Corrigendum to “Service ads in the era of generative AI: Disclosures, trust, and intangibility” [J. Retail. Consumer Serv. 84 (2025) 1–9 104231] (Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2025) 84, (S0969698925000104), (10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104231))

Abstract

The authors regret the omission of some negative signs in the reported mediation results. Although these signs were included correctly throughout the review process and in the final submission of the manuscript, they were inadvertently removed during the proofing process of the manuscript after final acceptance. The corrected results are as follows: Page 4: “Mediation through trust (PROCESS Model 4, Hayes 2018) was supported at the 90 % confidence level (indirect effect: ?.13, 90 % CI: ?.29 to ?.0045), providing marginal support for H2.” Page 6: “Mediation (H4), such that the interaction between AI disclosure label presence and service ad focus influence ad attitudes (Cronbach's ? = .98) through trust toward the service provider, was also supported (PROCESS Model 7, index of moderated mediation = ?.29, 95 % CI: ?.55 to ?.06; see Fig. 4). When the service ad focus was tangible, the conditional indirect effect was not significant (effect = ?.05, 95 % CI: ?.23 to .11). When the service ad focus was intangible, the conditional indirect was significant, as expected (effect = ?.34, 95 % CI: ?.56 to ?.16).” Page 7: “When the service provider was AI-generated, the conditional indirect effect was significant and negative, as expected (effect = ?.88, 95 % CI: ?1.25 to ?.52). When the service provider was a photo, the conditional indirect was not significant, also as expected (effect = ?.04, 95 % CI: ?.42 to .36).” The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Department(s)

Marketing

Document Type

Article

DOI

10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104427

Publication Date

10-1-2025

Journal Title

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS