Abstract
Rising immigration has intensified intergroup tensions in many countries. Traditional bias-reduction programs remain difficult to scale and increasingly constrained by U.S. policy. This preregistered experiment tested whether conversational AI can shift how majority-group members categorize and relate to Latine immigrants. Drawing on the common ingroup identity model, a quota-representative national sample of 658 non-Latine White U.S. adults completed five rounds of dialogue with a LLM (GPT-4o). The model was instructed to frame Latine immigrants in terms of a common ingroup identity (a shared American identity), a dual identity (both Latine and American), or a separate identity (distinct cultural boundaries), or to discuss an unrelated topic in a control condition. The manipulations altered categorization: relative to control, common ingroup identity and dual identity conversations lowered separate categorization, and dual identity conversations raised dual categorization. Although direct effects on behavior and pro-diversity beliefs were nonsignificant, willingness to act was significantly higher in the conditions emphasizing a superordinate identity (common ingroup and dual identity). A path model further revealed indirect associations: both conditions reduced separate categorization, which in turn correlated with greater willingness to act. Semantic similarity analyses of the transcripts confirmed that conversations tracked their assigned narratives; participants' convergence with shared-identity language related positively, and with separate-identity language negatively, to willingness to act. These effects were largely consistent across moderators (need for closure, openness to experience, and political orientation). The findings show that brief AI conversations can loosen us-versus-them boundaries while underscoring the gap between cognitive recategorization and behavior.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19220
