Alexander Wuttke

Andreas Jungherr, Adrian Rauchfleisch, Alexander Wuttke

As political parties around the world experiment with Artificial Intelligence (AI) in election campaigns, concerns about deception and manipulation are rising. This article examines how the public reacts to different uses of AI in elections and the potential consequences for party evaluations and regulatory preferences. Across three preregistered studies with over 7,600 American respondents, we identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception. While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations. However, parties engaging in AI-enabled deception face no significant drop in favorability, neither with supporters nor opponents. Instead, deceptive AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development. These findings reveal a misalignment between public disapproval of deceptive AI and the political incentives of parties, underscoring the need for targeted regulatory oversight. Rather than banning AI in elections altogether, regulation should distinguish between harmful and beneficial applications to avoid stifling democratic innovation.

Alexander Wuttke, Matthias Aßenmacher, Christopher Klamm et al.

Traditional methods for eliciting people's opinions face a trade-off between depth and scale: structured surveys enable large-scale data collection but limit respondents' ability to voice their opinions in their own words, while conversational interviews provide deeper insights but are resource-intensive. This study explores the potential of replacing human interviewers with large language models (LLMs) to conduct scalable conversational interviews. Our goal is to assess the performance of AI Conversational Interviewing and to identify opportunities for improvement in a controlled environment. We conducted a small-scale, in-depth study with university students who were randomly assigned to a conversational interview by either AI or human interviewers, both employing identical questionnaires on political topics. Various quantitative and qualitative measures assessed interviewer adherence to guidelines, response quality, participant engagement, and overall interview efficacy. The findings indicate the viability of AI Conversational Interviewing in producing quality data comparable to traditional methods, with the added benefit of scalability. We publish our data and materials for re-use and present specific recommendations for effective implementation.

Alexander Wuttke, Max Melchior Lang, Christopher Klamm et al.

Public opinion research has long faced a trade-off between depth and scale: standardized surveys enable large-scale measurement but restrict respondents to researcher-defined categories, obscuring the diversity of unexpected considerations that underlie public sentiment. More conversational interviews provide richer insights through open-ended probing, but their reliance on trained human interviewers has kept them difficult to scale. This study introduces AI Conversational Interviewing as a method for collecting open-ended public opinion data at scale, pursuing three objectives: to demonstrate the analytical value of conversational text data for questions beyond the reach of closed-ended items; to assess the method's practical viability through participants' own evaluations; and to inform implementation by experimentally comparing voice-based, chat-based, and free-choice interview modes. We conducted a study combining an AI-led interview with a standardized survey on migration policy among 571 respondents recruited via Prolific and Payback Panel. The findings establish AI Conversational Interviewing as a viable and valuable addition to the social-science toolkit. The conversational transcripts surface considerations and reasoning that a comprehensive standardized battery does not capture such as markedly different mental models of migration among subgroups with similar attitudes levels. Among respondents who completed the interview, evaluations of the AI interview were at or above those of the standardized survey across modes, although completion itself varied by condition. By releasing open data and open-source pipeline materials, the study contributes to a growing literature on harnessing artificial intelligence to expand the methods of public opinion measurement.

Alexander Wuttke, Adrian Rauchfleisch, Andreas Jungherr

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public administration is expanding rapidly, moving from automating routine tasks to deploying generative and agentic systems that autonomously act on goals. While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability. This article applies principal-agent theory (PAT) to conceptualize AI adoption as a special case of delegation, highlighting three core tensions: assessability (can decisions be understood?), dependency (can the delegation be reversed?), and contestability (can decisions be challenged?). These structural challenges may lead to a "failure-by-success" dynamic, where early functional gains obscure long-term risks to democratic legitimacy. To test this framework, we conducted a pre-registered factorial survey experiment across tax, welfare, and law enforcement domains. Our findings show that although efficiency gains initially bolster trust, they simultaneously reduce citizens' perceived control. When the structural risks come to the foreground, institutional trust and perceived control both drop sharply, suggesting that hidden costs of AI adoption significantly shape public attitudes. The study demonstrates that PAT offers a powerful lens for understanding the institutional and political implications of AI in government, emphasizing the need for policymakers to address delegation risks transparently to maintain public trust.