Chance-level identity discrimination is uniform across participants and not associated with AI literacy, personality, or demographics¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Individual-level sensitivity estimates clustered tightly around zero and were not credibly associated with AI literacy, Big Five personality traits, or demographic characteristics. → Lixiang Yan 2026

Evidence¶

Lixiang Yan 2026¶

Lixiang Yan, Yueqiao Jin, Xibin Han, Dragan Gasevic. (2026). Socially fluent AI decouples conversational signals from source identity in online interaction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23426 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23426

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Participant-level d' estimates clustered near zero (mean d' = −0.012, SD = 0.697), showing "identity discrimination was uniformly poor across participants". Sensitivity was not credibly associated with AI literacy (r = 0.075, p = .160, n = 349), personality (all |r| ≤ 0.073), or demographics.

"These individual-level sensitivity estimates clustered tightly around zero (mean 𝑑′ = −0.012, 𝑆𝐷 = 0.697, 95% CI [−0.085, 0.062]), indicating that the group-level detection failure did not arise from averaging over heterogeneous strategies or a minority of high-performing detectors."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Personality Traits — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Participants fail to distinguish undisclosed AI teammates from human teammates above chance in synchronous text-based group interaction — a broader claim this one bears on
Gender is associated with small differences in GenAI use, literacy, and monitoring, while educational level shows no significant differences — related
Simulations show L* values at chance stay centered at zero even when one affective state's base rate is disproportionately high — related
Demographic and contextual variables meaningfully differentiate the four GenAI adoption personas — related
Big Five personality factors show few consistent effects on metacognitive judgments in domain-specific tests — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`detection-failure-uniform-not-tied-to-individual-differences`
`title`	`Chance-level identity discrimination is uniform across participants and not associated with AI literacy, personality, or demographics`
`description`	`Chance-level identity discrimination is uniform across participants and not associated with AI literacy, personality, or demographics`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-11`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `lixiang-yan-2026`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.