AI chatbots can significantly spur real-world actions—raising petition signing by about 20 percentage points and increasing donations—yet shifts in attitudes do not correlate with who acts, warning that attitude-based studies may misstate AI's behavioural impact.

Main Finding

Frontier conversational AIs can meaningfully change real-world political behavior in short multi-turn conversations. Across two preregistered experiments (17,950 responses from 14,779 UK adults), AI conversations increased petition signing (Study 1: +12.8 percentage points; Study 2: +19.7 pp) and produced measurable increases in donations and other engagement outcomes. Crucially, persuasion effects on attitudes and on behaviour were uncorrelated, and the mechanism that drives attitudinal change (information provision) did not predict behavioural change. A combined “Mega” persuasion strategy that adaptively used multiple tactics produced the largest behavioural effects (+23.7 pp), but all eight tested behavioural strategies produced substantial and broadly similar increases in action.

Key Points

• Sample & scope
  • Two large preregistered experiments with N = 17,950 responses (14,779 unique participants), UK adults.
  • Eight distinct real UK petitions (e.g., democratic reform, nuclear disarmament, animal welfare).
  • Conversations with frontier LLMs (e.g., GPT-4.1, Claude Opus 4.6, Grok 4, Gemini 3.1 Pro), average 4.9 turns (~7 minutes).
• Behavioural effects (examples)
  • Petition signing: Study 1 +12.8 pp (p < .001); Study 2 +19.7 pp (p < .001).
  • Bonus donations: Study 1 +4.9 pp (~£0.08 more donated; significant).
  • Stick with sponsoring organization vs switching: +11.3 pp (Study 1).
  • Effort task (clicking to raise money): +2.3 clicks (Study 1, p = .015; sensitivity to one issue noted).
• Attitudes vs behaviour
  • Attitude changes were significant but did not predict behavioural changes.
  • No correlation between treatment effects on petition support and petition signing:
    • Study 1: r = 0.05, p = 0.85
    • Study 2: r = 0.18, p = 0.68
• Mechanisms
  • Self-reported learning (how much participants said they learned) strongly correlated with attitude change but not with behaviour:
    • Attitude: r ≈ 0.85–0.87 (p < .01)
    • Behaviour: r ≈ −0.15 to −0.16 (not significant)
  • “Information (Issue)” prompts increased attitudinal persuasion but were among the least effective for driving behaviour.
  • Study 2 tested eight theory-driven persuasion-to-action strategies; all increased petition signing:
    • Mega (combined): +23.7 pp
    • Implementation Intentions: +21.2 pp
    • Commitment Escalation: +20.6 pp
    • Info (Issue): +16.2 pp (least effective for behaviour)
  • The Mega strategy activated multiple psychological mechanisms and outperformed single strategies, but differences across strategies on behavioural outcomes were modest.
• Heterogeneity and robustness
  • Results were broadly consistent across petitions and models; robust to covariates and alternative specifications.
  • Behavioural effects are comparable to many conventional mobilization interventions (e.g., some canvassing and direct messaging effects), though generalizability outside paid-survey recruitment is unclear.
• Additional findings
  • Attitude change concentrated among non-supporters (persuasion of the unconvinced).
  • Behavioural change concentrated among prior supporters (mobilization).
• Limitations
  • UK sample, paid survey context — scaling to organic exposure is uncertain.
  • Outcomes were relatively low-cost political actions (signing, small donations); results may not extend to high-cost behaviour.
  • Short-term measurement immediately post-conversation; long-term persistence untested.

Data & Methods

• Design
  • Two preregistered randomized experiments.
  • Participants randomized to:
    • Treatment: multi-turn AI conversation instructing the model to persuade them to support/sign/donate for the assigned petition.
    • Control: AI conversation on a neutral, non-political topic.
  • Study 1: 5 AI models × 3 conversation types (15 randomized conditions).
  • Study 2: 8 persuasion strategies (including Mega combined strategy).
• Outcomes
  • Behavioural: actual petition signing (entered first name/last name/email on a real petition site), choosing to donate to the assigned org vs an alternative, bonus donation amount, effortful clicking task to raise funds.
  • Attitudinal: pre/post petition support and organisation support (7-point Likert scales, standardized change).
  • Mechanism measures: post-conversation self-reports (0–100 scales) on learning and multiple psychological mechanism batteries aligned to strategies.
• Analysis
  • Average treatment effects estimated vs. control with confidence intervals and hypothesis tests; heterogeneity checks, leave-one-issue-out, covariate adjustment.
  • Correlations between attitude- and behaviour-level treatment effects across conditions.
  • Multiple-testing correction (Benjamini–Hochberg) for strategy comparisons.
• Ethical safeguards
  • Debriefing after participation; participants could skip or abandon signing process; only completed signatures counted.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market and competition effects
  • AI-driven persuasion is an economically effective channel for mobilization: short paid conversational interactions can shift real behaviour at effect sizes comparable to traditional field methods. This creates demand for AI-based persuasion services (campaigns, NGOs, advocacy, commercial marketing).
  • Cost-efficiency and scale: if AI conversations can be automated and cheap per interaction, they could displace some labor-intensive mobilization (canvassers, phone banking), altering labor demand in political/NGO/campaign markets.
  • Platform competition: firms offering conversational-AI persuasion may have competitive advantage. Platforms that host LLMs or enable API access could capture significant rents from targeted persuasion markets.
• Externalities and public goods
  • High effectiveness at mobilizing action (especially among prior supporters) means externalities on public decision-making and electoral outcomes. Small, low-cost interventions aggregated at scale could shift collective action outcomes.
  • Information provision mostly shifts attitudes but not behavior; behavioural mobilization uses different levers. Economic models that assume attitude-driven behaviour may mispredict welfare and political equilibria when AI persuasion is present.
• Policy, regulation, and institutional responses
  • Need for policy that distinguishes between information provision and behavioural mobilization. Regulatory focus on transparency, consent, and disclosure of algorithmic persuasion would need to address behavioural outcomes and exposure dynamics (not just factual accuracy).
  • Platform-level interventions (rate limits, labeling, provenance, caps on targeted political persuasion) and monitoring of large-scale API usage may be economically justified to limit negative externalities.
  • Cost-benefit analysis of regulation should incorporate the relative ease and low marginal cost of deploying AI persuasion vs. costs of enforcement and surveillance.
• Measurement and evaluation
  • Researchers and regulators should measure behavioural outcomes directly (not rely on attitudinal proxies). Economic evaluations (e.g., cost-effectiveness analyses) must use behavioural endpoints to predict real-world impact and to price persuasion services appropriately.
• Welfare considerations & risk assessment
  • Potential for manipulative, targeted, low-cost persuasion raises concerns about social welfare losses (manipulation, polarization, capture of policy outcomes). Conversely, NGOs could use similar tools for public-benefit mobilisation—so welfare assessment depends on distribution and intent.
  • The relative similarity of behavioural effects across strategies suggests the primary economic bottleneck is exposure/engagement. Interventions that change exposure (platform algorithms, distribution budgets) could therefore have outsized welfare impacts.
• Research & modeling suggestions for economists
  • Incorporate AI persuasion as an endogenous technology in models of political influence, public-good provision, and advertising markets (e.g., users’ attention as scarce resource; persuasion technology reduces cost per targeted action).
  • Model targeting/selection and externalities: endogenous exposure, network spillovers, and strategic complementarities between AI persuasion and traditional mobilization.
  • Empirical work: estimate cost-per-action for AI persuasion vs. traditional methods; map heterogeneity in responsiveness; study persistence and repeated-exposure effects; evaluate platform policy counterfactuals (e.g., limiting targeted political prompts).
• Practical considerations for stakeholders
  • Campaigns and organizations: AI tools can amplify mobilization but may be most effective for activating existing sympathizers rather than converting opposers.
  • Platforms & regulators: prioritize monitoring behavioral endpoints and exposure pathways; invest in provenance, labeling, and access controls.
  • Public interest: invest in detection and counter-persuasion, awareness campaigns, and measures that raise the cost of abusive mobilization (e.g., rate limits, API accountability).

Suggested next empirical steps for economists: estimate per-action costs of AI vs. offline mobilization; measure long-term persistence and repeat exposure effects; quantify distributional effects across demographic and political subgroups; run field experiments in naturally occurring platform contexts to assess external validity and scaling.

If you want, I can extract key tables/figures or translate the main numerical results into approximate cost-per-signature comparisons vs. common canvassing benchmarks for an economic assessment.