ΑΙhub.org
 

AI chatbots can effectively sway voters – in either direction


by
12 March 2026



share this:

Sam Altman watches over a family consuming his AI. The living room vignette is framed by power tool imagery. The words “Behaviour Power” are the top of the artwork, framing the intent of the piece.Bart Fish & Power Tools of AI / Behaviour Power / Licenced by CC-BY 4.0

By Patricia Waldron

The potential for artificial intelligence to affect election results is a major public concern. Two new papers – with experiments conducted in four countries – demonstrate that chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) are quite effective at political persuasion, moving opposition voters’ preferences by 10 percentage points or more in many cases. The LLMs’ persuasiveness comes not from being masters of psychological manipulation, but because they come up with so many claims supporting their arguments for candidates’ policy positions.

“LLMs can really move people’s attitudes towards presidential candidates and policies, and they do it by providing many factual claims that support their side,” said David Rand, a senior author on both papers. “But those claims aren’t necessarily accurate – and even arguments built on accurate claims can still mislead by omission.”

The researchers reported these findings in two papers published simultaneously, “Persuading Voters Using Human-Artificial Intelligence Dialogues”, in Nature, and “The Levers of Political Persuasion with Conversational Artificial Intelligence”, in Science.

In the Nature study, Rand, along with co-senior author Gordon Pennycook and colleagues, instructed AI chatbots to change voters’ attitudes regarding presidential candidates. They randomly assigned participants to engage in a back-and-forth text conversation with a chatbot promoting one side or the other and then measured any change in the participants’ opinions and voting intentions. The researchers repeated this experiment three times: in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the 2025 Canadian federal election and the 2025 Polish presidential election.

They found that two months before the U.S. election, among more than 2,300 Americans, chatbots focused on the candidates’ policies caused a modest shift in opinions. On a 100-point scale, the pro-Harris AI model moved likely Trump voters 3.9 points toward Harris – an effect roughly four times larger than traditional ads tested during the 2016 and 2020 elections. The pro-Trump AI model moved likely Harris voters 1.51 points toward Trump.

In similar experiments with 1,530 Canadians and 2,118 Poles, the effect was much larger: Chatbots moved opposition voters’ attitudes and voting intentions by about 10 percentage points. “This was a shockingly large effect to me, especially in the context of presidential politics,” Rand said.

Chatbots used multiple persuasion tactics, but being polite and providing evidence were most common. When researchers prevented the model from using facts, it became far less persuasive – showing the central role that fact-based claims play in AI persuasion.

The researchers also fact-checked the chatbot’s arguments using an AI model that was validated using professional human fact-checkers. While on average the claims were mostly accurate, chatbots instructed to stump for right-leaning candidates made more inaccurate claims than those advocating for left-leaning candidates in all three countries. This finding – which was validated using politically balanced groups of laypeople – mirrors the often-replicated finding that social media users on the right share more inaccurate information than users on the left, Pennycook said.

In the Science paper, Rand collaborated with colleagues at the UK AI Security Institute to investigate what makes these chatbots so persuasive. They measured the shifts in opinions of almost 77,000 participants from the U.K. who engaged with chatbots on more than 700 political issues.

“Bigger models are more persuasive, but the most effective way to boost persuasiveness was instructing the models to pack their arguments with as many facts as possible, and giving the models additional training focused on increasing persuasiveness,” Rand said.“The most persuasion-optimized model shifted opposition voters by a striking 25 percentage points.”

This study also showed that the more persuasive a model was, the less accurate the information it provided. Rand suspects that as the chatbot is pushed to provide more and more factual claims, eventually it runs out of accurate information and starts fabricating.

The discovery that factual claims are key to an AI model’s persuasiveness is further supported by a third recent paper in PNAS Nexus by Rand, Pennycook and colleagues. The study showed that arguments from AI chatbots reduced belief in conspiracy theories even when people thought they were talking to a human expert. This suggests it was the compelling messages that worked, not a belief in the authority of AI.

In both studies, all participants were told they were conversing with an AI and were fully debriefed afterward. Additionally, the direction of persuasion was randomized so the experiments would not shift opinions overall.

Studying AI persuasion is essential to anticipate and mitigate misuse, the researchers said. By testing these systems in controlled, transparent experiments, they hope to inform ethical guidelines and policy discussions about how AI should and should not be used in political communication.

Rand also points out that chatbots can only be effective persuasion tools if people engage with the bots in the first place – a high bar to clear.

But there’s little question that AI chatbots will be an increasingly important part of political campaigning, Rand said. “The challenge now is finding ways to limit the harm – and to help people recognize and resist AI persuasion.”




Cornell University

            AIhub is supported by:



Subscribe to AIhub newsletter on substack



Related posts :

Causal models for decision systems: an interview with Matteo Ceriscioli

  21 Apr 2026
How can we integrate causal knowledge into agents or decision systems to make them more reliable?

A model for defect identification in materials

  20 Apr 2026
A new model measures defects that can be leveraged to improve materials’ mechanical strength, heat transfer, and energy-conversion efficiency.

‘Probably’ doesn’t mean the same thing to your AI as it does to you

  17 Apr 2026
Are you sure you and the AI chatbot you’re using are on the same page about probabilities?

Interview with Xinwei Song: strategic interactions in networked multi-agent systems

  16 Apr 2026
Xinwei Song tells us about her research using algorithmic game theory and multi-agent reinforcement learning.

2026 AI Index Report released

  15 Apr 2026
Find out what the ninth edition of the report, which was published on 13 April, says about trends in AI.

Formal verification for safety evaluation of autonomous vehicles: an interview with Abdelrahman Sayed Sayed

  14 Apr 2026
Find out more about work at the intersection of continuous AI models, formal methods, and autonomous systems.

Water flow in prairie watersheds is increasingly unpredictable — but AI could help

  13 Apr 2026
In recent years, the Prairies have seen bigger swings in climate conditions — very wet years followed by very dry ones.

Identifying interactions at scale for LLMs

  10 Apr 2026
Model behavior is rarely the result of isolated components; rather, it emerges from complex dependencies and patterns.



AIhub is supported by:







Subscribe to AIhub newsletter on substack




 















©2026.02 - Association for the Understanding of Artificial Intelligence