Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot

被引:17
作者
Altay, Sacha [1 ]
Schwartz, Marlene [1 ]
Hacquin, Anne-Sophie [1 ]
Allard, Aurelien [2 ]
Blancke, Stefaan [3 ]
Mercier, Hugo [1 ]
机构
[1] PSL Univ, Inst Jean Nicod, Dept Etud Cognit, ENS,EHESS,CNRS, Paris, France
[2] Univ Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
[3] Tilburg Univ, Dept Philosophy, Tilburg, Netherlands
关键词
GENETICALLY-MODIFIED FOOD; GATEWAY BELIEF MODEL; FIELD EXPERIMENT; MISINFORMATION; PERCEPTIONS; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1038/s41562-021-01271-w
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
In a Registered Report, Altay et al. find that learning about the scientific consensus on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) reduces the gap between public opinion and scientists. This gap is also narrowed, to a greater extent, by reading counterarguments to anti-GMO arguments in a chatbot or in a list. Discussion is more convincing than standard, unidirectional messaging, but its interactive nature makes it difficult to scale up. We created a chatbot to emulate the most important traits of discussion. A simple argument pointing out the existence of a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) already led to more positive attitudes towards GMOs, compared with a control message. Providing participants with good arguments rebutting the most common counterarguments against GMOs led to much more positive attitudes towards GMOs, whether the participants could immediately see all the arguments or could select the most relevant arguments in a chatbot. Participants holding the most negative attitudes displayed more attitude change in favour of GMOs. Participants updated their beliefs when presented with good arguments, but we found no evidence that an interactive chatbot proves more persuasive than a list of arguments and counterarguments.
引用
收藏
页码:579 / 592
页数:14
相关论文
共 92 条
  • [21] GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? Many of the public's concerns have little to do with science
    Burke, D
    [J]. EMBO REPORTS, 2004, 5 (05) : 432 - 436
  • [22] Campbell H., 2020, EQUIVALENCE TESTING
  • [23] Impact of Argument Type and Concerns in Argumentation with a Chatbot
    Chalaguine, Lisa Andreevna
    Hunter, Anthony
    Potts, Henry W. W.
    Hamilton, Fiona L.
    [J]. 2019 IEEE 31ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TOOLS WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ICTAI 2019), 2019, : 1557 - 1562
  • [24] Impact of information on intentions to vaccinate in a potential epidemic: Swine-origin Influenza A (H1N1)
    Chanel, Olivier
    Luchini, Stephane
    Massoni, Sebastien
    Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2011, 72 (02) : 142 - 148
  • [25] Argumentation and the Diffusion of Counter-Intuitive Beliefs
    Claidiere, Nicolas
    Trouche, Emmanuel
    Mercier, Hugo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2017, 146 (07) : 1052 - 1066
  • [26] Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA, P75
  • [27] Cook J., 2011, The debunking handbook
  • [28] Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples
    Coppock, Alexander
    Leeper, Thomas J.
    Mullinix, Kevin J.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2018, 115 (49) : 12441 - 12446
  • [29] Cordon G., 2004, SCOTSMAN
  • [30] Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study
    Cui, Kai
    Shoemaker, Sharon P.
    [J]. NPJ SCIENCE OF FOOD, 2018, 2 (01) : 3 - 12