1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Information Studies & Technology (JIS&T)
  4. Volume 2025, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2025, Issue 1
  • EISSN: 2616-4930

Abstract

This study provides a preliminary evaluation of the capabilities and limitations of three conversational artificial intelligence (AI) systems - ChatGPT 3.5, Microsoft Bing Chat, and Gemini - in debunking common stereotypes about Palestinians through respectful dialogue. Eight prevalent stereotypes were identified from the literature and used to prompt the chatbots. Their responses to each stereotype were analyzed using criteria that assessed factual refutation, acknowledgement of complexity, and avoidance of false or misleading claims. The results indicate that the chatbots had varying levels of success in debunking the stereotypes. Of the three systems, ChatGPT showed the strongest performance overall, providing fully refuting responses to more stereotypes compared to the others. However, all three chatbots had limitations, with some either partially refuting the claims or refusing to provide a direct response. This suggests that current AI still faces challenges in discussing socio-cultural issues in a nuanced way. Notably, in order to dismantle deeply entrenched prejudices, it is necessary to acknowledge historical and social contexts that go beyond superficial refutations. While prompts that involve stereotypes can be considered, the study found that fully combating dehumanizing narratives requires responses that integrate multiple perspectives embedded in the proper historical context. Overall, the study provided initial evidence that conversational AI may help resolve misconceptions on a large scale through respectful exchanges. However, further research is needed to examine the capabilities and limitations of conversational AI, particularly on complex topics. With appropriate safeguards and in combination with diverse social efforts, chatbots may assist, but not replace, ongoing work to promote reasoned understanding over confirmation of prejudices.

© 2025 Author(s), licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2025.6
2025-03-31
2025-03-30
The full text of this item is not currently available.

References

  1. Abu-Rabia-Queder, S., & Weiner-Levy, N. (2013). Between local and foreign structures: Exploring the agency of Palestinian women in Israel. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20:(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxs029
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (1994). Researching language: Issues of power and method. Deborah Cameron, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, MBH Rampton, & Kay Richardson. London: Routledge, 1992. Pp. ix+ 148. $15.95 paper. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16:(1), 113–114.
  3. Allport,G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Perseus Books.
  4. Amer, M. M. (2009). ‘Telling-it-like-it-is’: The delegitimation of the second Palestinian Intifada in Thomas Friedman’s discourse. Discourse & Society, 20:(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508097093
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Amodio, D. M. (2014). The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15:(10), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3800
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Collective memory of physical violence: Its contribution to the culture of violence. In E. Cairns, & M. D. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnic conflict (pp. 77–93). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403919823_5
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beattie, H., Watkins, L., Robinson,W. H., Rubin, A., & Watkins, S. (2022, March). Measuring and mitigating bias in AI-chatbots. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Assured Autonomy (ICAA) (pp. 117–123). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAA52185.2022.00023
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Følstad, A., Brandtzaeg, P. B., Feltwell, T., Law, E. L., Tscheligi, M., & Luger, E. A. (2018, April). SIG: chatbots for social good In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-4).
  9. Black, N. (February 5, 2024). Bolivian journalist develops checki, a disinformation-fighting chatbot. International Center for Journalists. https://www.icfj.org/news/bolivian-journalist-develops-checki-disinformation-fighting-chatbot
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cave, S., & Dihal, K. (2020). The whiteness of AI. Philosophy & Technology, 33:(4), 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00486-z
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2:(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dehrone, T. A., Tropp, L. R., Burrows, B., Bilali, R., & Ginn, J. (2022). Coming together after genocide: How openness to communication about conflict experiences shapes willingness for social integration in post genocide Rwanda. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 28:(3), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000625
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56:(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82:(5), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21:(5), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation.
  17. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10:(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53:(1), 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Krafft, P. M., Young, M., Katell, M., Huang, K., & Bugingo, G. (2020, February). Defining AI in policy versus practice. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 72–78).
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Maoz, I., & McCauley, C. (2005). Psychological correlates of support for compromise: A polling study of Jewish-Israeli attitudes toward solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Political Psychology, 26:(5), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00444.x
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Miner, A. S., Laranjo, L., & Kocaballi, A. B. (2020). Chatbots in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3:(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0280-0
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Affirmative action and job satisfaction: Understanding underlying processes. Journal of Social Issues, 61:(3), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00418.x
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nisar, H., & Bleich, E. (2020). Group status, geographic location, and the tone of media coverage: Jews and Muslims in New York Times and Guardian Headlines, 1985–2014. Comparative Migration Studies, 8:(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-019-0153-3
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 90:(5), 751. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35:(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Piner, A. (2007). The US media, Camp David and the Oslo peace process. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 1:(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1386/jammr.1.1.63_1
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Prince, M. P. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of misinformation warnings to alter stereotypes for public figures and memories for public events. City University of New York John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2008). The irony of harmony: intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 19:(1), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20:(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Said, E. W. (1997). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sigelman, L., Tuch, S. A., & Martin, J. K. (2005). What’s in a Name? Preference for “Black” Versus “African-American” among Americans of African Descent. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69:(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi026
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69:(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.797
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Suleiman, M. W. (2008). Being Palestinian is okay with me: Stereotypes and identity construction among young Palestinian Americans. Arab Studies Quarterly, 30:(2), 49–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vrakatseli, E. B. (2023). Debating ethics: Enhancing human & human-AI dialogue. https://womencourage.acm.org/2023/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/womencourage2023-posters-paper56.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Winter, K., Scholl, A., & Sassenberg, K. (2021). A matter of flexibility: Changing outgroup attitudes through messages with negations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120:(4), 956., L. S., Sanchez, D. T., & Kaiser, C. R. (2019). Communicating across group boundaries: Outgroup attitudes matter. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 240–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. YouGov Surve Results. (May, 2023). YouGov.com. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/f096idtopm/Internal_Eurotrack_Israel-Palestine_230516.pdf
/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2025.6
Loading
Debunking: Assessing the impact of chatbot discussions on common prejudices regarding Palestinians
Journal of Information Studies & Technology (JIS&T) 2025, 6 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5339/jist.2025.6
/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2025.6
/content/journals/10.5339/jist.2025.6
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): AI, chatbots, Palestine, prejudice, debunk

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error