IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-61345-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

LLM-generated messages can persuade humans on policy issues

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Bai

    (Stanford University
    Political Belief Lab)

  • Jan G. Voelkel

    (Stanford University
    Stanford University
    Cornell University)

  • Shane Muldowney

    (Stanford University)

  • Johannes C. Eichstaedt

    (Stanford University)

  • Robb Willer

    (Stanford University
    Stanford University)

Abstract

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has made it possible for generative artificial intelligence (AI) to tackle many higher-order cognitive tasks, with critical implications for industry, government, and labor markets. Here, we investigate whether existing, openly-available LLMs can be used to create messages capable of influencing humans’ political attitudes. Across three pre-registered experiments (total N = 4829), participants who read persuasive messages generated by LLMs showed significantly more attitude change across a range of policies - including polarized policies, like an assault weapons ban, a carbon tax, and a paid parental-leave program - relative to control condition participants who read a neutral message. Overall, LLM-generated messages were similarly effective in influencing policy attitudes as messages crafted by lay humans. Participants’ reported perceptions of the authors of the persuasive messages suggest these effects occurred through somewhat distinct causal pathways. While the persuasiveness of LLM-generated messages was associated with perceptions that the author used more facts, evidence, logical reasoning, and a dispassionate voice, the persuasiveness of human-generated messages was associated with perceptions of the author as unique and original. These results demonstrate that recent developments in AI make it possible to create politically persuasive messages quickly, cheaply, and at massive scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Bai & Jan G. Voelkel & Shane Muldowney & Johannes C. Eichstaedt & Robb Willer, 2025. "LLM-generated messages can persuade humans on policy issues," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-61345-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-61345-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61345-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-61345-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Druckman, James N. & Peterson, Erik & Slothuus, Rune, 2013. "How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 57-79, February.
    2. Jan G. Voelkel & James Chu & Michael N. Stagnaro & Joseph S. Mernyk & Chrystal Redekopp & Sophia L. Pink & James N. Druckman & David G. Rand & Robb Willer, 2023. "Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 55-64, January.
    3. Anderson-Nilsson, Georgia & Clayton, Amanda, 2021. "Gender and policy persuasion," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 818-831, October.
    4. Stefan Feuerriegel & Renée DiResta & Josh A. Goldstein & Srijan Kumar & Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Michael Tomz & Nicolas Pröllochs, 2023. "Research can help to tackle AI-generated disinformation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(11), pages 1818-1821, November.
    5. Vivian P. Ta & Ryan L. Boyd & Sarah Seraj & Anne Keller & Caroline Griffith & Alexia Loggarakis & Lael Medema, 2022. "An inclusive, real-world investigation of persuasion in language and verbal behavior," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 883-903, May.
    6. Kalla, Joshua L. & Broockman, David E., 2018. "The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(1), pages 148-166, February.
    7. Noam Slonim & Yonatan Bilu & Carlos Alzate & Roy Bar-Haim & Ben Bogin & Francesca Bonin & Leshem Choshen & Edo Cohen-Karlik & Lena Dankin & Lilach Edelstein & Liat Ein-Dor & Roni Friedman-Melamed & As, 2021. "An autonomous debating system," Nature, Nature, vol. 591(7850), pages 379-384, March.
    8. Clifford, Scott & Sheagley, Geoffrey & Piston, Spencer, 2021. "Increasing Precision without Altering Treatment Effects: Repeated Measures Designs in Survey Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 1048-1065, August.
    9. Mummolo, Jonathan & Peterson, Erik, 2019. "Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(2), pages 517-529, May.
    10. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:9216-9221 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Halling, Aske & Petersen, Niels Bjørn Grund, 2024. "Frontline Employees’ Responses to Citizens’ Communication of Administrative Burdens," OSF Preprints yqzg4, Center for Open Science.
    2. Briggs, Ryan C & Solodoch, Omer, 2021. "Changes in perceptions of border security influence desired levels of immigration," OSF Preprints wt74y, Center for Open Science.
    3. repec:osf:osfxxx:y79u5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    5. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    6. repec:osf:socarx:7ady6_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:osf:osfxxx:wt74y_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ingar Haaland & Julian König & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2024. "Information Experiments," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 271, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    9. Elisabeth Grewenig & Philipp Lergetporer & Katharina Werner & Ludger Woessmann, 2019. "Do Party positions affect the public's policy preferences?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7579, CESifo.
    10. repec:osf:osfxxx:yqzg4_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    12. Geoffrey Henderson & Matto Mildenberger & Leah C. Stokes, 2025. "The effect of environmental voter mobilization on voter turnout and environmental attitudes: evidence from a field experiment in British Columbia, Canada," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(6), pages 1-13, June.
    13. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    14. Cattaneo, Maria & Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger & Wolter, Stefan C., 2020. "Information provision and preferences for education spending: Evidence from representative survey experiments in three countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    16. Bellani, Luna & Berriochoa, Kattalina & Kapteina, Mark & Schwerdt, Guido, 2024. "Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 17099, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    19. Avidit Acharya & Edoardo Grillo & Takuo Sugaya & Eray Turkel, 2019. "Dynamic Campaign Spending," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 601, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    20. Bjorn Van Campenhout & David J. Spielman & Els Lecoutere, 2021. "Information and Communication Technologies to Provide Agricultural Advice to Smallholder Farmers: Experimental Evidence from Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 317-337, January.
    21. Dongshu Liu & Li Shao, 2024. "Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 985-1001, November.
    22. Boneva, Teodora & Brás-Monteiro, Ana & Golin, Marta & Rauh, Christopher, 2024. "Are Men's Preferences for Couple Equity Misperceived? Evidence from Six Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 17493, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    23. Cohle, Zachary & Ortega, Alberto, 2022. "Life of the party: The polarizing effect of foreign direct investment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    24. Wanyun Shao & Feng Hao, 2020. "Approval of political leaders can slant evaluation of political issues: evidence from public concern for climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 201-212, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-61345-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.