Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot

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.

Automated summary

In a Registered Report, Altay et al. found that knowledge of the scientific consensus on GMOs reduces the gap between public opinion and scientists. They created a chatbot to emulate discussion and found that providing good arguments rebutting common counterarguments led to more positive attitudes towards GMOs. However, there was no evidence that an interactive chatbot is more persuasive than a list of arguments and counterarguments.