The Hidden Costs of AI-Mediated Political Outreach: Persuasion and AI Penalties in the US and UK

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27413v1
• Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 21:22:02 GMT
• Title: The Hidden Costs of AI-Mediated Political Outreach: Persuasion and AI Penalties in the US and UK
• Abstract summary: We study how people evaluate the communicative practices of AI-enabled systems for political campaign outreach.<n>We find consistent evidence for two evaluation penalties.<n>As automated outreach becomes more widespread, how people judge it may matter for democratic communication.
• Score: 0.34376560669160394
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI-enabled systems become available for political campaign outreach, an important question has received little empirical attention: how do people evaluate the communicative practices these systems represent, and what consequences do those evaluations carry? Most research on AI-enabled persuasion examines attitude change under enforced exposure, leaving aside whether people regard AI-mediated outreach as legitimate or not. We address this gap with a preregistered 2x2 experiment conducted in the United States and United Kingdom (N = 1,800 per country) varying outreach intent (informational vs.~persuasive) and type of interaction partner (human vs.~AI-mediated) in the context of political issues that respondents consider highly important. We find consistent evidence for two evaluation penalties. A persuasion penalty emerges across nearly all outcomes in both countries: explicitly persuasive outreach is evaluated as less acceptable, more threatening to personal autonomy, less beneficial, and more damaging to organizational trust than informational outreach, consistent with reactance to perceived threats to attitudinal freedom. An AI penalty is consistent with a distinct mechanism: AI-mediated outreach triggers normative concerns about appropriate communicative agents, producing similarly negative evaluations across five outcomes in both countries. As automated outreach becomes more widespread, how people judge it may matter for democratic communication just as much as whether it changes minds.

Related papers

• Warning labels shift perceptions of sycophantic AI, but not its influence [63.79516339973759]
  We test whether warning labels mitigate sycophancy's influence.<n>Labeling the system as sycophantic (...may agree with you and validate you even when you are wrong...'') does shift users' perceptions.<n>But it does not reliably reduce sycophancy's influence on users' self-perceived rightness or their willingness to repair the conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T11:01:45Z)
• AI in Debt Collection: Estimating the Psychological Impact on Consumers [0.0]
  The present study investigates the psychological and behavioral implications of integrating AI into debt collection practices.<n>We examine effects on consumers' social preferences (fairness, trust, reciprocity, efficiency) and social emotions (stigma, empathy)<n>The study advances our understanding of how AI influences the psychological dynamics in sensitive financial interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T13:17:14Z)
• AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims [73.8907110799657]
  We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims.<n>In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy.<n>In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%)<n>These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T19:01:53Z)
• Must Read: A Systematic Survey of Computational Persuasion [60.83151988635103]
  AI-driven persuasion can be leveraged for beneficial applications, but also poses threats through manipulation and unethical influence.<n>Our survey outlines future research directions to enhance the safety, fairness, and effectiveness of AI-powered persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T17:26:31Z)
• What do people expect from Artificial Intelligence? Public opinion on alignment in AI moderation from Germany and the United States [0.0]
  We present evidence from two surveys of public preferences for key functional features of AI-enabled systems in Germany and the United States.<n>We examine support for four types of alignment in AI moderation: accuracy and reliability, safety, bias mitigation, and the promotion of aspirational imaginaries.<n>In both countries, accuracy and safety enjoy the strongest support, while more normatively charged goals -- like fairness and aspirational imaginaries -- receive more cautious backing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T20:27:03Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Deliberation: The AI Penalty and the Emergence of a New Deliberative Divide [0.0]
  Digital deliberation has expanded democratic participation, yet challenges remain.<n>Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer potential solutions, but public perceptions of AI's role in deliberation remain underexplored.<n>If AI is integrated into deliberation, public trust, acceptance, and willingness to participate may be affected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T16:33:15Z)
• Biased AI can Influence Political Decision-Making [64.9461133083473]
  This paper presents two experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in large language models (LLMs) on political opinions and decision-making.<n>We found that participants exposed to partisan biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions which matched the LLM's bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T22:56:00Z)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications [44.99833362998488]
  We identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception.<n>While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations.<n>Deception AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T12:58:20Z)
• Artificial Intelligence across Europe: A Study on Awareness, Attitude and Trust [39.35990066478082]
  The aim of the study is to gain a better understanding of people's views and perceptions within the European context. We design and validate a new questionnaire (PAICE) structured around three dimensions: people's awareness, attitude, and trust. We highlight implicit contradictions and identify trends that may interfere with the creation of an ecosystem of trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T11:00:32Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• FATE in AI: Towards Algorithmic Inclusivity and Accessibility [0.0]
  To prevent algorithmic disparities, fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE) in AI are being implemented. This study examines FATE-related desiderata, particularly transparency and ethics, in areas of the global South that are underserved by AI. To promote inclusivity, a community-led strategy is proposed to collect and curate representative data for responsible AI design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-03T15:08:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.