Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42383228›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2026

Can AI help reduce prejudice? Evaluating the effectiveness of AI-powered personalized persuasion on support for transgender rights.

Charles Crabtree, John B Holbein, Mitchell Bosley, Semra Sevi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Chatbot Voting Advice Applications inform but seldom sway young unaligned voters.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Charles CrabtreeMonash University, School of Social Sciences, Melbourne, Australia and Korea University, University College, Seoul 3800, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5144-8671
John B HolbeinUniversity of Virginia, School of Leadership and Public Policy, Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5099-3395
Mitchell BosleyChilean National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA), Santiago 4860, Chile.
Semra SeviDepartment of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G5.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7886-4616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized interpersonal conversations are among the most effective known tools for reducing prejudice, yet they are difficult to scale because they require skilled human facilitators. This study tests whether AI can approximate the effects of these interventions. Using OpenAI's GPT-4o, we developed a messaging-based intervention that engaged US participants in individualized, morally aligned dialogs about transgender rights. In a preregistered experiment, these AI-mediated conversations significantly increased support for transgender rights across multiple attitudinal measures. Robustness checks, including weighting and sensitivity analyses, confirmed the reliability of these effects, and analyses of the conversations support the idea that moral matching between the AI and participants played a key role in reducing prejudice. However, follow-up data collected 1 week later indicated that the attitudinal gains diminished over time, suggesting that reinforcement may be necessary to sustain change. Together, these findings indicate that generative AI can facilitate value-aligned dialog capable of shifting social attitudes, while highlighting the challenge of achieving meaningful durable impacts.

Indexed as

AIattitude changemoral matchingprejudice reductiontransgender rights

Identifiers

PMID42383228
PMCPMC13317131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.