Toward Meaningful Transparency for AI Chatbots: Disclosing Persuasive Intent Reduces Persuasion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11794v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 08:37:44 GMT
• Title: Toward Meaningful Transparency for AI Chatbots: Disclosing Persuasive Intent Reduces Persuasion
• Abstract summary: We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI bot's persuasive appeal.<n>We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the bot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2)<n>The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points.
• Score: 0.34376560669160394
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The growing role of AI-generated content and AI-enabled systems in public communication has led regulators to demand clear disclosure of content provenance and AI involvement. But the effects of such disclosures remain uncertain. We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI chatbot's persuasive appeal. In a preregistered experiment, 1,500 UK adults held a short conversation with a persuasive chatbot about one of 60 policy issues. The chatbot was identical for everyone. We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the chatbot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2). The chatbot shifted attitudes by 12.6 points on a 100-point scale in the control group. The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points. It also made participants view the campaign's methods as less acceptable and support stronger penalties against it. For direct chatbot interactions, transparency about AI identity alone does not meaningfully impact its influence. While current rules emphasize what a system is, our results show why the regulation of persuasive AI must also address what the system is trying to do.

Related papers

• Individual-level interventions against sycophantic AI reduce its appeal but not its persuasiveness [0.0]
  Sycophantic AI can be overly agreeable and flattering toward users.<n>We tested whether increasing users' awareness of sycophancy protects them from its harmful effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T00:40:49Z)
• 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)
• The Hidden Costs of AI-Mediated Political Outreach: Persuasion and AI Penalties in the US and UK [0.34376560669160394]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T21:22:02Z)
• Effect of Static vs. Conversational AI-Generated Messages on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial [5.429833789548265]
  Large language model (LLM) chatbots show increasing promise in persuasive communication.<n>We enrolled 915 U.S. adults (ages 45-75) who had never completed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.<n>Both AI interventions significantly increased stool test intentions by over 12 points (12.9-13.8/100), compared to a 7.5 gain for expert materials.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T22:46:43Z)
• 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)
• Manipulation and the AI Act: Large Language Model Chatbots and the Danger of Mirrors [0.0]
  Personifying AI chatbots could foreseeably increase their trust with users.<n>However, it could also make them more capable of manipulation, by creating the illusion of a close and intimate relationship with an artificial entity.<n>The European Commission has finalized the AI Act, with the EU Parliament making amendments banning manipulative and deceptive AI systems that cause significant harm to users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T06:56:29Z)
• AI persuading AI vs AI persuading Humans: LLMs' Differential Effectiveness in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior [70.24245082578167]
  Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is vital to combat climate change, yet turning awareness into intention and action remains elusive.<n>We explore large language models (LLMs) as tools to promote PEB, comparing their impact across 3,200 participants.<n>Results reveal a "synthetic persuasion paradox": synthetic and simulated agents significantly affect their post-intervention PEB stance, while human responses barely shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T21:40:55Z)
• Will you donate money to a chatbot? The effect of chatbot anthropomorphic features and persuasion strategies on willingness to donate [4.431473323414383]
  We investigate the effect of personification and persuasion strategies on users' perceptions and donation likelihood.<n>Results suggest that interaction with a personified chatbots evokes perceived anthropomorphism; however, it does not elicit greater willingness to donate.<n>In fact, we found that commonly used anthropomorphic features, like name and narrative, led to negative attitudes toward an AI agent in the donation context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-28T02:17:46Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: Examining Human Judgment Against Text Labeled as AI Generated [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.<n>We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Put Chatbot into Its Interlocutor's Shoes: New Framework to Learn Chatbot Responding with Intention [55.77218465471519]
  This paper proposes an innovative framework to train chatbots to possess human-like intentions. Our framework included a guiding robot and an interlocutor model that plays the role of humans. We examined our framework using three experimental setups and evaluate the guiding robot with four different metrics to demonstrated flexibility and performance advantages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-30T15:24:37Z)

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.