Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40260413›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Emotional prompting amplifies disinformation generation in AI large language models.

Rasita Vinay, Giovanni Spitale, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Federico Germani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Digital bioethics: exploring an emerging field.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. FinFakeBERT: financial fake news detection.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rasita Vinay *Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Giovanni Spitale *Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nikola Biller-AndornoInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Federico GermaniInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs), which can produce text that closely resembles human-written content, presents both opportunities and risks. While these developments offer significant opportunities for improving communication, such as in health-related crisis communication, they also pose substantial risks by facilitating the creation of convincing fake news and disinformation. The widespread dissemination of AI-generated disinformation adds complexity to the existing challenges of the ongoing infodemic, significantly affecting public health and the stability of democratic institutions. Rationale: Prompt engineering is a technique that involves the creation of specific queries given to LLMs. It has emerged as a strategy to guide LLMs in generating the desired outputs. Recent research shows that the output of LLMs depends on emotional framing within prompts, suggesting that incorporating emotional cues into prompts could influence their response behavior. In this study, we investigated how the politeness or impoliteness of prompts affects the frequency of disinformation generation by various LLMs. Results: We generated and evaluated a corpus of 19,800 social media posts on public health topics to assess the disinformation generation capabilities of OpenAI's LLMs, including davinci-002, davinci-003, gpt-3.5-turbo, and gpt-4. Our findings revealed that all LLMs efficiently generated disinformation (davinci-002, 67%; davinci-003, 86%; gpt-3.5-turbo, 77%; and gpt-4, 99%). Introducing polite language to prompt requests yielded significantly higher success rates for disinformation (davinci-002, 79%; davinci-003, 90%; gpt-3.5-turbo, 94%; and gpt-4, 100%). Impolite prompting resulted in a significant decrease in disinformation production across all models (davinci-002, 59%; davinci-003, 44%; and gpt-3.5-turbo, 28%) and a slight reduction for gpt-4 (94%). Conclusion: Our study reveals that all tested LLMs effectively generate disinformation. Notably, emotional prompting had a significant impact on disinformation production rates, with models showing higher success rates when prompted with polite language compared to neutral or impolite requests. Our investigation highlights that LLMs can be exploited to create disinformation and emphasizes the critical need for ethics-by-design approaches in developing AI technologies. We maintain that identifying ways to mitigate the exploitation of LLMs through emotional prompting is crucial to prevent their misuse for purposes detrimental to public health and society.

Indexed as

AIdisinformationemotional promptingethicsinfodemicLLMmisinformationOpenAI

Identifiers

PMID40260413
PMCPMC12009909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.