One email each morning — yesterday's AI, sortedGet it in your inbox

METAL LAB

Can Conversational AI loosen Us-Versus-Them Boundaries? The Effects of Common, Dual, and Separate Identity Framings on Pro-Immigrant Intergroup Helping

arXiv:2608.192202026-08-21

Five chats with an AI chatbot made White Americans see Latine immigrants more as fellow Americans, and more willing to help them

Researchers tested whether five rounds of conversation with GPT-4o could shift how 658 non-Latine White U.S. adults categorized Latine immigrants and their willingness to support them. Chatbots that framed immigrants under a shared 'common American' identity or a 'dual' Latine-and-American identity reduced participants' tendency to see immigrants as a separate group and increased their willingness to help. However, direct effects on actual behavior and pro-diversity beliefs were not significant, revealing a gap between changed thinking and changed action.

What they did

  1. 851 U.S. adults were recruited via Prolific; after attention-check exclusions, 658 non-Latine White participants were analyzed.
  2. Participants were randomly assigned to five rounds of dialogue with GPT-4o framed around Common Ingroup Identity ('we're all Americans'), Dual Identity ('Latine and American'), Separate Identity (distinct cultural boundaries), or a Control topic (technology in daily life, unrelated to immigration).
  3. Compared to control, Common Ingroup and Dual Identity conversations lowered participants' tendency to categorize immigrants as a separate group; Dual Identity conversations also raised dual categorization.
  4. Direct effects on behavior and pro-diversity beliefs were not statistically significant, but willingness to act was significantly higher in the two conditions emphasizing a shared superordinate identity, and a path model showed this worked indirectly through reduced separate categorization.
  5. Analysis of the conversation transcripts showed participants' language converged with the chatbot's assigned narrative; using more shared-identity language was linked to greater willingness to help, while using more separate-identity language was linked to less. These patterns held fairly consistently across political orientation, need for closure, and openness to experience.

Why it matters

As traditional bias-reduction training faces growing legal and political constraints in the U.S., this study suggests brief AI conversations could be a scalable alternative for softening intergroup boundaries. It also flags a dual-use risk: the same chatbot technology that reduces division could just as easily be used to deepen it, underscoring the need for ethical guardrails on how such systems are deployed.

Terms in this paper

  • Common Ingroup Identity · a psychological model where different groups are recategorized under one shared identity (e.g., 'we are all Americans')
  • Dual Identity · holding both a subgroup identity and a shared superordinate identity at the same time (e.g., 'Latine and American')
  • Separate Identity · framing that emphasizes distinct cultural boundaries between 'us' and 'them'
  • recategorization · the cognitive process of reclassifying former outgroup members as part of one's own group
  • preregistered experiment · a study whose hypotheses and analysis plan were publicly registered before data collection to limit result manipulation

Original abstract (English)

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.

Authors · Oluwadamilola Jeboda, John F. Dovidio, Jonas R. Kunst

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL LAB