also be more convincing to customers when it comes to social media posts.

The researchers also found that ChatGPT 4 was much more effective than ChatGPT 3.5, when it came to creating effective and persuasive content.

“As generative AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly used in marketing, they help automate tasks like crafting social media posts and responding to customer comments, resulting in higher engagement and increased purchase intent.”, says Professor Wen.

“However, research shows that while AI-generated content can be effective, it still lacks the nuanced understanding and authentic voice that human creators bring to marketing, therefore human input is still needed in the process”.

The researchers state that these findings clearly show that aspects of a marketer’s role that AI can be hugely beneficial in creating impactful content for their company. However, there are still clearly challenges around misinformation – such as ChatGPT inventing information – that need to be considered in the process.

*Research from emlyon business school and Toulouse School of Management.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Why so many smart leaders are terrible at leading people

29 July 2025

Talent Management

29 July 2025

Deepfake interviews. Synthetic faces. Tampered documents. As generative AI reshapes identity fraud, traditional screening methods are being put to the test. Giant Screening CEO Mathew...

Worklife Balance

28 July 2025

The issue isn’t just about time management; it’s about mental bandwidth. The cognitive load of managing multiple priorities can leave little room for self-care, creativity,...

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

Queen Mary University of London – IT Services DirectorateSalary: £54,617 to £60,901 per annum

University of Sussex – Human Resources Salary: £25,733 to £29,179. Grade 4, per annum, pro rata if part time

UCL – Chemistry Department / Faculty of Mathematical & Physical SciencesSalary: £54,172 to £63,752

University of Oxford – Department of PsychiatrySalary: £31,459 to £36,616 (discretionary range to £39,749) per annum. Grade 5

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE