www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN The potential of generative AI

for personalized persuasion at scale
S. C. Matz 1,2*, J. D. Teeny 3, S. S. Vaid 4, H. Peters 1, G. M. Harari 5 & M. Cerf 1

Matching the language or content of a message to the psychological profile of its recipient (known as
“personalized persuasion”) is widely considered to be one of the most effective messaging strategies.
We demonstrate that the rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, could
accelerate this influence by making personalized persuasion scalable. Across four studies (consisting
of seven sub-studies; total N = 1788), we show that personalized messages crafted by ChatGPT
exhibit significantly more influence than non-personalized messages. This was true across different
domains of persuasion (e.g., marketing of consumer products, political appeals for climate action),
psychological profiles (e.g., personality traits, political ideology, moral foundations), and when
only providing the LLM with a single, short prompt naming or describing the targeted psychological
dimension. Thus, our findings are among the first to demonstrate the potential for LLMs to automate,
and thereby scale, the use of personalized persuasion in ways that enhance its effectiveness and
efficiency. We discuss the implications for researchers, practitioners, and the general public.

Financial analysts have described people’s digital behavioral data as “more valuable than oil”1,2. This is, in part,
because such records afford one of the most effective forms of influence: personalized persuasion3,4. Compared to
non-personalized communication, matching the content of a persuasive message (e.g., its language or visuals) to
the psychological profile of its recipient enhances its effectiveness (e.g.,4,5). On the one hand, such personalization
offers tremendous opportunities to promote desired behaviors, including a healthy ­lifestyle6–8, financial ­saving9,
or support for ­environmentalism10. On the other hand, it can have a pernicious effect on ­societies11, for example,
increasing the spread of ­disinformation12, manipulating political ­preferences13,14, or promoting maladaptive
consumer decision-making15,16. We provide the first empirical evidence demonstrating how content generated
by artificial intelligence (AI) can scale personalized persuasion by automating the creation of such messages with
only limited information about the message recipient. As legislators increasingly consider whether (and how)
to regulate generative ­AI17, our work suggests that AI-automated, personalized persuasion is poised to create an
inflection point for the implementation and effectiveness of this influence tactic.
Up to this moment in time, the design and delivery of personalized persuasion in real-world conditions have
been constrained by two procedural steps: (1) the identification of a target’s psychological profile, and (2) the
crafting of a message that resonates with that profile. In recent years, the growing availability of people’s digi-
tal footprints in combination with novel machine learning tools has enabled researchers and practitioners to
automate the first step. For example, instead of relying on self-report measures to assess people’s psychological
traits (e.g., personality), predictive algorithms can estimate these traits directly from their digital ­behaviors17–19,
including their Facebook L ­ ikes19,20, the language used in their social media ­posts21–25, their profile ­pictures26,
their credit card ­spending , and their smartphone sensing ­data29.
27,28

Research suggests that such automated predictions can indeed accelerate the implementation of personalized
­persuasion5,30. However, the second step of this influence tactic—crafting a message that matches the identified
psychological profile—has continued to require the labor- and time-intensive process of human authorship (i.e.,
human creators must develop and design the persuasive messages that match the targeted psychology). In this
paper, we empirically test the effectiveness of using large language models (­ LLMs31–35)—specifically, OpenAI’s
widely used C ­ hatGPT35—to author text-based, psychologically-tailored persuasion.
LLMs are advanced generative AI systems that use transformer neural network a­ rchitectures36 to learn lan-
guage representations from vast corpora of text data. LLMs can use these representations to generate text based
on probabilistic estimates for which words or groups of words would be most expected in response to a particular
text-based prompt. Since their inception, LLMs have shown rapid performance improvements in a variety of

1
Columbia Business School, New York, USA. 2 Center for Advanced Technology and Human Performance, Columbia
Business School, New York, USA. 3Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, USA. 4Negotiation, Organizations
and Marketing Unit, Department of Communication, Harvard Business School, Stanford University, Stanford,
USA. 5Present address: Department of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. *email: sm4409@
gsb.columbia.edu

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

natural language processing t­ asks37. In addition, applications that are optimized for human interaction with
LLMs (e.g., chat.opaenai.com) have made them accessible to the general public, with ChatGPT becoming the
fastest platform to reach 100 million monthly active u ­ sers38.
Scientists and practitioners have been quick to acknowledge the potential power of LLMs in the context of
­persuasion39–41. For example, ad agencies have started to employ LLMs to create generic “ad copy” that can be
published ­quickly42. Similarly, recent research suggests that automatically generated product descriptions in
combination with human screening can result in improved click-through and conversion rates in e-commerce
­sites43. While these developments speak to the ability of LLMs to generate generic persuasive content, they do not
offer any insights into (1) whether LLMs can create persuasive messages that are personalized to the needs and
motivations of an individual and (2) whether doing so indeed makes these persuasive attempts more influential.
We expect LLMs to be able to do so for several reasons. First, LLMs have been shown to bear an uncanny
resemblance to humans in how they process information and respond to external stimuli (e.g.,44). For example,
recent work suggests that a central psychological process in personalized persuasion, theory of mind (e.g., rep-
resenting other people’s mental states), may have spontaneously emerged in LLMs (e.g.,45,46). Moreover, whereas
humans are known to be prone to egocentrism biases when crafting persuasive messages—i.e., producing argu-
ments that are persuasive to themselves, rather than the other ­person47—algorithms do not suffer from the same
limitations, making LLMs prime candidates for the creation of personalized persuasive content. Second, because
LLMs have been trained on expansive corpora of human-generated language, they have access to a far greater
and more diverse range of human expressions than any single human author could ever process. In combination,
these two features make it likely that LLMs are not only able to discern the meaning of psychological constructs,
but that they will also be able to integrate their vast “knowledge” of them into the generation of persuasive per-
sonalized messages. If this prediction is true, outsourcing personalized persuasion to machines could not only
increase its efficiency and scalability, but also its effectiveness.
Across four studies consisting of seven individual sub-studies, we provide some of the first empirical evi-
dence that LLMs can “close the loop” in automating the design and implementation of personalized persuasion.
Specifically, we show that Open AI’s ChatGPT is capable of generating personalized persuasion that is effective
in shaping people’s attitudes and intended behaviors. To highlight the breadth and generalizability of our find-
ings, we replicate the effect across multiple prominent persuasion domains (i.e., consumer marketing, political
appeals, and health messaging), as well as a variety of psychological traits that reflect different but common
aspects of a person’s psychological profile (i.e., Big Five personality traits, regulatory focus, political orientation,
and moral foundations).
The studies received ethical approval from Columbia University’s IRB (Protocol #: AAAU4108) and were
performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants provided informed consent at
the beginning of the study. Materials, data, and analysis scripts are available on OSF (link: https://o​ sf.i​ o/7​ 9wcm/).

Studies 1a and 1b
Studies 1a and 1b investigated whether personality-tailored messages generated by the pre-trained Transformer
model ChatGPT-3 can increase the messages’ perceived persuasiveness. In addition, Study 1b tested whether the
effect was impacted by people’s awareness that the messages were generated using AI and designed to speak to
specific personality traits. We focused on the Big Five personality traits as an established marker of ­personality48
that has been: (1) validated across different c­ ontexts49, (2) shown to predict a wide range of preferences and life
­outcomes41,42, and (3) used in past research on personalized persuasion (e.g.,50–52). The Big Five model posits that
individual differences in cognition, affect, and behavior can be pragmatically described using the following five
dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and N ­ euroticism48,53.

Methods Study 1a
In Study 1a, we recruited 127 participants through Prolific Academic. Participants who failed at least one of two
attention checks were excluded from the analyses (n = 7). The 120 participants in the final sample were 37.2 ± 13.2
(mean ± std) years old and 50% of them identified as female.
Participants first indicated their preferences for different iPhone ads. The ad messages were tailored to the
high and low ends of the Big Five personality traits using the open-source playground version of GPT-3 (version
“text-davinci-003”). For example, we prompted GPT-3 to generate an iPhone ad tailored to Extraversion with
the prompt: “Write an iPhone ad for someone who is extraverted and enthusiastic”. In contrast, we prompted
it to customize a message for Introversion with: “Write an iPhone ad for someone who is reserved and quiet”.
The adjectives used in these prompts (e.g., reserved and quiet) were taken from the language used to identify
personality traits (e.g., Introversion) in the Ten-Item-Personality-Inventory (­ TIPI54), but were adjusted in a few
instances to reflect more positive versions of the same characteristics (e.g., competitive rather than quarrelsome
for low Agreeableness). We did not generate messages for the personality trait of Neuroticism as this trait is
unique in that messages designed to “match” the low end of the continuum (i.e., emotionally stable messages)
would be appealing to people low and high in ­Neuroticism55. Figure 1 shows examples of the messages generated
by GPT-3 for the two prompts above (see Table S1 in the SI for all prompts and messages, and Table S2 for the
results of a pre-validation study supporting the intended personality affinity of all stimuli).
We measured people’s preferences for various ads using two 11-point bi-polar scales that contrasted the mes-
sages tailored towards the high and low ends of the personality trait (Fig. 1). The bi-polar measure minimizes
biased evaluations via “response substitution”56. That is, while uni-polar measures (e.g., “How much did this
change your opinion?”) might simply capture participants’ a priori evaluation or unrelated individual differ-
ences, the current measure focuses on participants’ evaluations of the ads’ relative effectiveness. Effectiveness was
calculated as the average score across the two bi-polar items assessed for each ad (see Fig. S1 for distribution of

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  Extraverted and introverted ads for an iPhone generated by GPT-3 alongside the response scale used
to record effectiveness ratings.

outcome variables). In later studies (Studies 3–4), we demonstrate the generalizability of our findings by taking
alternative approaches to assess the messages’ effectiveness.
Finally, participants completed an established measure of the Big Five personality traits (BFI-2S57), which
asks participants to rate their agreement with a set of 30 statements. Responses were recorded on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. With Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.78 to 0.87,
the scale reliabilities were found to be good (Openness = 0.82, Conscientiousness = 0.82, Extraversion = 0.83,
Agreeableness = 0.78 and Neuroticism = 0.87). Participants also responded to a series of socio-demographic
questions, including age, gender, ethnicity, employment status and education.

Results Study 1a
To test whether people prefer personalized messages automatically generated by GPT-3, we first ran a series of
linear regression analyses, regressing the continuous message effectiveness ratings for each trait on all the Big
Five traits and controls (i.e., age, gender, employment status, education and ethnicity; see Table S3 in the Supple-
mentary Information for zero-order correlations). Figure 2 shows the standardized effects with 95% confidence
intervals for each of the ad pairs associated with the four personality traits (see Table S4 in the Supplementary

Figure 2.  Effects (with 95% confidence intervals) of Big Five personality traits on effectiveness ratings for the
respective ads.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Information for full model outputs). Supporting our hypothesis, we found that participants’ Openness (β = 0.36,
­CI95 0.16–0.56, p < 0.001), Conscientiousness (β = 0.29, ­CI95 0.05–0.53, p = 0.020) and Extraversion (β = 0.40,
­CI95 0.16–0.63, p < 0.001) predicted their preferences for the ads tailored to these traits. We did not observe a
significant effect for Agreeableness (β = -0.17, ­CI95 − 0.40 to 0.06, p = 0.152).

Methods Study 1b
In Study 1b, we recruited a total of 500 participants through Prolific Academic. Participants who failed at least
one of two attention checks were excluded from the analyses (n = 29). The 471 participants in the final sample
were 36.2 ± 12.5 (mean ± std) years old and 48% of them identified as female.
All materials and outcome measures were the same as in Study 1a (see Fig. S2 for distribution of outcome
variables). Unlike Study 1a, however, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental condi-
tions. The first condition (“baseline”) was similar to that of Study 1a. In the second condition (“Disclosure 1”),
participants were informed that the ads were generated by GPT-3, a generative AI (“The ads have been generated
by GPT-3, an artificial intelligence program that can use different prompts (e.g. "Please write me an iPhone ad") to
create content”). In the third condition (“Disclosure 2”), participants were told that GPT-3 had been instructed
to create ads tailored to different personality traits (“The ads have been generated by GPT-3, an artificial intel-
ligence program that can use different prompts (e.g., "Please write me an iPhone ad") to create content. We asked
GPT-3 to generate ads tailored to different personalities (e.g., people who are outgoing and social or people who are
reserved and quiet”).
As in Study 1a, participants completed the BFI-2-S to report on their Big Five personality. The scale reli-
abilities for the BFI-2-S Big Five personality m­ easure57 were found to be good to excellent (Openness = 0.85,
Conscientiousness = 0.84, Extraversion = 0.83, Agreeableness = 0.79 and Neuroticism = 0.90).

Results Study 1b
We replicated our earlier findings using the full sample in Study 1b, finding that participants’ Openness (β = 0.16,
­CI95 0.06–0.25, p < 0.001), Conscientiousness (β = 0.20, ­CI95 0.09–0.31, p < 0.001) and Extraversion (β = 0.29,
­CI95 0.18–0.39, p < 0.001), but not Agreeableness (β = 0.00, ­CI95 -0.11–0.14, p = 0.847) predicted people’s prefer-
ences for generative AI ads tailored to these traits (see Table S5 for zero-order correlations and Table S6 for full
regression outputs).
To test the impact of our experimental manipulation in Study 1b (i.e., the different disclosures), we ran the
same four linear regression analyses while adding an interaction term between the relevant personality trait and
the condition. None of the interaction terms were significant, suggesting that the personality matching effects did
not vary across experimental conditions. That is, the effects largely persisted despite informing people about the
fact that the messages were generated by an AI rather than a human, and that the ads were designed to appeal
to different personality traits (see Fig. S3 for a visual depiction of the findings, Table S7 for the full regression
outputs and Tables S8–S10 for regression analyses conducted separately for each condition).

Study 2
Study 2 tested the generalizability of the effects observed in Study 1 by replicating them using a broader set of
stimuli and psychological characteristics. Specifically, we used ChatGPT to generate: (1) ads for Nike sneak-
ers, tailored to the Big Five traits, (2) persuasive messages promoting participants to exercise more, tailored to
regulatory ­focus58 and (3) political appeals for climate action, tailored to moral foundations. The two new psy-
chological characteristics included in Study 2 were chosen based on their relevance to their respective message
domains and prior matching research. Regulatory focus captures individual differences in people’s dispositional
motivation to pursue their goals by focusing on the attainment of desired outcomes (i.e., promotion focus) or
the prevention of undesirable outcomes (i.e., prevention focus, e.g.,59). Matching messages to people’s dominant
regulatory focus has previously been shown to enhance the effectiveness of personalized persuasion, especially
in the health ­domain6,60. Moral foundations describe individual differences in people’s moral reasoning (i.e., the
way they decide what is right and wrong) along five dimensions: Loyalty, Care, Fairness, Purity and ­Authority61.
Research on moral reframing has shown that persuasive political appeals are more effective when they are tai-
lored to people’s moral foundations, or when they are matched with the foundations that closely align with their
political ­ideologies10,62,63.

Methods
We recruited a total of 200 participants through Prolific Academic. Participants who failed at least one of three
attention checks were excluded from the analyses (n = 8). The 192 participants in the final sample were 36.7 ± 13.0
(mean ± std) years old and 49% of them identified as female.
Participants were shown a series of AI-generated persuasive messages about the various topics, which were
tailored to the respective psychological profile: Nike sneakers (Big Five traits), exercise (regulatory focus), and
climate action (moral foundations). As in Study 1, the prompts for these messages were minimal (e.g., Preven-
tion focus: “Write a short persuasive ad to convince a prevention-focused person to exercise more.”; Fairness:
“Write a short political ad in favor of taking climate action that is tailored to people scoring high on the moral
foundation of fairness”). All persuasive messages were generated using the most recent openly available version
of ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo (compiled on February 16, 2023). Table 1 shows two political speeches tailored to the
moral foundations of Fairness and Loyalty (see Tables S11–13 in the Supplementary Information for all prompts
and messages, and Tables S14–16 for the results of a pre-validation study supporting the intended psychological
affinity of all stimuli).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Loyalty Fairness
Do you believe in creating a fair and just world for all? Do you feel
a strong sense of responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to
clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment? If so, then I urge
you to consider the benefits of taking action on climate change
Do you believe in standing up for the people and places that you love? Do you feel a strong sense of loyalty
Climate change is not just an environmental issue—it’s a matter of
to your community, your country, and the natural world around you? If so, then I urge you to consider the
fairness and justice. The impacts of climate change are being felt most
benefits of taking action on climate change
acutely by the most vulnerable members of society, including low-
Climate change is not just an environmental issue—it’s a threat to the places and people that we hold dear.
income communities and people of color. These communities often
From the rising sea levels that threaten our coastal communities to the extreme weather events that disrupt our
lack the resources and political power to protect themselves from the
lives and livelihoods, the impacts of climate change are being felt all around us
effects of climate change
By taking action on climate change, we can help to protect the people and places that we love, showing our
By taking action on climate change, we can help to create a fairer and
loyalty to our communities and our country. We can invest in resilient infrastructure, prepare for the impacts
more just world for all. We can invest in renewable energy sources,
of climate change, and work to build a stronger and more secure future for all
promote sustainable transportation, and work to create a more equi-
Moreover, taking action on climate change is not just a matter of protecting our own interests—it’s also an
table and inclusive society that prioritizes the needs of all people
opportunity to lead by example and inspire others to do the same. By showing our loyalty to the natural world
Moreover, taking action on climate change is not just a matter of fair-
and taking steps to protect it, we can help to create a brighter and more hopeful future for all
ness—it’s also an opportunity to lead by example and inspire others
So if you believe in standing up for the people and places that you love, we urge you to support action on
to do the same. By showing our commitment to fairness and justice,
climate change. Together, we can create a future that is both loyal and resilient, reflecting the best of our shared
we can help to create a brighter and more hopeful future for all
values and commitments to the people and places that we call home
So if you believe in creating a fair and just world for all, we urge
you to support action on climate change. Together, we can create a
future that is both sustainable and equitable, reflecting the best of our
shared values and commitments to fairness and justice for all

Table 1.  Political speeches advocating for climate action generated by ChatGPT to appeal to the moral
foundations of fairness and loyalty.

To assess message effectiveness, for each of the Big Five traits and regulatory focus messages, participants
used the same bi-polar response scale as in Study 1. For moral foundations, we used an alternative measure that
required participants to make trade-offs by allocating a total of 100 points across all messages (prompt: “Imagine
you hear five politicians advocating for climate action. They all have different arguments for why they believe we
should act. Please read through all of the arguments carefully and decide how persuasive you find them. You have
a total of 100 points to allocate across the five arguments. You can do so by typing the number of points in the box
next to each argument. The more persuasive you find an argument, the more points you should allocate to it”). The
trade-offs were used since there are no high and low ends to contrast the foundation dimensions. As with the
bi-polar scales, this approach allowed us to assess message effectiveness in a way that removed individual differ-
ences and a priori evaluations in people’s general support for the topic, testing liking for the messages themselves.
Fig. S4 in the Supplementary Information shows the response distributions for all persuasive messages.
After rating each of the ads, participants completed a series of self-report surveys. We again measured par-
ticipants’ Big Five personality traits using the 30-item BFI-2-S57. With Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.78 to
0.87, the scale reliabilities were found to be good (Openness = 0.82, Conscientiousness = 0.82, Extraversion = 0.83,
Agreeableness = 0.78 and Neuroticism = 0.87).
We measured regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention) using an adapted measure of the original
18-item ­scale64. Specifically, we removed four items that referred to academic performance, leaving us with
14 items in total, seven each for promotion and prevention-focus (e.g., “In general, I am focused on preventing
negative events in my life” for prevention and “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations”
for promotion). Responses were recorded on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly
Agree. With a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 for prevention-focus and 0.90 for promotion-focus, the scale reliabilities
of the adapted measure were found to be good to excellent, with both measures being uncorrelated (r = 0.086,
p = 0.234). Given that the outcome measure required participants to rate the relative effectiveness of between the
promotion and prevention focused message, we used the difference between participants’ dispositional promo-
tion and preventions scores as our predictor.
We measured the moral foundations using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ-3065), which uses 30
items to measure the five moral foundations: Purity, Care, Loyalty, Fairness and Authority. One set of questions
asked participants to indicate the extent to which a certain criterion is relevant to them when deciding whether
something is right or wrong (e.g., “Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority” for Author-
ity). Responses were recorded on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = Not at all relevant to 6 = Extremely relevant.
The second set of questions asked people to rate their agreement with a series of statements (e.g., “Justice is the
most important requirement for a society” for Fairness). Responses were recorded on a 6-point scale ranging
from 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree. Scores were averaged across both sets of questions. With Cron-
bach’s alphas ranging from 0.60 to 0.86, the scale reliabilities were found to be acceptable to good (Purity = 0.77,
Care = 0.73, Loyalty = 0.70, Fairness = 0.60 and Authority = 0.86). We also asked participants to report their politi-
cal ideology on a scale ranging from 1 = Very conservative to 7 = Very liberal.

Results
We ran a series of linear regression analyses, regressing the continuous message effectiveness ratings for each
outcome on the respective set of psychological characteristics and controls. While we added all the Big Five
traits into the model simultaneously (similar to Study 1), the moral foundations were added individually due
to their relatively high inter-correlations (average r = 0.34, max r = 0.75). Given that the moral foundations have
previously been related to political ideology, and political ideology can be more easily imputed in the real world

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

from online behavioral data or accessed through data brokers, we also tested the impact of political ideology on
people’s effectiveness ratings for the moral foundation messages. For this purpose, we totaled the points allocated
to the two messages tailored to the dimensions typically associated with a more liberal ideology (Care and Fair-
ness) and regressed that measure on participants’ political ideology and controls.
For the sneaker ads tailored to the Big Five traits, we replicated the findings of Study 1 in that participants’
Openness (β = 0.19, ­CI95 0.04–0.34, p = 0.012) and Extraversion (β = 0.19, ­CI95 0.01–0.37, p = 0.040) predicted
their preferences for the ads tailored to these traits. We did not find any significant effects for Conscientiousness
(β = 0.08, ­CI95 − 0.12 to 0.28, p = 0.424) or Agreeableness (β = -0.00 ­CI95 − 0.18 to 0.17, p = 0.984; see Fig. S5 for a
visualization of marginal effects, Table S17 for zero-order correlations and Table S18 for full regression outputs).
For the health behavior messages tailored to regulatory focus, we found small, but non-significant, matching
effects (β = 0.12, ­CI95 − 0.03 to 0.27, p = 0.125; see Fig. S6 for a visualization of marginal effects, Table S19 for
zero-order correlations and Table S20 for full regression outputs).
For the climate change appeals tailored to moral foundations, we found that three of the moral foundations
as well as political ideology showed the expected matching effects (Fig. 3; see Table S21 for zero-order correla-
tions). Specifically, we found that participants’ Loyalty (β = 0.17, ­CI95 0.02–0.32, p = 0.026), Fairness (β = 0.25,
­CI95 0.11–0.40, p = 0.001), Authority (β = 0.22, ­CI95 0.07–0.37, p = 0.005) and political orientation (β = 0.22,
­CI95 0.08–0.37, p = 0.003) predicted their preferences for the matching ads (Table S22). We did not find any signifi-
cant effects for Purity (β = − 0.04, ­CI95 − 0.20 to 0.12, p = 0.645) or Care (β = − 0.06, ­CI95 − 0.10 to 0.21, p = 0.468).

Studies 3a–c
Studies 3a and 3b tested the potential of AI-generated matching effects under more conservative conditions to
better support our findings’ real-world applicability. This included: (1) replacing the bi-polar response scales with
single message evaluations (akin to users scrolling down their newsfeed and evaluating one ad at a time), and
(2) gauging message effectiveness on people’s willingness-to-pay (WTP; i.e., “How much would you be willing to
spend on X?”) as a proxy for behavior. Previous research has found that self-reported WTP is both an interpret-
able ­outcome66 and a reflection of people’s actual, in-market demand and pricing d ­ ecisions67.
Study 3c complements Studies 3a-b with an experimental between-subjects design in which participants only
evaluated one message at a time (instead of a within-subjects design in which participants evaluated all mes-
sages). By using this approach, we offer an even more conservative test of the effects and rule out any remaining
artifactual explanations for the findings (e.g., within-stimuli influence from contrasting opposing ads). This study
was pre-registered on AsPredicted.com (link: aspredicted.org/8ZH_T9L).

Methods Study 3a
In Study 3a, we focused once again on smartphone advertisements tailored to Big Five personality traits. We
recruited 200 participants through Prolific Academic. Participants who failed at least one of two attention checks
were excluded from the analyses (n = 8). The 192 participants in the final sample were 35.7 ± 13.4 (mean ± std) years
old and 50% of them identified as female.

Figure 3.  Effects (with 95% confidence intervals) of political ideology and moral foundations on effectiveness
ratings for the respective ads.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

We used the four iPhone ads that represented the high ends of the personality traits from Study 1 (i.e., high
Openness, high Conscientiousness, high Extraversion and high Agreeableness). Although our analyses were
focused on Openness and Extraversion (given that these were the only two traits that showed robust effects in
Studies 1 and 2), we retained the other two messages for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This was done
to statistically account for variance in our outcome measures attributable to individual differences unrelated to
people’s ad preferences (e.g., extraverts potentially giving higher scores on rating scales, or individual variation
in the amount of money they can afford to spend when purchasing a smartphone). Specifically, we calculated the
residuals for each outcome measure by regressing the targeted outcome (e.g., WTP for the phone advertised with
the Openness ad) on the equivalent outcomes for the other traits (e.g., WTP for the phone advertised with the
Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Agreeableness ads; s­ ee43 for a similar approach). This allows us to isolate
the unique variance in a participant’s preference that is unique to each specific ad (as opposed to the variance
that is shared among all of them).
Participants were presented with one ad at a time and indicated their agreement with the following two state-
ments: “This is a persuasive ad” and “This ad has made me more interested in the iPhone” (1 = Strongly Disagree
to 7 = Strongly Agree). Effectiveness was calculated as the average of the two items. Participants were also asked
to indicate the amount of money in $USD they would be willing to spend on the iPhone with values ranging
from $1 to $1000 (WTP; see Fig. S7 for distribution of outcome variables). This range was selected to realistically
represent the price of the most advanced iPhone model at the time of data collection ($1000; iPhone 14 Pro) as
well as various other prices for older, used or discounted iPhones.
In addition to the control variables used across Studies 1–2, we calculated the average effectiveness/WTP for
each participant to further control for differences in averages on these ratings. We also included the position in
which an ad was displayed to control for order effects.
Similar to Studies 1 and 2, we measured participants’ Big Five personality traits using the 30-item BFI-2-S57.
With Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.81 to 0.89, the scale reliabilities were found to be good (Openness = 0.81,
Conscientiousness = 0.89, Extraversion = 0.82, Agreeableness = 0.82 and Neuroticism = 0.86).

Results Study 3a
We ran a series of linear regression analyses, regressing the residual effectiveness and WTP ratings for the AI-
generated ads on the respective set of psychological characteristics and controls (including the order in which
the ad appeared and the average ratings across all ads; Fig. 4).

Figure 4.  Effects (with 95% confidence intervals) of Big Five personality traits on effectiveness ratings and
WTP for the respective ads.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Replicating the findings from Studies 1 and 2, we found that participants assigned higher effectiveness scores
to messages that aligned with their Openness (β = 0.24, ­CI95 0.07–0.41, p = 0.005) and Extraversion (β = 0.35,
­CI95 0.18–0.52, p < 0.001). Similarly, we found that participants were willing to pay more for the iPhone when the
message aligned with their Extraversion scores (β = 0.26, ­CI95 0.09–0.44, p = 0.004). An increase of one standard
deviation in participant’s extraversion was akin to an increase of $33 in the willingness to pay for the iPhone
advertised with the extraverted message. The effect of Openness was found to be marginally significant (β = 0.15,
­CI95 − 0.02 to 0.33, p = 0.085, equivalent to an increase of $19 in willingness to pay; see Table S23 for zero-order
correlations and Tables S24–25 for full regression outputs).

Methods Study 3b
In Study 3b, we aimed to replicate the effects of AI generated matching on WTP using a different persuasion
domain and different set of psychological traits. For this purpose, we recruited 203 participants through Prolific
Academic. Participants who failed at least one of two attention checks were excluded from the analyses (n = 7). The
196 participants in the final sample were 39.7 ± 14.59 (mean ± std) years old and 48% of them identified as female.
Participants read the five speeches advocating for climate action created for Study 2, one speech at a time, and
indicated their agreement with the following two statements: “This is a compelling argument for climate action”
and “The argument has made me more interested in supporting climate action”. Responses were recorded on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Persuasiveness was calculated as the
mean across the two items. Participants were also asked to indicate the amount of money they would be willing
to donate to the depicted politician’s campaign with values ranging from $1 to $100 (see Fig. S8 for distribution
of outcome variables). This range was selected based on interpretability as well as survey data showing that the
average American donates less than $100 to political c­ auses68.
Given that liberals are generally more likely to consider climate-change affirming messaging effective and are
more likely to donate to climate related causes, we calculated the outcome measure as a difference score. That is,
we calculated the difference between the average scores of the liberal-leaning messages (Care and Fairness) and
the average scores of the conservative-leaning messages (Purity, Loyalty and Authority).
As in Study 3a, we calculated the average effectiveness/WTP for each participant to further control for dif-
ferences in average effectiveness and WTP ratings and included the position in which a particular speech was
displayed to control for order effects. Participants reported their political ideology on a scale ranging from
1 = Very conservative to 7 = Very liberal.

Results Study 3b
Replicating the findings from Study 3a, we found that participants assign higher persuasiveness scores to AI-
generated messages that align with their political ideology (β = 0.18, ­CI95 0.03–0.33, p = 0.018) and are willing to
donate more to the politicians that use these messages (β = 0.24, ­CI95 0.09–0.38, p = 0.002). An increase of one
standard deviation in participant’s liberalism was akin to an additional $2 (out of $100) donated to the politi-
cian using matching (liberal compared to conservative) messages (see Fig. S9 for a visualization of marginal
effects, Table S26 for zero-order correlations, and Table S27 for full regression outputs). Additional analyses of
the residualized effectiveness and WTP scores for each message show that the effects were largely driven by the
Fairness and Loyalty messages (Tables S28–29 in the Supplementary Information).

Methods Study 3c
We recruited 350 participants through Prolific Academic, excluding those who failed at least one of two attention
checks (n = 7). From those remaining, we selected the first 320 responses to adhere to our preregistered target
sample (the results remain unchanged when using all 343 participants). The 320 participants in the final sample
were 36.1 ± 12.3 (mean ± std) years old and 52% identified as female.
We used two sets of messages: ads that were tailored to high and low levels of Extraversion for the iPhone (see
stimuli from Studies 1 and 3a, Table S1), and speeches tailored to Fairness and Loyalty for the political messages
on climate action (see Stimuli from Study 2, Table S12). Each participant responded to both scenarios (iPhone
and political) but saw and rated only one of the respective messages in each scenario (e.g., either the introverted
or extraverted iPhone ad). This design further helped simulate ecologically realistic conditions (i.e., people
exposed to ads for different topics), removed demand effects (i.e., by only soliciting evaluations for one of the
ads), and eliminated any influence of contrast effects from mismatched messages (i.e., as matching/mismatching
was done between-participants).
As preregistered, we collected the same measures as Study 3a (ad effectiveness and willingness to pay; see
Fig. S10 for distributions of outcome variables). As before, we measured participants’ Big Five personality traits
using the 30-item BFI-2-S57. With Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.77 to 0.88, the scale reliabilities were found
to be good (Openness = 0.82, Conscientiousness = 0.87, Extraversion = 0.84, Agreeableness = 0.77 and Neuroti-
cism = 0.88). Participants also reported their political ideology on a scale ranging from 1 = Very conservative to
7 = Very liberal.

Results 3c
We ran a series of linear regression analyses, regressing the effectiveness ratings and WTP for each persuasion
scenario on the interaction between the type of AI-generated message (specific personality or moral foundation)
and the psychological profile of the participant (personality or political ideology). Because responses to our politi-
cal ideology measure were negatively skewed, we could not dichotomize this variable as preregistered (i.e., any
split would have led to an arbitrary distinction or highly uneven groups). Thus, we analyzed the interactions with
the continuous Extraversion and political ideology measures (which we had described as an additional robustness

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

check in the preregistration). Importantly, the findings for Extraversion—which allowed for a meaningful median
split—remain unchanged when using the dichotomized version.
The results of this study replicate our earlier matching effects for the ad effectiveness measure. The AI-gener-
ated matched messages were perceived to be more effective in both the iPhone scenario (β = 0.25, ­CI95 0.03–0.47,
p = 0.026) and the political speech scenario (β = 0.23, ­CI95 0.02–0.43, p = 0.028; Fig. 5, see also Table S30 for
zero-order correlations, and Table S31 for full regression outputs). Although the effects for the WTP measure
were directionally consistent, they were not significant (iPhone: β = 0.04, ­CI95 − 0.19 to 0.27, p = 0.743, political
speech: β = 0.08, ­CI95 − 0.14 to 0.30, p = 0.484; Fig. 5 and Table S31 for full regression outputs). Instead, we found
strong main effects of Extraversion and political ideology on WTP, with extraverts being willing to spend more
on the iPhone in general, and liberals willing to donate more to political candidates advocating for climate action.
Although the matching effects were weaker for the WTP measure, this is a finding consistent with behavioral
phenomena more b ­ roadly69 and one we discuss in greater detail in “ Discussion”.

Study 4
In our final study, we more fully simulate the process involved in scaling the use of ChatGPT for personalized
persuasion in the real world. That is, instead of designing a limited set of messages ahead of time and assess-
ing participants’ psychological traits post hoc, we recruited participants whose personality profile was known
to us prior to the study (i.e., from participating in our earlier studies) and prompted ChatGPT to dynamically
create a personalized ad for each individual participant. By subsequently comparing the effectiveness of these
personalized ads to that of ads created based on generic prompts, we offer additional evidence for the effective-
ness of personalized persuasion using generative AI. The study focuses on two different consumer products, one
experiential and one material: a weekend getaway to Rome and Nike sneakers.

Methods
Approximately 6 to 9 months after data collection for Studies 3a–c, we invited all participants to this new survey
on Prolific Academic, ending data collection after a requested 300 responses. In total, we received 303 participants,
retaining 297 who passed both attention checks (43.4 ± 14.1 (mean ± std) years old and 48% identified as female).

Figure 5.  Interaction effects (with 95% confidence intervals) of participants and message personality/political
ideology on effectiveness ratings and WTP for iPhone ads and political speeches.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

We invited these participants specifically, because they completed the Big Five personality test (i.e., the 30-item
BFI-2-S)57 in our earlier experiments. This allowed us to extract their personality profiles ahead of the current
study to prompt ChatGPT to create personality-tailored ads unique to each participant.
The overall procedure for this study was as follows. First, we calculated the percentile scores for Openness,
Extraversion and Conscientiousness for each participant (based on the means and standard deviations of all
participants from Studies 1–3). We again did not consider Neuroticism (i.e., due to its unique theoretical nature),
and likewise, did not include Agreeableness as our previous studies suggested no significant matching-effects
for this trait (see “Discussion”).
Second, we identified the most salient personality trait for each participant, defined as the trait whose percen-
tile score deviated the most strongly from the 50% median (in absolute terms). For example, a participant with
percentile scores of 40% for Openness, 70% for Extraversion and 15% for Conscientiousness would have been
assigned a salient personality of “Low Conscientiousness” (absolute difference to average: |50% − 15%|= 35%).
We chose this procedure of identifying a single salient trait over one that would have provided ChatGPT with
all the information about a person’s profile to keep the ads focused and concise. This decision was based on pre-
testing different options and realizing that a more comprehensive personality profile resulted in ChatGPT using
this information in an additive rather than integrative way (see Discussion for a more detailed elaboration and
potential future directions).
Third, we used each person’s most salient personality trait to create an ad tailored to this particular trait
via OpenAI’s ChatGPT API (version 3.5 Turbo). To simplify the task, we categorized the percentile score into
low (≤ 33%), medium(> 33% and < 66%) and high (≥ 66%). Given that we specifically selected the traits based
on their level of extremeness (i.e., deviation from 50%), all but 10 out of the 297 participants were described
with either a low or a high score of Openness, Extraversion or Conscientiousness (see Table S32 for the relative
frequencies of each trait).
To explore the different capabilities of ChatGPT in interpreting our personalized prompts, we followed two
different approaches. For the getaway to Rome, we simply supplied ChatGPT with the label of the personality
trait (e.g., “Write a short ad for a weekend getaway to Rome that is tailored to a person who scores low on the Big
Five personality trait of Conscientiousness. Do not explicitly mention personality traits in the ad.”). For the Nike
sneakers, we translated the personality trait’s labels as we did in the previous studies (e.g., “Write a short ad
for a Nike Sneaker that is tailored to a person who is disorganized and careless. Do not explicitly mention these
personality traits in the ad.”). Table 2 displays example ads for the weekend getaway. To test the effectiveness of
this personalization approach, we also generated five generic ads for each product (prompts: “Write a short ad
for a weekend getaway to Rome” and “Write a short ad for a Nike Sneaker”) and randomly assigned one of the
outputs to each participant (all participant-specific and generic stimuli can be found on the paper’s OSF page:
https://​osf.​io/​79wcm/).
Participants rated both the generic and the personalized ads for both products. While the order of products
was held constant (weekend getaway first, sneakers second), the order in which the generic and personalized ads
were shown was randomized. This procedure allowed us to use the first rating for each product in a between-
subjects analysis, and the comparison between generic and personalized ads within each product in a within-
subjects analysis. Similar to Study 3, we collected two outcome measures: ad effectiveness and willingness to
pay (WTP; see Fig. S11 for distributions of all outcome variables). As before, ad effectiveness was measured on a
7-point scale using the following two questions: “I find this ad to be persuasive” and “This ad has made me more

Targeted trait Personalized Ad

Escape to the enchanting city of Rome for an unforgettable weekend getaway. Discover the city’s rich history
and culture as you stroll through the charming streets, indulge in authentic Italian cuisine at local trattorias and
Generic explore breathtaking landmarks such as the Colosseum and Vatican City. Relax in luxury accommodations and
let the magic of Rome enchant you. Book your weekend getaway today and experience the allure of this timeless
destination. #RomeWeekendGetaway #ExploreItaly #LaDolceVita
Experience all the wonders of ancient Rome on a weekend getaway that will excite your imagination and satisfy
your curiosity. Wander the vibrant streets, taking in the stunning architecture and vibrant culture that make
Rome one of the world’s most fascinating destinations. Enjoy world-class cuisine at local restaurants, see the
High Openness
city’s renowned art and historical landmarks, and mingle with fascinating locals. With so much to explore and
discover, you’re sure to leave Rome feeling invigorated, enlightened, and refreshed. Book your excursion today
and get ready to experience Rome’s unique brand of magic and splendor!
Looking for an exciting and effortless break from everyday life? Look no further! The vibrant city of Rome is
calling your name. With its sumptuous cuisine, stunning architecture, and endless entertainment options, your
itinerary is already set. Sleep in and let yourself be guided by the whims of the moment; who cares about sched-
Low Conscientiousness ules and plans? You’re all about seizing the day and living in the now. Let yourself get lost in the maze of cobbled
streets, explore hidden corners and indulge in some retail therapy. If you’re feeling adventurous, why not try
your hand at some local language? The city is your oyster, and you are the free-spirited pearl. Come and recharge
your batteries with an unforgettable weekend in Rome!
Ready to explore the city of la dolce vita? Come to Rome for a weekend full of excitement, adventure, and social-
izing. You’ll be surrounded by incredible architecture, world-famous cuisine, and a vibrant nightlife that will
keep you on your toes until sunrise. From the Colosseum to the Piazza Navona, there’s no shortage of sights to
High Extraversion
see, but you’ll also have plenty of opportunities to get to know the locals and make new friends. Whether you
want to hit up a trendy bar or dance the night away at a club, Rome has something for everyone. Don’t wait,
book your weekend getaway to Rome now and experience the extraverted side of life!

Table 2.  Examples of generic and personalized ads for a weekend getaway to Rome generated by ChatGPT for
individual participants.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

interested in [visiting Rome| the Nike sneakers].” WTP was measured using a slider scale ranging from USD 0
to 2000 for the weekend getaway and USD 0 to 150 for the Nike sneakers.
After evaluating the ads, participants completed the 30-item BFI-2-S measure of ­personality57, allowing us to
compare the scores we obtained from the prior studies (and used to personalize the ads) with the most current
measure of personality. With re-test correlations ranging from r = 0.85 for Openness and r = 0.91 for Extraversion
(mean(r) = 0.88), the personality profiles used in the analyses appear to be largely robust and valid. Still, the fact
that some of the profiles have shifted makes our estimates of personalized persuasion’s effectiveness conservative
but also more realistic. That is, in real-world applications, estimates of consumers’ personality from digital traces
might contain substantial amounts of prediction error, or could become outdated over time.

Results
We conducted both between and within-subjects analyses (see Table S33 for zero-order correlations). The
between-subjects analyses compared participants’ evaluations of the first ad they rated for each product using
linear regression models. In line with our expectations, participants who were shown a personalized weekend
getaway ad rated the ad as significantly more effective (B = 0.43, β = 0.31, ­CI95 0.08–0.53, p = 0.008) and were will-
ing to spend a significantly larger amount of money on the trip (B = 116.57, β = 0.24, ­CI95 0.01–0.47, p = 0.037)
than those who were shown the generic version. Specifically, the personalized ads increased people’s willingness
to spend by $117. Although the effects for the sneaker product trended in the expected direction, they were
found to be non-significant for both rated effectiveness (B = 0.17, β = 0.12, ­CI95 − 0.11 to 0.35, p = 0.322) and WTP
(B = 5.28, β = 0.17, ­CI95 − 0.06 to 0.40, p = 0.151). All effects remain robust when including the same set of control
variables used in the previous studies (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, education and employment, see Table S34 for
detailed model outputs).
For the within-subjects analyses, we ran a series of paired t-tests comparing each participant’s evaluations for
the generic ad to that of the personalized ad. The results mirror those observed for the between-person analyses.
Participants significantly preferred the personalized ads over the generic ones for the weekend getaway (effec-
tiveness: mean difference = 0.24, t(296) = 2.73, d = 0.16, p = 0.007; WTP: mean difference = 58.13, t(296) = 3.22,
d = 0.19, p = 0.001). Although the effects trended in the expected direction for the sneakers, they were not found
to be statistically significant (effectiveness: mean difference = 0.11, t(296) = 1.41, d = 0.08, p = 0.161; WTP: mean
difference = 1.85, t(296) = 1.71, d = 0.10, p = 0.088). We further discuss the discrepancy between the results on
these topics—as well as the varying effectiveness of personalized persuasion for different personality traits, topics
and measures—in the following discussion.

Discussion
The present findings offer robust evidence for the viability of LLMs—and ChatGPT in particular—to automati-
cally generate a diverse array of personalized messages that influence people’s attitudes and behavioral inten-
tions. While prior work has established reliable matching effects (e.g.4), some authors have argued that various
methodological factors have contributed to the strength of these fi ­ ndings3. In the present research, we used a
series of conservative tests to instantiate and study matching effects (e.g., consumer and political topics, within-
and between-subjects designs, different outcome measures and matched vs. generic messages), consistently
demonstrating AI’s proficiency at personalized persuasion.
Of the 33 message instantiations we tested, 30 were directionally effective, and 20 were significantly so (61%;
Fig. 6). This proportion of significant effects is higher than chance (t = 8.30, p < 0.001). When extrapolating this
effect to the hundreds of advertisements people see d ­ aily70, the ease with which AI can personalize persuasive
message makes their potential influence unprecedented.
Notably, our findings likely represent a relatively conservative estimate of generative AI’s potential to facilitate
personalized persuasion at scale. First and foremost, all our studies relied on very short prompts that supplied
ChatGPT with a minimal amount of information about the target’s psychological profile as well as the meaning
of the specific personality traits. That is, we only focused on high-level traits (e.g., Extraversion) rather than
more nuanced personality facets or more granular descriptions of a person’s moral beliefs. In addition, we only
prompted ChatGPT with simple sentences that merely named the psychological trait to be targeted (e.g., “Write
a short ad for a person who scores high on Extraversion”) or offered a very brief description of the trait (e.g.,
“Write an ad for someone who is extraverted and enthusiastic.”). While such an approach is likely to mimic
many real-world instances where information about targets is scant, the effectiveness of personalized persuasion
using LLMs could likely be boosted by offering more detailed insights about the target. Additionally, taking into
consideration the rapid advancements in LLMs (e.g., the shift from GPT-3 to GPT-4 that occurred during the
progression of this work) as well as the expansion to other modalities known to play a critical role in persuasion
(e.g., visual stimuli), the next few years will likely see the continuously growing effectiveness of generative AI in
the context of personalized persuasion.

Heterogeneity in effect sizes

Our findings support the overall effectiveness of personalized persuasion using ChatGPT. However, effect sizes
were not uniformly distributed across psychological dimensions, topics and measures. For example, while some
psychological traits produced consistent and relatively pronounced matching effects (e.g., Openness and Extra-
version), others failed to produce robust effects or reach statistical levels of significance (e.g., Agreeableness).
The consistent effects for Openness and Extraversion might be explained by the fact that they are the two most
­ ive48. Consequently, it is possible, for example, that generative LLMs have more
observable traits among the Big F
training data available on these characteristics. Indeed, algorithms are able to more accurately predict Open-
ness and Extraversion from people’s Facebook status updates than Conscientiousness and A ­ greeableness71. In

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 6.  Standardized regression coefficients with 95% confidence interval for the 33 effects tested in this
paper (sorted by effect size).

contrast, the consistent null effect that was observed for AI-generated messages matched to participants’ level
of Agreeableness might be explained by the association of the trait with a broad susceptibility to p ­ ersuasion72.
That is, people who are higher in Agreeableness are more likely to respond to persuasive content than those
lower in Agreeableness, regardless of the specific personalization strategy deployed. Future research should
establish whether these differences are unique to the LLM-generated content, or whether theoretical factors do
indeed underlie them (i.e., they would emerge in human-generated content, too). For example, some research
suggests that Agreeableness is associated with altruism and harmony in social ­relationships73, which none of
our AI-generated messages referenced.
In addition to effect size differences between psychological profiles, we also found differences in the effective-
ness of personalized persuasion across topics. For example, in Study 4, the matched messages were more effective
for the experiential product (a Rome getaway) than they were for the material one (sneakers). These differences
might be explained by a number of factors. For example, the experiential nature of the weekend getaway—with
the opportunity to highlight different activities and aspects of the trip—might allow for more genuine and mean-
ingful personalization than that for a pair of sneakers. Additionally, prior research has suggested that matching
is more effective for expensive p ­ roducts74, because people are more concerned about making the right choice
in these instances. Naturally, many other differences between our topics could explain our varying effect sizes

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

within our studies; however, these differences might not be unique to AI-generated personalized persuasion and
would be broadly worth considering in this area of research.
Finally, our effects tended to be stronger for the self-reported persuasiveness measures than our behavioral
intention ones (i.e., willingness to pay). This is consistent with research in the behavioral s­ ciences69 which finds
that self-report measures are more sensitive to treatment effects than behavioral measures. That is, although
people find matched messages generated by AI more compelling, the translation of those effects onto behavio-
ral proxies (WTP) might require a larger sample to detect small effects or repeated exposures to strengthen the
effectiveness of the treatment (especially when the manipulation is rather basic as was the case in our study).
Without these strengthening factors, behavioral effects might be overshadowed by strong individual differences
that dictate people’s general attitudes/preferences toward a t­ opic75.

Practical implications
While prior research has shown that machine learning algorithms can predict a person’s psychological profile
from their digital footprints (e.g.19,20) the present work showcases how algorithms can now also design messages
that appeal to these traits—even when given very limited input. In other words, current technologies, which
continue to innovate and improve, have the potential to allow message sources to fully “close the loop” on auto-
mating personalized persuasion. In short, one of the most powerful forms of behavioral influence now has the
potential to be implemented at scale.
Companies, for example, could set up fully automated processes that leverage AI to execute sophisticated
personalized marketing at scale. Using consumer data from various sources (e.g., browsing patterns, the user’s
demographics data, public Facebook Likes or Instagram posts) in combination with predictive algorithms,
they could first generate detailed profiles of their consumers’ psychological traits. These profiles could then be
automatically funneled to generative AI models designed to automatically create persuasive communication
(“write an ad for toothpaste X that is shown to an extraverted, 33 years old man, who is likely to pay up to $6 for
the product”). In addition to personalized textual content, such algorithms could also produce visual content
(still or video) or auditory stimuli. The combined marketing message could subsequently be displayed to the
consumer in real-time and adjusted dynamically based on the consumer’s interaction with the content. As the
entire process relies on AI, it could operate at nearly no cost (outside of the development and maintenance) and
readily adapt to recipients’ responses and consequent behavior.
It has not escaped our notice that although these technological developments offer the potential for great
societal good (i.e., encourage greater engagement in prosocial behaviors, such as vaccinations or voting), they also
pose both short- and long-term threats to the wellbeing of individuals and c­ ommunities11. Facebook, for example,
announced that they will use AI generated messages by the end of 2023 to design personalized ­advertisements76.
While this integration might make content more engaging, it could also lead to users purchasing products and
services they do not need or cannot afford, intensify the battle over social issues and exacerbate mental health
challenges (i.e., loneliness, addiction).
Beyond consumerism, the use of LLMs for persuasion also raises serious concerns with regards to politics
and society. For example, describing a politician’s stance in language that matches a person’s psychological profile
(e.g., talking in terms of the moral foundation of Loyalty for those who value it) could lead people to be more
positive toward candidates or issues than they would be otherwise (e.g.63). Social media platforms have already
been accused of situating people in information ecologies that serve as “echo chambers”, only showing them
content that reinforces their interests or w ­ orldviews77. The ability of LLMs to tailor the language of advertise-
ments, news articles or political speeches, creates a dangerous potential to further enmesh people in their own
idiosyncratic worlds that are devoid of a shared reality with distinct o ­ thers78.
In light of these potential risks, it is imperative that oversight of this LLM-personalized content is maintained.
The implementation of such oversight, however, is complicated by a few factors. First, one of the foremost solu-
tions being considered for combatting AI influence—disclosing whether a message was generated by AI—may
be ineffective at curbing their effects. Our findings offer initial evidence that disclosing the source of a persuasive
message (i.e., “made by AI”) did not change its persuasive impact. Thus, future research should replicate this
finding to offer stronger, more generalizable advice for policy makers. Second, because each piece of AI-generated
content is personalized to a particular individual, it will be nearly impossible to recreate a viewer’s journey for
auditing purposes. Relatedly, the speed with which LLMs can create this personalized content further challenges
individual oversight (i.e., as the influx of content could be too vast to moderate). Consequently, safeguards against
the influence of AI-generated messages might have to rely less on whether each advertisement maintains an
appropriate level of veracity for the person to which it is shown, and instead, focus on ensuring that the account
behind the persuasive appeal (or the online platform who hosts them) meets aggregated veracity standards. For
example, academic proposals to regulate generative AI have collectively argued that regulation should occur at
the stage of deployment (e.g., at the advertiser and platform level), rather than at the level of message reception
(e.g., at the time point consumers are seeing the specific ad)79. In the absence of such broader oversight, an arms
race may ignite (akin to the one that occurred in the world of computer viruses) where “auditing AI” software
will be created to test the content for unlawful levels of intrusiveness, while the major platforms and malevolent
players will work to evade the scrutiny of algorithms as they attempt to exert their influence. Future work should
investigate how regulation at the back-end of widely available LLMs can prevent the misuse of these technolo-
gies in various contexts, such as companies encouraging compulsive buying (e.g.80) and deploying manipulative
marketing (e.g.81).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Limitations and conclusion

The current research serves as compelling empirical evidence for the effectiveness of LLM-generated personalized
persuasion. However, there are a number of important limitations that should be addressed by future research.
First, while behavioral intentions and participants’ willingness to pay are predictive of actual b ­ ehavior82,83, the
research does not demonstrate their effects outside of self-report measures which are known to be prone to a
variety of response b­ iases84. Although we used a variety of measurement approaches to circumvent some of these
concerns (none of which asked about self-predicted change, which can be ­problematic57), future research would
benefit from replicating the current findings using alternative, behavioral outcome measures (e.g., counterfactual
­formats85).
Second, we cannot directly speak to the question of whether our effects are driven by the enhanced persua-
siveness of matched messages versus the reduced persuasiveness of mismatched ­ones86. This is a debate within
the matching literature more broadly regarding how psychologically-matched messages perform in comparison
to “neutral” non-tailored messages. Although Study 4 showed matching effects when comparing personalized
messages to generic ones —thereby providing some evidence for the positive utility of matching—future research
is needed to replicate this effect and determine the conditions under which this finding is true.
Third, all our studies focused on a single psychological trait rather than a more holistic view of a person’s
entire psychological profile (e.g., one Big Five personality trait rather than a combination of all five traits). While
this decision was in part driven by the fact that such an approach most closely resembles current applications of
personalized persuasion in targeted advertising, future research should explore the utility of different levels of
personalization. As we briefly described in “Methods” section of Study 4, we had originally intended to use Chat-
GPT to dynamically craft messages tailored to people’s holistic profiles (e.g., by prompting ChatGPT to generate
an ad tailored to someone who scores high on Openness, low on Extraversion and average on Conscientious-
ness). However, an inspection of the resulting stimuli revealed that ChatGPT used the insights about people’s
personality traits in a somewhat artificial, additive way rather than a more seamless, integrative way. That is, the
messages started with a sentence tailored to Openness, followed by a sentence tailored to Extraversion and finally
a sentence tailored to Conscientiousness, rather than one integrative message considering the unique needs of
a person who is both open-minded and introverted. We encourage future research to investigate how different
forms of prompt engineering might make it possible to overcome this current limitation, and test whether doing
so could further increase the effectiveness of AI-based personalized persuasion.
Finally, while LLMs can surely speed up and scale the generation of content, it is not clear whether the gener-
ated messages outperform those of human authors. While prior work suggests that LLMs could outperform lay
people by overcoming common egocentrism ­biases47, they might still underperform compared to professionals
with extensive training and experience (e.g. marketing professionals, speech writers). Notably, LLMs are still in
their most nascent stage of development, meaning any evidence for their success at present only hints at their
potential influence to come. As generative AI becomes increasingly powerful, they could either replace most
human experts (e.g., creative individuals and marketing practitioners) or—on a more positive note—empower
these experts to expand their skill sets and use AI to elevate their current performance levels.

Received: 11 August 2023; Accepted: 5 February 2024

References
1. Parkins, C. The world most valuable resource is no longer oil but data. The Economist (2017). https://​www.​econo​mist.​com/​leade​
rs/​2017/​05/​06/​the-​worlds-​most-​valua​ble-​resou​rce-​is-​no-​longer-​oil-​but-​data.
2. Bhageshphur, K. Data is the New Oil. Forbes Magazine (2019). https://​www.​forbes.​com/​sites/​forbe​stech​counc​il/​2019/​11/​15/​data-​
is-​the-​new-​oil-​and-​thats-a-​good-​thing/?​sh=​3f380​a1573​04.
3. Joyal-Desmarais, K. et al. Appealing to motivation to change attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A systematic review and meta-
analysis of 702 experimental tests of the effects of motivational message matching on persuasion. Psychol. Bull. 148, 465 (2022).
4. Teeny, J. D., Siev, J. J., Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E. A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects
in persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. 31, 382–414 (2021).
5. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G. & Stillwell, D. J. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 12714–12719 (2017).
6. Latimer, A. E. et al. A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 44, 826–832 (2008).
7. Bogg, T. & Vo, P. T. Realistic effort action plans (REAP) for exercise among underactive and inactive university students: A rand-
omized trial. J. Am. Coll. Health 20, 1–10 (2022).
8. Latimer, A. E., Katulak, N. A., Mowad, L. & Salovey, P. Motivating cancer prevention and early detection behaviors using psycho-
logically tailored messages. J. Health Commun. 10, 137–155 (2005).
9. Matz, S. C., Gladstone, J. J. & Farrokhnia, R. A. Leveraging psychological fit to encourage saving behavior. Am. Psychol. 20, 20
(2022).
10. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24, 56–62 (2013).
11. Matz, S. C., Appel, R. E. & Kosinski, M. Privacy in the age of psychological targeting. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 20, 20 (2019).
12. Lukito, J. Coordinating a multi-platform disinformation campaign: Internet Research Agency activity on three US social media
platforms, 2015 to 2017. Polit. Commun. 37, 238–255 (2020).
13. Bailenson, J. N., Garland, P., Iyengar, S. & Yee, N. Transformed facial similarity as a political cue: A preliminary investigation. Polit.
Psychol. 27, 373–385 (2006).
14. Tappin, B. M., Wittenberg, C., Hewitt, L. B., Berinsky, A. J. & Rand, D. G. Quantifying the potential persuasive returns to political
microtargeting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120, e2216261120 (2023).
15. Jackler, R. K., et al., JUUL Advertising Over its First Three Years on the Market (2019).
16. Boerman, S. C., Kruikemeier, S. & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. Online behavioral advertising: A literature review and research
agenda. J. Advert. 46, 363–376 (2017).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

17. The White House—Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Making Automated Systems Work
for The American People” (2022). https://​www.​white​house.​gov/​ostp/.
18. Stachl, C. et al. Computational personality assessment. Personal. Sci. 2, 1–22 (2021).
19. Youyou, W., Kosinski, M. & Stillwell, D. Computers judge personalities better than humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 1036–1040
(2015).
20. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. & Graepel, T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5802–5805 (2013).
21. Park, G. et al. Automatic personality assessment through social media language. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 934–952 (2014).
22. Schwartz, H. A. et al. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS One 8,
e73791 (2013).
23. Cutler, A. & Condon, D. M. Deep lexical hypothesis: Identifying personality structure in natural language. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 20,
20 (2022).
24. Christian, H., Suhartono, D., Chowanda, A. & Zamli, K. Z. Text based personality prediction from multiple social media data
sources using pre-trained language model and model averaging. J. Big Data 8, 1–20 (2021).
25. Peters, H., & Matz, S. C. Large language models can infer psychological dispositions of social media users. arXiv:​2309.​08631
[Preprint] (2023). https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2309.​08631.
26. Segalin, C., Perina, A., Cristani, M. & Vinciarelli, A. The pictures we like are our image: Continuous mapping of favorite pictures
into self-assessed and attributed personality traits. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 8, 268–285 (2017).
27. Gladstone, J. J., Matz, S. C. & Lemaire, A. Can psychological traits be inferred from spending? Evidence from transaction data.
Psychol. Sci. 20, 0956797619849435 (2019).
28. Ramon, Y., Farrokhnia, R. A., Matz, S. C. & Martens, D. Explainable AI for psychological profiling from behavioral data: An
application to big five personality predictions from financial transaction records. Information 12, 518 (2021).
29. Stachl, C., et al. Behavioral Patterns in Smartphone Usage Predict Big Five Personality Traits (PsyArXiv, 2019).
30. Liberali, G., Hauser, J. R., Urban, G. L. & Braun, M. Website morphing. Mark. Sci. 28, 202–223 (2009).
31. Touvron, H. et al., Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models. arXiv:​2307.​09288 [Preprint] (2023). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​48550/​arXiv.​2307.​09288.
32. Touvron, H., et al. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models. arXiv:​2302.​13971 [Preprint] (2023). doi:https://​doi.​
org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2302.​13971.
33. Anthropic, “Model Card and Evaluations for Claude Models” (2023).
34. Anil, R. et al., PaLM 2 Technical Report. arXiv arXiv:​2305.​10403 [Preprint] (2023). https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2305.​10403.
35. OpenAI, “GPT-4 System Card” (2023).
36. Vaswani, A., et al. Attention Is All You Need. arXiv:​1706.​03762 [Preprint] (2023). https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​1706.​03762.
37. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners.
38. Hu, K. ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base—analyst note. Reuters (2023). https://​www.​reute​rs.​com/​techn​ology/​
chatg​pt-​sets-​record-​faste​st-​growi​ng-​user-​base-​analy​st-​note-​2023-​02-​01/.
39. Karinshak, E., Liu, S. X., Park, J. S. & Hancock, J. T. Working with AI to persuade: Examining a large language model’s ability to
generate pro-vaccination messages. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, 116:1-116:29 (2023).
40. Bai, H., Voelkel, J. G., Eichstaedt, J. C. & Willer, R. Artificial intelligence can persuade humans on political issues. Open Sci. Framew.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​31219/​osf.​io/​stakv (2023).
41. Graves, C. Generative AI Can Help You Tailor Messaging to Specific Audiences. Harvard Business Review (2023). https://​hbr.​org/​
2023/​02/​gener​ative-​ai-​can-​help-​you-​tailor-​messa​ging-​to-​speci​fic-​audie​nces.
42. Marr, B. How Will ChatGPT Affect Your Job If You Work In Advertising And Marketing?. Forbes Magazine (2023). https://​www.​
forbes.​com/​sites/​berna​rdmarr/​2023/​01/​17/​how-​will-​chatg​pt-​affect-​your-​job-​if-​you-​work-​in-​adver​tising-​and-​marke​ting/?​sh=​
6d8e6​ed739​a3.
43. Zhang, X. et al. Automatic product copywriting for E-commerce. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 36, 12423–12431 (2022).
44. Binz, M. & Schulz, E. Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120, e2218523120 (2023).
45. Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., & Kosinski, M. Machine intuition: Uncovering human-like intuitive decision-making in GPT-3.5. arXiv:​
2212.​05206 [Preprint] (2022). https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2212.​05206.
46. Kosinski, M. Theory of mind may have spontaneously emerged in large language models. arXiv:​2302.​02083 [Preprint] (2023).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2302.​02083.
47. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41,
1665–1681 (2015).
48. McCrae, R. R. & John, O. P. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60, 175–215 (1992).
49. McCrae, R. R. & Allik, I. U. The Five-Factor Model of Personality across Cultures (Springer, 2002).
50. Hirsh, J. B., Kang, S. K. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Personalized persuasion: Tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality
traits. Psychol. Sci. 23, 578–581 (2012).
51. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G. & Stillwell, D. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 20, 20 (2017).
52. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M. & Ha, S. E. Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue
domains and political contexts. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104, 111–133 (2010).
53. Goldberg, L. R. et al. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J. Res. Personal.
40, 84–96 (2006).
54. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Personal. 37, 504–528
(2003).
55. Matz, S. C. Personality-customized advertising in the digital environment. In Routledge International Handbook of Consumer
Psychology (eds Jansson-Boyd, C. V. & Zawisza, M. J.) 656–673 (Routledge, 2017).
56. Graham, M. H. & Coppock, A. Asking about attitude change. Public Opin. Q. 85, 28–53 (2021).
57. Soto, C. J. & John, O. P. Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. J. Res. Personal. 68,
69–81 (2017).
58. Psychology, E. S. & Review, P. Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30
(ed. Zanna, M. E.) 1–46 (Academic Press, 2000).
59. Higgins, E. T. et al. Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 3–23 (2001).
60. Cesario, J., Higgins, E. T. & Scholer, A. A. Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Soc. Personal.
Psychol. Compass 2, 444–463 (2008).
61. Graham, J. et al. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 47 55–130 (Elsevier, 2013).
62. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc.
Personal. Psychol. Compass 13, e12501 (2019).
63. Voelkel, J. G. & Feinberg, M. Morally reframed arguments can affect support for political candidates. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.
9, 917–924 (2018).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 15

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

64. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H. & Kunda, Z. Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will
best inspire us. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 854 (2002).
65. Graham, J. et al. Moral foundations questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 20, 2 (2008).
66. Schmidt, J. & Bijmolt, T. H. A. Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: A meta-analysis of the hypothetical
bias. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 48, 499–518 (2020).
67. Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H. & Zhang, Z. J. How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical
comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. J. Mark. Res. 48, 172–184 (2011).
68. Hughes, A. 5 facts about U.S. political donations, Pew Research Center. https://​www.​pewre​search.​org/​short-​reads/​2017/​05/​17/5-​
facts-​about-u-​s-​polit​ical-​donat​ions/.
69. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).
70. Anderson, S. How many ads do we really see in a day? Spoiler: It’s not 10,000, The Drum (2023). https://​www.​thedr​um.​com/​news/​
2023/​05/​03/​how-​many-​ads-​do-​we-​really-​see-​day-​spoil​er-​it-s-​not-​10000.
71. Park, G. et al. Automatic personality assessment through social media language. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 934 (2015).
72. Alkış, N. & Taşkaya Temizel, T. The impact of individual differences on influence strategies. Personal. Individ. Differ. 87, 147–152
(2015).
73. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M. & Panagopoulos, C. Big five personality traits and responses to persuasive
appeals: Results from voter Turnout experiments. Polit. Behav. 35, 687–728 (2013).
74. Gladstone, J. J., Garbinsky, E. N. & Matz, S. C. When does psychological fit matter? The moderating role of price on self-brand
congruity. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 13, 595–607 (2022).
75. Fazio, R. H. & Olson, M. A. The MODE Model: Attitude-Behavior Processes as a Function of Motivation and Opportunity. In Dual-
Process Theories of the Social Mind 155–171 (The Guilford Press, 2014).
76. Mehta, I. Meta wants to use generative AI to create ads. TechCrunch (2023). https://​techc​runch.​com/​2023/​04/​05/​meta-​wants-​to-​
use-​gener​ative-​ai-​to-​create-​ads/.
77. Boutyline, A. & Willer, R. The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks.
Polit. Psychol. 38, 551–569 (2017).
78. Higgins, E. T. Shared Reality: What Makes Us Strong and Tears Us Apart (Oxford University Press, 2019).
79. Hacker, P., Engel, A., & Mauer, M. Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM
Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1112–1123 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2023). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1145/​35930​13.​35940​67.
80. O’Guinn, T. C. & Faber, R. J. Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration. J. Consum. Res. 16, 147–157 (1989).
81. Aylsworth, T. Autonomy and manipulation: Refining the argument against persuasive advertising. J. Bus. Ethics 175, 689–699
(2022).
82. Whittington, D., Adamowicz, W. & Lloyd-Smith, P. Asking willingness-to-accept questions in stated preference surveys: A review
and research agenda. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9, 317–336 (2017).
83. Lloyd-Smith, P. & Adamowicz, W. Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments.
J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 91, 133–149 (2018).
84. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903 (2003).
85. Ozer, D. J. & Benet-Martinez, V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 25 (2006).
86. Hersh, E. D. & Schaffner, B. F. Targeted campaign appeals and the value of ambiguity. J. Polit. 75, 520–534 (2013).

Author contributions
S.C.M, J.D.T and M.C developed the initial research idea. S.C.M, J.D.T and M.C designed the research. S.C.M
collected and analyzed the data. All authors contributed to the framing of the contribution and writing the
manuscript.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s41598-​024-​53755-0.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.C.M.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:4692 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53755-0 16

Vol:.(1234567890)