Revealing an AI chatbot’s persuasive purpose halves its influence on users, whereas merely labeling messages as AI-generated does not; intent disclosures also raise perceptions of manipulation and support for penalties against the campaign.

Main Finding

A preregistered experiment (N = 1,500, UK adults) shows that a prominent AI-identity label (the kind required by Article 50 of the EU AI Act) does not meaningfully reduce a persuasive chatbot’s influence, whereas disclosing the chatbot’s persuasive intent and instructions roughly halves its average persuasive effect. Identity-only disclosure: no meaningful change (control shift ≈ +12.6 points on a 0–100 attitude scale; T1 ≈ +13.1). Intent + identity disclosure (T2): shift ≈ +6.3 (T2 vs T1: −6.8 points, 95% CI [−9.3, −4.4], p < .001).

Key Points

• Experiment design
  • Three arms: control (no disclosure), T1 (prominent “AI-generated content” identity label), T2 (same label plus verbatim disclosure of the chatbot’s persuasive intent, methods, and instruction to conceal persuasion).
  • Chatbot identical across arms (gpt-5.6-terra), instructed to argue for one of 60 policy positions using an evidence-based persuasion prompt (which included concealment instruction).
• Core results
  • Control: mean attitude shift +12.6 points (0–100 scale).
  • T1 (AI label): +13.1 points — statistically equivalent to control within preregistered equivalence bounds (±3.7 points; pTOST = .002).
  • T2 (intent disclosure): +6.3 points — about half the effect of control/T1 (T2 − T1 = −6.83, 95% CI [−9.26, −4.40], p < .001).
• Process and secondary outcomes
  • Intent disclosure increased persuasion knowledge substantially (b ≈ +0.71 on a 7-point scale; d ≈ 0.49).
  • T2 raised perceived manipulation, increased counterarguing, and reduced warmth toward the chatbot (statistically significant); anger did not increase.
  • T2 led participants to view the sponsoring campaign as less acceptable and to support stronger penalties.
• Robustness / checks
  • Random intercepts for the 60 topics used; all 60 topics showed shrunken estimates in the same direction.
  • High recall of identity label (≈97.8%), so null effect unlikely due to participants missing the label.
• Limitations highlighted by authors
  • T2 is a package treatment (intent + method + concealment instruction); the contribution of each element is not isolated.
  • Sample: UK adults recruited via Prolific (matched quotas for sex, age, party) — not all EU contexts.
  • Single model and a single strong persuasion prompt; topics were selected for persuadability (estimand conditional on persuadable issues).
  • Possible habituation with repeated exposure and disclosure honesty/enforceability issues are unanswered.

Data & Methods

• Preregistered three-arm randomized experiment (fielded 26–31 July 2026).
• Sample: N = 1,500 UK adults (control n = 509; T1 n = 494; T2 n = 497), quotas for sex, age, and party.
• Stimuli and interaction
  • Each participant reported pre-chat attitude on one randomly assigned policy issue (three-item composite, 0–100, α = .90).
  • Then had a 2–6 turn conversation with the same persuasive chatbot (gpt-5.6-terra) framed as outreach from “a campaign promoting this policy.”
  • Server never received experimental-arm info — chatbot behavior identical across arms.
  • T1: EU-style “AI-generated content” card + persistent banner. T2: same plus verbatim instructions about persuasive intent/method and the instruction to conceal the goal.
• Outcomes and analysis
  • Primary outcome: pre → post attitude shift on 0–100 scale.
  • Secondary/process outcomes: persuasion knowledge, perceived manipulation, counterarguing, warmth, anger, campaign acceptability, penalty support, etc.
  • Analyses: preregistered mixed models with random intercepts for policy issue, Holm correction within families, and two-one-sided-tests (TOST) for equivalence with prespecified bounds.
• Data & code availability: authors provide preregistration and replication materials (OSF links in paper).

Implications for AI Economics

• Regulatory design matters for economic incentives and market outcomes
  • Identity-only disclosure (what the system is) appears insufficient to blunt the effectiveness of interactive persuasive AI — meaning rules that only require source labeling may fail to alter demand or reduce return-on-investment for persuasive AI services.
  • Intent disclosure (what the system is trying to do) materially lowers average persuasion and increases reputational/penalty risk for sponsors, which can reduce the expected benefit of deploying persuasive chatbots and therefore lower demand for such services.
• Market and firm behavior predictions
  • If regulators require intent disclosures that are auditable, firms will face higher expected costs (compliance, potential penalties, reputational losses) and lower expected campaign effectiveness — shifting the cost-benefit calculus away from large-scale automated persuasion.
  • Firms may respond by: (a) shifting resources to non-disclosed or covert channels (policy evasion risk), (b) investing in more sophisticated persuasion that is robust to intent disclosure, (c) reducing investment in persuasion use-cases and reallocating to informational or service-oriented uses where intent is benign/transparent.
• Externalities and welfare
  • Intent disclosure increases consumer (citizen) awareness and counterarguing, which can be welfare-improving if persuasion was manipulative; but it may also reduce uptake of beneficial, policy-supporting information delivered by chatbots (negative externality for public-information campaigns).
  • The net welfare effect will depend on content valence (public-good information vs manipulative commercial/political persuasion) and the alignment of sponsor incentives with social welfare.
• Compliance, enforcement, and market structure
  • Intent-based rules create demand for verification/auditing services (third-party attestations, logs, model-instruction audits), increasing compliance costs and creating new market niches (auditors, certified disclosure tooling).
  • Strategic interaction: sponsors may name benign-seeming intent or misreport; enforcement mechanisms (auditable instruction logs, penalties) are key to making intent disclosures effective — enforcement costs should be included in economic assessments of such regulation.
• Research and policy priorities for AI economics
  • Quantify how intent-disclosure rules change ROI on persuasive AI campaigns across sectors (political, commercial, public health).
  • Model dynamic adoption: how repeated exposure affects disclosure efficacy and equilibrium firm strategies (investment in covert channels vs compliance).
  • Estimate compliance and enforcement costs, and market size for auditing/attestation services.
  • Evaluate heterogeneity: effects by population, topic persuadability, and persuasion style; assess cross-country differences relevant for EU-wide vs UK/US markets.

Suggested short policy takeaway: To affect the market for persuasive AI meaningfully, regulators should consider disclosure rules that include persuasive intent and make those disclosures auditable/enforceable; identity-only labeling is unlikely to change economic incentives driving widespread deployment of persuasive chatbots.