ArticleScientific reports2025
How AI sources can increase openness to opposing views.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chatbots reduce health-related conspiracy beliefs not because of but despite being perceived as AI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trusting Generative AI for Health Advice: Preregistered Survey Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Conditional effects of source expertise and pre-existing attitudes on objective knowledge in AI-assisted health information verification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure to counterattitudinal information has been shown to yield mixed effects on attitude polarization. The current research explores the differential impact of such information when generated by artificial intelligence (AI) versus human sources. While prior work highlights a general aversion to AI for decision-making, our research reveals a consistent openness to AI in the context of counterattitudinal messages. Across four pre-registered studies (N = 2061), we find that when people receive counterattitudinal messages on potentially polarizing issues, AI sources are perceived as less biased, more informative, and having less persuasive intent than human sources. This leads to greater receptiveness to counterattitudinal messages when those messages come from AI rather than human sources. In addition, we find preliminary evidence that receiving counterattitudinal messages from an AI (versus human) source can diminish outgroup animosity and facilitate attitude change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.