Adrian Rauchfleisch

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.

Andreas Jungherr, Antonia Schlude, Adrian Rauchfleisch

AI-enabled military systems are a fixture of modern military conflict. Applications vary from autonomous drones for surveillance and attack to AI-supported target selection. The importance of AI for modern conflict shows also in public disputes between governments and technology companies over the conditions for military access to frontier AI. Both military uses and government attempts at enabling and steering them happen before a backdrop of public opinion, yet we still know little about how people think about military AI. Drawing on a preregistered survey of 9,000 respondents in nine countries, including China, Germany, and the United States, we examine whether support for military AI is shaped primarily by general attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations. Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI. Hawkish respondents are also more supportive. By contrast, principled opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force. Contrary to our expectation, perceived AI risks are positively associated with support. Cross-national differences are moderate and broadly consistent with geopolitical context. Overall, public opinion toward military AI appears conditionally permissive. Publics are not categorically opposed to various military uses of AI. Instead, unease is concentrated around fully autonomous lethal force.

Andreas Jungherr, Adrian Rauchfleisch

As AI-enabled systems become available for political campaign outreach, an important question has received little empirical attention: how do people evaluate the communicative practices these systems represent, and what consequences do those evaluations carry? Most research on AI-enabled persuasion examines attitude change under enforced exposure, leaving aside whether people regard AI-mediated outreach as legitimate or not. We address this gap with a preregistered 2x2 experiment conducted in the United States and United Kingdom (N = 1,800 per country) varying outreach intent (informational vs.~persuasive) and type of interaction partner (human vs.~AI-mediated) in the context of political issues that respondents consider highly important. We find consistent evidence for two evaluation penalties. A persuasion penalty emerges across nearly all outcomes in both countries: explicitly persuasive outreach is evaluated as less acceptable, more threatening to personal autonomy, less beneficial, and more damaging to organizational trust than informational outreach, consistent with reactance to perceived threats to attitudinal freedom. An AI penalty is consistent with a distinct mechanism: AI-mediated outreach triggers normative concerns about appropriate communicative agents, producing similarly negative evaluations across five outcomes in both countries. As automated outreach becomes more widespread, how people judge it may matter for democratic communication just as much as whether it changes minds.

Andreas Jungherr, Adrian Rauchfleisch

Digital deliberation has expanded democratic participation, yet challenges remain. This includes processing information at scale, moderating discussions, fact-checking, or attracting people to participate. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer potential solutions, but public perceptions of AI's role in deliberation remain underexplored. Beyond efficiency, democratic deliberation is about voice and recognition. If AI is integrated into deliberation, public trust, acceptance, and willingness to participate may be affected. We conducted a preregistered survey experiment with a representative sample in Germany (n=1850) to examine how information about AI-enabled deliberation influences willingness to participate and perceptions of deliberative quality. Respondents were randomly assigned to treatments that provided them information about deliberative tasks facilitated by either AI or humans. Our findings reveal a significant AI-penalty. Participants were less willing to engage in AI-facilitated deliberation and rated its quality lower than human-led formats. These effects were moderated by individual predispositions. Perceptions of AI's societal benefits and anthropomorphization of AI showed positive interaction effects on people's interest to participate in AI-enabled deliberative formats and positive quality assessments, while AI risk assessments showed negative interactions with information about AI-enabled deliberation. These results suggest AI-enabled deliberation faces substantial public skepticism, potentially even introducing a new deliberative divide. Unlike traditional participation gaps based on education or demographics, this divide is shaped by attitudes toward AI. As democratic engagement increasingly moves online, ensuring AI's role in deliberation does not discourage participation or deepen inequalities will be a key challenge for future research and policy.

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.

Andreas Jungherr, Adrian Rauchfleisch

Recent advances in generative Artificial Intelligence have raised public awareness, shaping expectations and concerns about their societal implications. Central to these debates is the question of AI alignment -- how well AI systems meet public expectations regarding safety, fairness, and social values. However, little is known about what people expect from AI-enabled systems and how these expectations differ across national contexts. We present evidence from two surveys of public preferences for key functional features of AI-enabled systems in Germany (n = 1800) and the United States (n = 1756). We examine support for four types of alignment in AI moderation: accuracy and reliability, safety, bias mitigation, and the promotion of aspirational imaginaries. U.S. respondents report significantly higher AI use and consistently greater support for all alignment features, reflecting broader technological openness and higher societal involvement with AI. In both countries, accuracy and safety enjoy the strongest support, while more normatively charged goals -- like fairness and aspirational imaginaries -- receive more cautious backing, particularly in Germany. We also explore how individual experience with AI, attitudes toward free speech, political ideology, partisan affiliation, and gender shape these preferences. AI use and free speech support explain more variation in Germany. In contrast, U.S. responses show greater attitudinal uniformity, suggesting that higher exposure to AI may consolidate public expectations. These findings contribute to debates on AI governance and cross-national variation in public preferences. More broadly, our study demonstrates the value of empirically grounding AI alignment debates in public attitudes and of explicitly developing normatively grounded expectations into theoretical and policy discussions on the governance of AI-generated content.

Adrian Rauchfleisch, Joshua Philip Suarez, Nikka Marie Sales et al.

Public product launches in Artificial Intelligence can serve as focusing events for collective attention, surfacing how societies react to technological change. Social media provide a window into the sensemaking around these events, surfacing hopes and fears and showing who chooses to engage in the discourse and when. We demonstrate that public sensemaking about AI is shaped by economic interests and cultural values of those involved. We analyze 3.8 million tweets posted by 1.6 million users across 117 countries in response to the public launch of ChatGPT in 2022. Our analysis shows how economic self-interest, proxied by occupational skill types in writing, programming, and mathematics, and national cultural orientations, as measured by Hofstede's individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance dimensions, shape who speaks, when they speak, and their stance towards ChatGPT. Roles requiring more technical skills, such as programming and mathematics, tend to engage earlier and express more positive stances, whereas writing-centric occupations join later with greater skepticism. At the cultural level, individualism predicts both earlier engagement and a more negative stance, and uncertainty avoidance reduces the prevalence of positive stances but does not delay when users first engage with ChatGPT. Aggregate sentiment trends mask the dynamics observed in our study. The shift toward a more critical stance towards ChatGPT over time stems primarily from the entry of more skeptical voices rather than a change of heart among early adopters. Our findings underscore the importance of both the occupational background and cultural context in understanding public reactions to AI.