aceModerate evidence
Published recordOtherThe Trace
More
Understanding and Supporting Online Discussion with Opinionated Chatbots
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2534raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Controlled or validated comparison
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 6d4063995334…check it
Opinionated chatbots are increasingly present on online platforms and have the potential to shape public discourse by influencing individuals’ viewpoints before they engage in discussions. Despite their growing presence, the impact of interacting with opinionated chatbots on subsequent online interactions remains largely unexplored. This study investigated how exposure to different types of opinionated chatbots, specifically those expressing opposing, reinforcing, or balanced viewpoints, affected participants’ s…
53Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
54Problem side
The gain
In a controlled experiment with 83 participants, 59% of those who prepared with a consistently opposing chatbot changed their opinion, versus 31% with a balanced chatbot and 33% with a reinforcing one.
The problem
In the same experiment, participants rated the opposing chatbot lower on trust (4.56 on a 7-point scale) than the balanced chatbot (5.49) or the reinforcing one (5.17).
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
The experiment used a single topic (economic growth and environmental protection), a short chatbot session and a scripted human partner. Only opposing versus balanced reached significance for opinion change, and the communication-quality difference did not survive correction.
Sources
1 on file- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interactiondoi:10.1145/3817024
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2534, v1: “Understanding and Supporting Online Discussion with Opinionated Chatbots.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2534 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 6d40639953344602…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2534 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.