Artificial influence? Comparing AI and human persuasion in reducing belief certainty
with Natasha Goel, Thomas Bergeron, Blake Lee-Whiting, Thomas Galipeau, Danielle Bohonos, Md Mujahedul Islam, Sarah Lachance, Sonja Savolainen, and Clareta Treger
Abstract:
People often resist updating their beliefs even when those beliefs are contradicted by strong evidence, making efforts to persuade them seem futile. While some new research suggests AI could be a solution to this problem, its persuasive capacity remains under-explored. This pre-registered study tests five hypotheses by examining whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can reduce belief certainty for a sample of N=1,690 Americans recruited through CloudResearch, all of whom hold at least one false, or unsupported, belief. All treated participants engaged in up to five rounds of conversation with ChatGPT-4o, but the treatment manipulated who they believed they were talking to: ChatGPT, an expert on the topic, or a fellow survey respondent who disagreed with them. Across all conditions, we find that AI reduced participants’ certainty in their false or unsupported beliefs, with 29% of participants even persuaded to switch to the accurate counterpart of the belief. Interestingly, ChatGPT does not have a significantly larger effect on reducing belief certainty than a fellow survey taker, but an expert does. We do not find that perceptions of AI objectivity and knowledgeability serve as moderators for the AI condition, and neither does anti-intellectualism for the expert condition. In shifting the focus to the messenger, our results contribute to our understanding of effective strategies for persuasion. We show that AI can indeed be persuasive, even in the face of strongly held beliefs; however, when source identity is considered, human experts hold a much stronger appeal.
Working paper here.
Housing for Me, but not for Thee: Values-Based Motivations of NIMBYism
with Alex Rivard and Dominik Stecula
Abstract:
A key barrier to ensuring the growth of the housing supply is local opposition to development, often called NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). We use pre-registered studies on representative samples of Canadians and Americans to explore the values-based correlates of opposition to local housing development, as well as opposition to public policies designed to remedy the housing crisis. We find that nativism, racial resentment, and moral traditionalism are generally associated with opposition to local housing development, with traditionalism also associated with housing policy opposition. Free-market attitudes and egalitarianism are associated with support for housing policy, particularly when the policies are ideologically consistent. Support for affordable housing is concentrated among those with low racial resentment, traditionalism, nativism, and free-market support, and high levels of egalitarianism.
Working paper here.
The Relationship Between Polarization Misperceptions and Partisan Hostility is Endogenous
with Natasha Goel
Abstract:
Scholars and commentators alike have observed growing polarization in the Canadian mass public. Supporters of Canada’s major parties are further apart from one another in ideological terms more so than at any point in Canadian history and, perhaps as a consequence, increasing dislike partisan outgroups, known as affective polarization. However, it is also true, at least in the United States, that people tend to perceive parties as being more ideologically and socially distinct than is actually the case. These misperceptions can further fuel affective polarization. At the same time, affective polarization can also be a cause of these misperceptions as well. Causal direction is not well established, nor has this research been extended into the Canadian context. This paper illustrates the scale and scope of perceptual (in)accuracy related to social and ideological polarization in Canada. We evaluate the association between ideological and social polarization and affective polarization and use longitudinal data and a series of experiments to shed light on causality. The powerful association we observe between polarization misperceptions and (particularly) partisan hostility is likely the product of an endogenous relationship between them. Misperceptions may cause partisan hostility, but the reverse causal pathway – often neglected in previous work – is also important.
Abstaining for Democracy? The Role of Democratic Norms in Candidate Vote Choice
with Thomas Galipeau
Abstract:
Canadians are affectively polarizing. Supporters of the Conservative Party on the one hand, and the Liberal Party and NDP on the other, increasingly dislike one another. With rising vitriol in online spaces, the growth of misinformation, and, most spectacularly, the success of the Ottawa trucker blockade – which attracted the support of a sizable chunk of the Canadian electorate – there has been growing concern for the health of Canadian democracy as well. Some scholars argue affective polarization may erode democratic norms. We don’t yet have a full understanding of how candidate endorsement of norm violations may shape voting behaviour, and the connection of this behaviour to affective polarization. This paper meets three objectives with a pair of conjoint experiments: 1) evaluate how candidate endorsement of norm violations (relating to institutional restraint, fundamental freedoms, and democratic rights) shape voting behaviour (both defection and abstention); and 2) the connection between rates of defection and abstention and different operationalizations of affective polarization (i.e., out-party feeling thermometers, political sectarianism). We find that voters to defect in response to norm violations by co-partisan candidates by both voting for the out-party and abstaining, though these effects are generally small. However, defection does not vary meaningfully across both studies and multiple dimensions of partisan hostility.
Indigenous Resentment and Opposition towards Housing
with Alex Rivard and Edana Beauvais
Abstract:
Emerging literature has focused on non-monetary motives for the opposition of new housing, such as nativism and racial animus. Community furor over the Sen̓áḵw project in Vancouver, British Columbia highlights the potential importance of intergroup attitudes, like Indigenous resentment in explaining opposition to new housing. Using a pre-registered survey and conjoint experiment conducted on 2,000 adult Canadians, including an oversample of respondents in communities with large population of Indigenous residents, we show that Indigenous resentment is associated with opposition to housing development and beliefs that such development will harm neighbourhood character, worsen crime, and strain social services. Contrary to expectations, we do not find these associations to be stronger in communities with large populations of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous resentment also moderates the effect of certain characteristics of the development. Projects with Indigenous developers and those that are meant to house Indigenous people spark considerable opposition among the resentful and generate beliefs the housing development will lead to undesirable social consequences. Together, our results highlight the importance of intergroup attitudes in shaping housing attitudes
Economic Shock and the Erosion of COVID-19 Precautionary Behavior in Canada During the Early Pandemic
with Peter Loewen
Abstract:
Maintaining voluntary adherence to public health guidelines during a pandemic is fundamentally a collective action problem. We argue that one challenge is the economic costs these behaviors impose on individuals and society. As their costs are revealed to citizens, adherence declines, in part by changing people’s expectations of the behavior of fellow citizens. We leverage the case of the April 2020 Canadian jobs report and use an Unexpected Event during Survey Design (N~4,910) and an Interrupted Time Series to show that the release of this report corresponded with reduced public health adherence, particularly among young panel respondents, and increased aggregate-level mobility. We also use two survey experiments (N~2,500) on national samples of Canadians to show that information about the economic consequences of public health guidelines reduces expectations of adherence by other citizens and by oneself, especially among young respondents. Further, expectations of adherence by others causes expectations of one’s own adherence in the future. The implication is that we need to develop policies that can facilitate pandemic containment without requiring as much costly voluntary behavior on the part of citizens, particularly when the costs of the crisis, and of adherence, are inequitably distributed through society.
Eric Merkley 