ArticleNature human behaviour2022
Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy among adolescents: a cluster-randomized trial.Nature human behaviour · 2026Trial
- What can chatbot conversations reveal about vaccine concerns? An observational topic modelling study for public health infoveillance.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Self-serving beliefs about science: Science justifies my weaknesses (but not other people's).Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Leveraging Chatbots to Combat Health Misinformation for Older Adults: Participatory Design Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- The Effects of Expressing Empathy/Autonomy Support Using a COVID-19 Vaccination Chatbot: Experimental Study in a Sample of Belgian Adults.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Usability and Credibility of a COVID-19 Vaccine Chatbot for Young Adults and Health Workers in the United States: Formative Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Using dialogues to increase positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in a vaccine-hesitant UK population.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- "Trust Me, I'm a Scientist": How Philosophy of Science Can Help Explain Why Science Deserves Primacy in Dealing with Societal Problems.Science & education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35165435What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.