the war of 1812 summary essay

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions

Major causes of the war

• Final stages of the war and the aftermath

What led to the War of 1812?

How did the war of 1812 end, did the war of 1812 have popular support, what role did native americans play in the war of 1812, what were the war of 1812’s lasting effects.

War of 1812

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• HistoryNet - War Of 1812
• GlobalSecurity.org - The War of 1812
• Khan Academy - The War of 1812
• Humanities LibreTexts - The War of 1812
• American Battlefield Trust - A Brief Overview of the War of 1812
• The Canadian Encyclopedia - War of 1812
• National Army Museum - The War of 1812
• Naval History and Heritage Command - War of 1812
• Ohio State University - Origins - The Legacy of the War of 1812 is with us still
• War of 1812 - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• War of 1812 - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

The commercial restrictions that Britain’s war with France imposed on the U.S. exacerbated the U.S.’s relations with both powers. Although neither Britain nor France initially accepted the U.S.’s neutral rights to trade with the other—and punished U.S. ships for trying to do so—France had begun to temper its intransigence on the issue by 1810. That, paired with the ascendance of certain pro-French politicians in the U.S. and the conviction held by some Americans that the British were stirring up unrest among Native Americans on the frontier, set the stage for a U.S.-British war. The U.S. Congress declared war in 1812.

Peace talks between Britain and the U.S. began in 1814. Britain stalled negotiations as it waited for word of a victory in America, having recently committed extra troops to its western campaign. But news of their losses at places like Plattsburgh , New York, and Baltimore , Maryland, paired with the duke of Wellington’s counsel against continuing the war, convinced the British to pursue peace more genuinely, and both sides signed the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814. The final battle of the war occurred after this, when a British general unaware of the peace treaty led an assault on New Orleans that was roundly crushed.

The War of 1812 had only mixed support on both sides of the Atlantic. The British weren’t eager for another conflict, having fought Napoleon for the better part of the previous 20 years , but weren’t fond of American commercial support of the French either. The divisions in American sentiment about the war similarly split, oftentimes along geographic lines: New Englanders, particularly seafaring ones, were against it. Southerners and Westerners advocated for it, hoping that it would enhance the U.S.’s reputation abroad, open opportunities for its expansion, and protect American commercial interests against British restrictions.

Native Americans had begun resisting settlement by white Americans before 1812. In 1808 the Shawnee brothers Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa began amassing an intertribal confederacy comprising indigenous groups around the Great Lakes and the Ohio River valley. In 1812 Tecumseh tightened his relationship with Britain, convincing white Americans that the British were inciting unrest among northwestern tribes. British and intertribal forces took Detroit in 1812 and won a number of other victories during the war, but Tecumseh was killed and his confederation was quashed after Detroit was retaken in 1813. Creek tribes continued to resist from 1813 onward, but they were suppressed by Andrew Jackson ’s forces in 1814.

Although neither Britain nor the U.S. was able to secure major concessions through the Treaty of Ghent , it nevertheless had important consequences for the future of North America. The withdrawal of British troops from the Northwest Territory and the defeat of the Creeks in the South opened the door for unbounded U.S. expansionism in both regions. The treaty also established measures that would help arbitrate future border disputes between the U.S. and Canada, perhaps one reason why the two countries have been able to peaceably share the longest unfortified border in the world ever since.

War of 1812 , (June 18, 1812–February 17, 1815), conflict fought between the United States and Great Britain over British violations of U.S. maritime rights. It ended with the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty of Ghent .

The tensions that caused the War of 1812 arose from the French revolutionary (1792–99) and Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815). During this nearly constant conflict between France and Britain , American interests were injured by each of the two countries’ endeavours to block the United States from trading with the other.

American shipping initially prospered from trade with the French and Spanish empires, although the British countered the U.S. claim that “free ships make free goods” with the belated enforcement of the so-called Rule of 1756 (trade not permitted in peacetime would not be allowed in wartime). The Royal Navy did enforce the act from 1793 to 1794, especially in the Caribbean Sea , before the signing of the Jay Treaty (November 19, 1794). Under the primary terms of the treaty, American maritime commerce was given trading privileges in England and the British East Indies , Britain agreed to evacuate forts still held in the Northwest Territory by June 1, 1796, and the Mississippi River was declared freely open to both countries. Although the treaty was ratified by both countries, it was highly unpopular in the United States and was one of the rallying points used by the pro-French Republicans , led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison , in wresting power from the pro-British Federalists , led by George Washington and John Adams .

After Jefferson became president in 1801, relations with Britain slowly deteriorated, and systematic enforcement of the Rule of 1756 resumed after 1805. Compounding this troubling development, the decisive British naval victory at the Battle of Trafalgar (October 21, 1805) and efforts by the British to blockade French ports prompted the French emperor, Napoleon , to cut off Britain from European and American trade. The Berlin Decree (November 21, 1806) established Napoleon’s Continental System , which impinged on U.S. neutral rights by designating ships that visited British ports as enemy vessels. The British responded with Orders in Council (November 11, 1807) that required neutral ships to obtain licenses at English ports before trading with France or French colonies. In turn, France announced the Milan Decree (December 17, 1807), which strengthened the Berlin Decree by authorizing the capture of any neutral vessel that had submitted to search by the British. Consequently, American ships that obeyed Britain faced capture by the French in European ports, and if they complied with Napoleon’s Continental System, they could fall prey to the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy’s use of impressment to keep its ships fully crewed also provoked Americans. The British accosted American merchant ships to seize alleged Royal Navy deserters, carrying off thousands of U.S. citizens into the British navy. In 1807 the frigate H.M.S. Leopard fired on the U.S. Navy frigate Chesapeake and seized four sailors, three of them U.S. citizens. London eventually apologized for this incident, but it came close to causing war at the time. Jefferson, however, chose to exert economic pressure against Britain and France by pushing Congress in December 1807 to pass the Embargo Act , which forbade all export shipping from U.S. ports and most imports from Britain.

The Embargo Act hurt Americans more than the British or French, however, causing many Americans to defy it. Just before Jefferson left office in 1809, Congress replaced the Embargo Act with the Non-Intercourse Act, which exclusively forbade trade with Great Britain and France. This measure also proved ineffective, and it was replaced by Macon’s Bill No. 2 (May 1, 1810) that resumed trade with all nations but stipulated that if either Britain or France dropped commercial restrictions, the United States would revive nonintercourse against the other. In August, Napoleon insinuated that he would exempt American shipping from the Berlin and Milan decrees. Although the British demonstrated that French restrictions continued, U.S. Pres. James Madison reinstated nonintercourse against Britain in November 1810, thereby moving one step closer to war.

Britain’s refusal to yield on neutral rights derived from more than the emergency of the European war. British manufacturing and shipping interests demanded that the Royal Navy promote and sustain British trade against Yankee competitors. The policy born of that attitude convinced many Americans that they were being consigned to a de facto colonial status. Britons, on the other hand, denounced American actions that effectively made the United States a participant in Napoleon’s Continental System.

Events on the U.S. northwestern frontier fostered additional friction. Indian fears over American encroachment coincidentally became conspicuous as Anglo-American tensions grew. Shawnee brothers Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa ( The Prophet ) attracted followers arising from this discontent and attempted to form an Indian confederation to counteract American expansion. Although Maj. Gen. Isaac Brock , the British commander of Upper Canada (modern Ontario), had orders to avoid worsening American frontier problems, American settlers blamed British intrigue for heightened tensions with Indians in the Northwest Territory. As war loomed, Brock sought to augment his meagre regular and Canadian militia forces with Indian allies, which was enough to confirm the worst fears of American settlers. Brock’s efforts were aided in the fall of 1811, when Indiana territorial governor William Henry Harrison fought the Battle of Tippecanoe and destroyed the Indian settlement at Prophet’s Town (near modern Battle Ground, Indiana). Harrison’s foray convinced most Indians in the Northwest Territory that their only hope of stemming further encroachments by American settlers lay with the British. American settlers, in turn, believed that Britain’s removal from Canada would end their Indian problems. Meanwhile, Canadians suspected that American expansionists were using Indian unrest as an excuse for a war of conquest.

Under increasing pressure, Madison summoned the U.S. Congress into session in November 1811. Pro-war western and southern Republicans ( War Hawks ) assumed a vocal role, especially after Kentucky War Hawk Henry Clay was elected speaker of the House of Representatives . Madison sent a war message to the U.S. Congress on June 1, 1812, and signed the declaration of war on June 18, 1812. The vote seriously divided the House (79–49) and was gravely close in the Senate (19–13). Because seafaring New Englanders opposed the war, while westerners and southerners supported it, Federalists accused war advocates of expansionism under the ruse of protecting American maritime rights. Expansionism, however, was not as much a motive as was the desire to defend American honour. The United States attacked Canada because it was British, but no widespread aspiration existed to incorporate the region. The prospect of taking East and West Florida from Spain encouraged southern support for the war, but southerners, like westerners, were sensitive about the United States’s reputation in the world. Furthermore, British commercial restrictions hurt American farmers by barring their produce from Europe. Regions seemingly removed from maritime concerns held a material interest in protecting neutral shipping. “Free trade and sailors’ rights” was not an empty phrase for those Americans.

The onset of war both surprised and chagrined the British government, especially because it was preoccupied with the fight against France. In addition, political changes in Britain had already moved the government to assume a conciliatory posture toward the United States. Prime Minister Spencer Perceval ’s assassination on May 11, 1812, brought to power a more moderate Tory government under Lord Liverpool . British West Indies planters had been complaining for years about the interdiction of U.S. trade, and their growing influence, along with a deepening recession in Great Britain, convinced the Liverpool ministry that the Orders in Council were averse to British interests. On June 16, two days before the United States declared war, the Orders were suspended.

Some have viewed the timing of this concession as a lost opportunity for peace because slow transatlantic communication meant a month’s delay in delivering the news to Washington. Yet, because Britain’s impressment policy remained in place and frontier Indian wars continued, in all likelihood the repeal of the Orders alone would not have prevented war.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

War of 1812

By: History.com Editors

Updated: April 24, 2023 | Original: October 27, 2009

In the War of 1812, the United States took on the greatest naval power in the world, Great Britain, in a conflict that would have an immense impact on the young country’s future. Causes of the war included British attempts to restrict U.S. trade, the Royal Navy’s impressment of American seamen and America’s desire to expand its territory. 

The United States suffered many costly defeats at the hands of British, Canadian and Native American troops over the course of the War of 1812, including the capture and burning of the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., in August 1814. Nonetheless, American troops were able to repulse British invasions in New York, Baltimore and New Orleans, boosting national confidence and fostering a new spirit of patriotism. The ratification of the Treaty of Ghent on February 17, 1815, ended the war but left many of the most contentious questions unresolved. Nonetheless, many in the United States celebrated the War of 1812 as a “second war of independence,” beginning an era of partisan agreement and national pride.

Causes of the War of 1812

At the outset of the 19th century, Great Britain was locked in a long and bitter conflict with Napoleon Bonaparte’s France. In an attempt to cut off supplies from reaching the enemy, both sides attempted to block the United States from trading with the other. In 1807, Britain passed the Orders in Council, which required neutral countries to obtain a license from its authorities before trading with France or French colonies. The Royal Navy also outraged Americans by its practice of impressment, or removing seamen from U.S. merchant vessels and forcing them to serve on behalf of the British.

In 1809, the U.S. Congress repealed Thomas Jefferson ’s unpopular Embargo Act, which by restricting trade had hurt Americans more than either Britain or France. Its replacement, the Non-Intercourse Act, specifically prohibited trade with Britain and France. It also proved ineffective, and in turn was replaced with a May 1810 bill stating that if either power dropped trade restrictions against the United States, Congress would in turn resume non-intercourse with the opposing power.

After Napoleon hinted he would stop restrictions, President James Madison blocked all trade with Britain that November. Meanwhile, new members of Congress elected that year—led by Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun—had begun to agitate for war, based on their indignation over British violations of maritime rights as well as Britain’s encouragement of Native American hostility against American westward expansion .

Did you know? The War of 1812 produced a new generation of great American generals, including Andrew Jackson, Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott, and helped propel no fewer than four men to the presidency: Jackson, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe and William Henry Harrison.

The War of 1812 Breaks Out

In the fall of 1811, Indiana’s territorial governor William Henry Harrison led U.S. troops to victory in the Battle of Tippecanoe . The defeat convinced many Indians in the Northwest Territory (including the celebrated Shawnee chief Tecumseh ) that they needed British support to prevent American settlers from pushing them further out of their lands. 

Meanwhile, by late 1811 the so-called “War Hawks” in Congress were putting more and more pressure on Madison, and on June 18, 1812, the president signed a declaration of war against Britain. Though Congress ultimately voted for war, both House and Senate were bitterly divided on the issue. Most Western and Southern congressmen supported war, while Federalists (especially New Englanders who relied heavily on trade with Britain) accused war advocates of using the excuse of maritime rights to promote their expansionist agenda.

In order to strike at Great Britain, U.S. forces almost immediately attacked Canada, which was then a British colony. American officials were overly optimistic about the invasion’s success, especially given how underprepared U.S. troops were at the time. On the other side, they faced a well-managed defense coordinated by Sir Isaac Brock, the British soldier and administrator in charge in Upper Canada (modern Ontario). 

On August 16, 1812, the United States suffered a humiliating defeat after Brock and Tecumseh’s forces chased those led by Michigan William Hull across the Canadian border, scaring Hull into surrendering Detroit without any shots fired.

War of 1812: Mixed Results for American Forces

Things looked better for the United States in the West, as Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry’s brilliant success in the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813 placed the Northwest Territory firmly under American control. Harrison was subsequently able to retake Detroit with a victory in the Battle of Thames (in which Tecumseh was killed). Meanwhile, the U.S. navy had been able to score several victories over the Royal Navy in the early months of the war. With the defeat of Napoleon’s armies in April 1814, however, Britain was able to turn its full attention to the war effort in North America. 

As large numbers of troops arrived, British forces raided the Chesapeake Bay and moved in on the U.S. capital, capturing Washington, D.C ., on August 24, 1814, and burning government buildings including the Capitol and the White House .

Inspiration for 'The Star Spangled Banner'

On September 11, 1814, at the Battle of Plattsburgh on Lake Champlain in New York, the American navy soundly defeated the British fleet. And on September 13, 1814, Baltimore’s Fort McHenry withstood 25 hours of bombardment by the British Navy. 

The following morning, the fort’s soldiers hoisted an enormous American flag, a sight that inspired Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would later be set to music and become known as  “ The Star-Spangled Banner .” (Set to the tune of an old English drinking song, it would later be adopted as the U.S. national anthem.) British forces subsequently left the Chesapeake Bay and began gathering their efforts for a campaign against New Orleans .

End of the War of 1812 and Its Impact

By that time, peace talks had already begun at Ghent (modern Belgium), and Britain moved for an armistice after the failure of the assault on Baltimore. In the negotiations that followed, the United States gave up its demands to end impressment, while Britain promised to leave Canada’s borders unchanged and abandon efforts to create an Indian state in the Northwest. On December 24, 1814, commissioners signed the Treaty of Ghent , which would be ratified the following February. 

On January 8, 1815, unaware that peace had been concluded, British forces mounted a major attack in the Battle of New Orleans , only to meet with defeat at the hands of future U.S. president Andrew Jackson ’s army. News of the battle boosted sagging U.S. morale and left Americans with the taste of victory, despite the fact that the country had achieved none of its pre-war objectives.

Impact of the War of 1812

Though the War of 1812 is remembered as a relatively minor conflict in the United States and Britain, it looms large for Canadians and for Native Americans, who see it as a decisive turning point in their losing struggle to govern themselves. In fact, the war had a far-reaching impact in the United States, as the Treaty of Ghent ended decades of bitter partisan infighting in government and ushered in the so-called “Era of Good Feelings.” 

The war also marked the demise of the Federalist Party , which had been accused of being unpatriotic for its antiwar stance, and reinforced a tradition of Anglophobia that had begun during the Revolutionary War. Perhaps most importantly, the war’s outcome boosted national self-confidence and encouraged the growing spirit of American expansionism that would shape the better part of the 19th century.

HISTORY Vault

Stream thousands of hours of acclaimed series, probing documentaries and captivating specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Home — Essay Samples — History — American History — The War of 1812 for the Usa

The War of 1812 for The USA

• Categories: American History World History

About this sample

Words: 634 |

Published: Jan 4, 2019

Words: 634 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 887 words

4 pages / 1595 words

3 pages / 1356 words

3 pages / 1536 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on American History

John D. Rockefeller is widely regarded as one of the most successful American entrepreneurs of all time. Born in 1839 in Richford, NY, Rockefeller was the founder and long-standing CEO of Standard Oil Company, which dominated [...]

America's history has played a significant role in shaping the nation's identity and influencing global events. From the colonial era to the modern age, the United States has experienced pivotal moments and undergone [...]

The War of 1812, fought between the United States and Great Britain, is often overshadowed by the American Revolution and the Civil War. However, it had significant impacts on the United States that affected its political, [...]

The Mexican-American War, which took place between 1846 and 1848, marked a significant chapter in the history of the United States. It was a conflict that raised questions about the nation's motives, its expansionist goals, and [...]

John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, delivered on January 20, 1961, is widely regarded as one of the most memorable and impactful speeches in American history. In this essay, I will analyze the key elements of the speech, explore [...]

Shortly after the horrific events of Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, the lives of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Japenese people, both aliens and Citizens of the United States, would be changed in some major ways. Executive [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• The Importance of the 1812 War in American History Words: 314
• How War of 1812 Shaped the Transatlantic World Words: 839
• American Fighting Style During the Revolutionary War Words: 1399
• The War of 1812: Reasons and Results Words: 669
• American Public Opinion of War Words: 722
• Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace Words: 1117
• War Attitudes in American and British Poems Words: 752
• War Law Transformation Throughout History Words: 3602
• American Revolutionary War and Its Challenges Words: 1186
• American Attitude Towards War Words: 1134
• Civil War: The Second American Revolution Words: 680
• The War of 1812 as the Conclusion of the American Revolution Words: 375

“The War of 1812”

If you are about to write a The War of 1812 essay, you might want to check out our sample. Read our essay on The War of 1812 to get some inspiration for your writing!

Causes of The War of 1812

• Course of the War

Effects of The War of 1812

War of 1812 conclusion.

United States and Great Britain engaged in war in 1812, hence named “The War of 1812”. This war lasted for three years, that is, from 1812 to 1815.

It resulted from the cropping anger of the Americans over trade issues, impressments of American sailors, and British aid of the Indian attacks on the front line against the Native Americans (Roosevelt, 113). Although some of the Americans thought of 1812 War as a second war of independence, during this war, neither the British nor the Americans gained any decisive advantage.

The 1812 War took place during the reign of President Madison; he had declared war against the British after collision of the Americans with the British. The conflict between the Americans and the British had resulted from the British support of the Indians, Americans’ enemies.

The Indians had inputted much effort in doing away with the American administration, for instance, they fought the American troops leading to the reduction of the Americans power. In addition, the Indians offered protection to the British that resided in North America, this close association between the British and the Indians catalyzed American anger hence the outbreak of 1812 War.

Course of War

1812 War had its spark from a group of young politicians in the House of Representatives in America known as war hawks led by Henry Clay and John Calhoun.

The war hawks had diverse reasons as to why they demanded for the declaration of war against the British, and some of the reasons included the British violation of international laws that opposed disruption of marketing practices, the disrespect showed by the British, and the kidnapping act of the British.

For instance, the British violated international laws opposing disruption of marketing places by seizing American ships that transported goods for trade. The Americans considered the act of seizing American ships at their territory by the British as a show of disrespect. They therefore considered war as a solution, hence the War of 1812.

The British act of kidnapping innocent American sailors was also one of the causes of the 1812 War, the British captured and enslaved American sailors hence contributing to the rise of war hawks’ anger. The Chesapeake Affair of 1807 was also a contributing factor to the war of 1812, in 1807; the British soldiers managed to get aboard of American ship and killed innocent Americans that they caught, an act that left Americans burning with anger.

The neutrality act of Americans also contributed to the outbreak of the 1812 war, the Americans had the habit of carrying out their trading activity without showing interest or concern of the war that was taking place between the French and the British. The neutrality act portrayed by the Americans made the British take advantage of them.

The Americans started mistreating them by seizing their ships and capturing innocent American sailors (Hannay, 107).The succession of the British in the 1805 war against the French worsened the relationship between the British and the Americans, it led to the declination of the American participation in the trading activities across the seas.

Although the treaty of Ghent signed in December 1814 did not touch on any issues concerning the causes of the 1812 War, it contributed immensely towards the end of the 1812 War. The American and the British representatives had met at Ghent in Belgium with the intention of signing a peaceful treaty. According to the signed treaty, all conquered states were to be returned.

The treaty also paved way for the planning of commissions that solved boundary issues that existed between America and Canada. Via the signed treaty, the Americans were also able to restore their war lands and ships that had been captured by the British (Cullum, 133). In addition, the treaty contributed to the British promising to return the slaves it had captured.

Success of 1812 is based on the efforts of Andrew Jackson, in 1815, Andrew Jackson together with his poorly trained troops managed to win the Battle of New Orleans. The war had taken place between British and the Americans who had not gotten the news of the signed treaty.

Andrew Jackson with his outnumbered American army had managed to defeat the well trained and equipped British soldiers in the war that lasted for three years (Auchinleck, 89). The Battle of New Orleans had depicted the nationalism of the American volunteers, hence signifying the importance of Andrew Jackson.

In conclusion, the 1812 War was as a result of conflicts between the British and the Americans, it had resulted from the British overlooking the American neutrality. The 1812 war lasted for three years. In addition to the war contributing the drop of the American trading activity, it also led to the loss of many lives.

The British together with the Indians fought the Americans leading to the reduction of American powers. However, the efforts of the war hawks together with Andrew Jackson’ effort contributed immensely to the success of the American troops against the British.

Works cited

Auchinleck, Gilbert. A History of the War Between Great Britain and the United States of America: During the Years 1812, 1813, and 1814 . New York: Maclear & Company, 1855. Print.

Cullum, George. Campaigns of the War of 1812-15, Against Great Britain – Sketched and Criticised – With Brief Biographies of the American Engineers. New York: Symonds Press, 2010. Print.

Hannay, James. History of the War of 1812 Between Great Britain and the United States of America. New York: HardPress, 2012. Print.

Roosevelt, Theodore. The Naval War of 1812 . New York: Echo Library, 2007. Print.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 15). “The War of 1812”. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-of-1812/

"The War of 1812." StudyCorgi , 15 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/the-war-of-1812/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) '“The War of 1812”'. 15 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "The War of 1812." January 15, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-of-1812/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The War of 1812." January 15, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-of-1812/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "The War of 1812." January 15, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/the-war-of-1812/.

This paper, ““The War of 1812””, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: June 9, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The War of 1812 was a bloody conflict that was fought between the meager forces of the U.S. and the supreme power of Great Britain and being the Second American War for Independence, it goes down in history as it will not be forgotten. The war was fought from June 1812 and it climaxed in the spring of 1815 with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, although the battle failed to solve the issues that had made it to take place.

The mainland battle during the warfare took place along the Canadian border. In addition, the opposing forces also engaged in extensive actions at the sea. Since the U.S. decided to enter the war with confused goals and divided allegiances, these failures have made the war to be sometimes called “America’s worst-fought war.”

The U.S. instigated the war on the supreme British Empire because of a number of reasons. First, there was growing trade tensions between the U.S. and Britain. Before the war, Britain had established a number of trade restrictions that prevented the U.S. from trading with other countries.

Therefore, the United States challenged these trade limitations as not valid according to the international law. Second, the Americans were addressing their grievances about the continuing impressment of their sailors into the British Navy for manning its ships (Raatma, 6). The U.S. saw that the seizure of its sailors as well as the unwarranted search of its merchant ships contravened its national sovereignty and denied it its ability to control its territorial waters.

Another reason was that the British Empire was thwarting America’s intentions of expansion in the Northwest Territory by giving military assistance to the Native Americans who were confronting the American settlers who had moved to the Northwestern region. This action by Britain further escalated the tensions. Lastly, some historians believe that the U.S. still had some degree of resentment from the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, which they were enthusiastic of taking out on the Great Britain.

Even though the occurrence of the conflict had been preceded by bitter diplomatic disagreements, neither the Americans nor the British had adequate preparations for it. A significant section of the British forces was engaged in other wars elsewhere (Turner, 33). On the other hand, the U.S. was inadequately prepared for the war. The government presumed that the state militias could gain easy victory in Canada and there was no adequate funding for the war.

On July 12, 1812, General William Hull, leading a troop of about one thousand inadequately equipped militia, crossed the Detroit River and assumed the control of the Canadian town of Sandwitch, and about two months later, Hull’s men returned to Detroit and surrendered to British-friendly forces, which cost the U.S. the village of Detroit and most of the Michigan territory.

The conflict involved a show of naval strength. In 1813, the United States forces prevailed in the Battle of Lake Erie in which they took charge of the waters there. Consequently, they interrupted British and native troops in the west from accessing their supplies located in the area. At the Battle of Thames in October 1813, American militia, led by General William Harrison, became triumphant and Tucumseh, the leader of the Native American troops, was murdered which led to the breakdown of his forces.

Another significant event in the war was the “Burning of Washington” by the British forces that led to the sacking of the US Secretary of War. After two years of conflicts, the main reasons for the war had disappeared as neither side had a reason to continue fighting; therefore, this stalemate led to the signing of the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814 that ended the war two months later (Benn, 81).

The War of 1812 had a significant impact on the United States. During the war, the powerful Royal Navy had prevented the U.S. from trading with other countries by blocking much of the coastline. Consequently, since the U.S. could no longer export most of its agricultural products, this assisted in stimulating the establishment of local manufacturing plants.

Before the war, there was division in the U.S. and even in Canada. However, the war helped in uniting the residents of the U.S. as well as the residents of Canada in working together towards the fulfillment of their goals as a nation. The ratification of the treaty that ended the war made Britain to lift its trade restrictions that it had placed on the U.S. In addition, the British Empire no longer seized U.S. sailors.

The Americans won the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 and this assisted in restoring the American sense of honor among other nations of the world. It made the U.S. to gain respect from other nations. The conflict also validated the fact that the U.S. could be able to stand alone away from European interferences. Notable impact of the war is that it established a long era of peaceful foreign relations between the U.S. and the Great Britain.

Works Cited

Benn, Carl. The war of 1812. Oxford: Osprey, 2002. Print.

Raatma, Lucia. The war of 1812. Minneapolis, Minn.: Compass Point Books, 2005. Print.

Turner, Wesley B. The War of 1812: the war that both sides won. Toronto, Ont.; Tonawanda, N.Y.: Dundurn Press, 2000. Print.

• Development of the Atlantic Trade Triangle a Colonial Capitalism (Mercantilism)
• SALT II and Stagflation: The Economy and Jimmy Carter’s Arms Control Agreements with the USSR
• Causes of the 1812 War
• French and Indian War, the American Revolution, and the War of 1812
• The War of 1812 for Americans
• The Rise of Mass Society
• Did Morality or Economics Dominate the Debates Over Slavery in the 1850s?
• Thomas Jefferson's Presidency
• American Imperialism
• U.S. Involvement in International Affairs
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 30). The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-war-of-1812/

"The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States." IvyPanda , 30 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/the-war-of-1812/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States'. 30 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States." July 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-war-of-1812/.

1. IvyPanda . "The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States." July 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-war-of-1812/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The War of 1812 Impacts on the United States." July 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-war-of-1812/.

Watch Now: HSP on the Tamron Hall Show

Live Chat available Mon & Fri 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. Or submit a question anytime!

War of 1812 and the Star-Spangled banner

On June 1, 1812, the United States of America declared war on the British. Several international factors led President James Madison to declare war after years of failed negotiations and laws aimed at preventing another conflict with the British.

Early in the war, the United States launched a series of attacks in hopes of attaining a quick victory; unfortunately, they were met with strong British resistance in Canada. In August 1814, the British set fire to the Capitol building and the White House in Washington, D.C. The British attacked Baltimore in September.

In Baltimore Harbor, Fort McHenry endured over twenty-four hours of bombing but did not surrender to the British, who withdrew their attack. During the attack, Francis Scott Key penned his famous poem " The Star-Spangled Banner ," known today as the national anthem of the United States.

The War of 1812 came to end in 1815 with the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent. The war produced many famous generals, politicians, and presidents, but arguably the most recognizable remnant of the War of 1812 is "The Star-Spangled Banner," written by Francis Scott Key.

Arts and Culture

Government and civics

War of 1812

Essential Questions

What document or artifact best summarizes the United States and why?

What role does analysis have in historical construction?

The United States has chosen writings, material artifacts, and historic sites to identify a common cultural heritage.

Historical causation involves motives, reasons, and consequences that result in events and actions.

Competencies

Analyze historical causation for a specific event.

Explain why certain writings, oral traditions, material artifacts, architecture, and historic places have been maintained in the present and given for the benefits of future generations.

Background Material for Teacher

The unit and lesson plan are a part of Preserving American Freedom , which presents and interprets fifty of the treasured documents within the vast catalog of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. In this project, documents are digitized with transcriptions and annotations, as well as with other user-friendly elements, that will help both teachers and students to better understand the materials in the lesson.

End of Unit Assessment

A variety of traditional assessment styles can be applied to these readings. Traditional assessments can include a variety of quizzes (multiple choice or fill in), an essay, or a short paper highlighting all three documents. Primary sources may also be incorporated into a larger paper, student presentation, or class discussion led by student based questions. An alternative for those students who are unfamiliar with primary sources may be assessing notes taken during the reading to be used later as an open-notebook quiz.

To assess core standards CC.1.4.5.H and CC.1.4.5.I, one essay option would be to have students write a short persuasive essay pretending that the official national anthem is being chosen and arguing for why The Star Spangled Banner should be chosen over other patriotic songs (America the Beautiful, God Bless America, etc.).

Plans in this Unit

The War of 1812 and the Star-Spangled Banner Lesson

Grade Level

Grade School

Standards/Eligible Content

Pa core standards.

The Freedom Teacher Fellow was funded through a Bank of America grant for the digital history project Preserving American Freedom .

About the Author

This unit was created by David Reader, HSP's Freedom Teacher Fellow in the summer of 2012.  David is a social studies teacher at Camden Catholic High School.  The introduction to lesson plan was authored by Christopher Damiani, Programs Assistant at HSP.

Subject Guide

Military Records, Military History, and Wars

Attention Teachers!

Let us know how you used this plan and be featured on our site! Submit your story here.

Forging America: the War of 1812 Legacy

This essay about the War of 1812 explores its significance as a pivotal moment in American history, often overshadowed by other conflicts like the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. It highlights the factors leading to the war, including tensions between Britain and France and British impressment of American sailors. Despite initial struggles, the war showcased American naval capabilities and ended with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. The essay emphasizes how the war shaped American national identity, solidifying sovereignty and fostering a sense of unity among citizens. Additionally, it discusses the impact on British foreign policy and the lasting legacy of the conflict on international relations.

How it works

War of 1812 stands how a central moment in American history, what is often darkened by Revolutionary War that was preceded that is why and Civil War, that goes. However, his value can not be zdrobnia. Then there was a conflict that formed the trajectory of the united states, hardening his status how people and influencing on his mutual relations with the second world states.

Roots of War of 1812 tracks back to a several linked factors. One of primary catalysts was strong tension between Britain and France, both, that competes for influence Europe.

Practice of Royal Navy of British of requisition, for help what they force recruited the American sailors to service, farther strained mutual relations between the united states and Britain. Additionally, British support of the Native American tribes, what leans to American expansion in North-western Territory additional fuel to the fire. on June, 18, 1812, President James Madison signed declaration of war against Britain, marking the official beginning to the conflict. War was opened on frequent facades, with substantial battles militated on dry land and at sea. In the early phases of war, American zmusza militates against prevailing British military, cladding defeats in battles for example Siege of Detroit and Battle of Height of Queenston. However, American marine victories, exceptionally triumph of Constitution of military ship of the USA above Hms Guerriere in August 1812, provided a very necessary moral increase and proposed callow national marine capabilities on a shop-window. As war behaved, how parties experience successes, so and remains. The British blockade of American ports in earnest influenced on the American economy, conduces to economic difficulties and dissatisfaction among a population. Meantime, American zmusza, under guidance figures for example General Andrew Jackson, attained decision victories, most exceptionally in Battle of new Orlean in January 1815, that took place since Agreement of Ghent was signed but before the news of agreement attained fighters. This victory propped up American morale and fixed national sense to unity and pride. Agreement of Ghent, engaged on Decembers, 24, 1814, actually sheathed the Sword 1812. Not without regard to what side, what arrives at expressive victory, an agreement renewed pre-war distances and was capable not to appeal to the problems that foremost sparkled conflict, for example requisition and Native American resistance. However, war had deep consequences how for the united states, so and Britain.

For the united states, War 1812 marked a turning point in his national identity. A conflict served, to harden national sovereignty and independence from Britain, laying foundation for his appearance how the world state. To that, war tucked in a fuel sense of nationalism and unity among Americans, encouraging public that would stand for generations spirit. International, War of 1812 existent substantial values for Britain. While then saved his status as global superpower, a conflict separated the calls of support of control above remote child’s camps and territories, especially in the face of certain resistance. In addition, war assisted the overvalue of the British foreign policy, conduces to the anymore conciliator approaches in the direction of the states united in years, that goes.

Upon completion, War 1812 was a moment, what yields to transformation, in American history, forming a national identity and his mutual relations with the second world states. While often darkened by the second conflicts, his inheritance prolongs to philosophize, reminds us about a fight and sacrifices, then torowa?o a road, that the united states became people, viz. today.

Cite this page

Forging America: The War of 1812 Legacy. (2024, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/forging-america-the-war-of-1812-legacy/

"Forging America: The War of 1812 Legacy." PapersOwl.com , 25 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/forging-america-the-war-of-1812-legacy/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Forging America: The War of 1812 Legacy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/forging-america-the-war-of-1812-legacy/ [Accessed: 29 Aug. 2024]

"Forging America: The War of 1812 Legacy." PapersOwl.com, Mar 25, 2024. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/forging-america-the-war-of-1812-legacy/

"Forging America: The War of 1812 Legacy," PapersOwl.com , 25-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/forging-america-the-war-of-1812-legacy/. [Accessed: 29-Aug-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Forging America: The War of 1812 Legacy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/forging-america-the-war-of-1812-legacy/ [Accessed: 29-Aug-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Fundamentals NEW

• Biographies
• Compare Countries
• World Atlas

War of 1812

Introduction.

People who lived in newly settled areas of the United States were also angry with Britain. They accused the British of getting Native Americans to attack settlers.

Henry Clay of Kentucky led a group in Congress called “war hawks.” The war hawks got President James Madison to sign a declaration of war against Britain on June 18, 1812.

Early Battles

The United States first tried to take Canada , which belonged to Britain. The attacks failed. Britain struck back by taking Detroit , Michigan. The ships of the U.S. Navy were more successful at first. The USS Constitution (“Old Ironsides”) won several battles in the Atlantic .

Later Battles

The war was over, but there was no clear winner. The boundaries returned to where they were before the war. Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison were considered heroes because of the battles that they won. Both were later elected president of the United States. Another result of the war was that the United States became more independent from Europe. The country developed more of a sense of national identity.

It’s here: the NEW Britannica Kids website!

We’ve been busy, working hard to bring you new features and an updated design. We hope you and your family enjoy the NEW Britannica Kids. Take a minute to check out all the enhancements!

• The same safe and trusted content for explorers of all ages.
• Accessible across all of today's devices: phones, tablets, and desktops.
• Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards.
• A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated scholar.
• And so much more!

Want to see it in action?

Start a free trial

To share with more than one person, separate addresses with a comma

Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page. Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.

After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click "view original" on the Google Translate toolbar.

• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Sample details

War of 1812

Related Topics

• World Hunger
• Ancient Egypt
• Byzantine Empire
• Ku Klux Klan
• Julius Caesar
• Nazi Germany
• Weimar Republic
• Native American
• Spanish Empire
• Alexander The Great
• Christopher Columbus
• Nationalism
• Watergate scandal

The War of 1812: America’s Second Fight for Independence

The War of 1812 is a war often overlooked and somewhat forgotten by most Americans. It is none the less an important part of American history and was sometimes referred to at the time as the second war for independence. The war was from June 1812 to February of 1815 and was fought with Great Britain. By and large it would be a fight for freedom of navigation of the seas.

This would be the first time the fledgling nation of the United States would declare war on any nation. There were three main causes leading to this decision. The restriction of US international trade by Britain, the British practice of impressment, and British encouragement of Indian uprisings and hostility against America`s westward expansion. Britain had been at war with Napoleonic France since 1793. During this time in an attempt to keep supplies from reaching France, Britain placed trade restrictions on any ships heading for French ports. France would also impose similar restrictions placing the Unites States in an awkward position. In response to this Thomas Jefferson signed a poorly thought out embargo act in1807 which closed America’s ports to international trade. It had very little effect on Europe but plunged America into a depression. Another factor leading to war was the British practice of impressment whereby the British would stop American ships and force their crews into the service of the Royal Navy.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

They did this because the Royal Navy had grown, and they could not man all their ships with volunteer sailors alone. They would even stop ships in American territorial waters to impress sailors. This practice rightly outraged the United States. The last major cause of the war was the British involvement in support of the Indians fight against westward expansion. As Part of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 the British had given the Northwest Territory of America to the United States. The British however saw the Indians as an important ally to them. They created a buffer between British Canada and The United States. The area was also good for the Canadian fur trade. Because of this the British decided to supply the Indians with arms and encourage raids. In the two years before the war, 1810 and 1811, the Indian raids became frequent and unbearable and Americans demanded the government do something. This created even more tension between Britain and the United States. In 1808 James Madison was elected as the fourth president of the United States. He informed Congress that they needed to prepare for war with Britain. In 1810 several new Congressmen were elected Henry Clay and John Calhoun among them. Known as “War Hawks” they were part of a rising tide that wanted war with Britain. Facing ever increasing pressure, President Madison would finally sign a declaration of war with Britain on June 18, 1812.

Oddly enough the trade restrictions that were one of the main causes of the war were in the process of being repealed by Britain at the time war was declared. Britain would initially wait to see what would happen when this news reached America. Fighting began despite the repeal and the United States battle strategy would initially consist of an invasion of British Canada. The thought was If they could capture large amounts of territory it could be used as a valuable bargaining chip in bringing Britain into negotiations. This invasion however would not go well for America as they would not gain any territory in Canada but would suffer several defeats instead. The American army was defeated at the battle of Queenston Heights, Detroit was captured by Canadians, and a drive to capture Quebec was repelled. The American Navy would fare much better however with some early victories over the Royal Navy such as the destruction of HMS Guerriere by USS Constitution on August 19, 1812 which was a boost to American morale. The war overall did not go well for America, initially Britain had taken a more defensive posture but with the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 Britain was able to give all its attention to the war with America. British forces would invade the Chesapeake Bay area and captured Washington, D.C. on august 24, 1814. They burned many buildings in the capitol including the White house.

America would win a significant victory at the Battle of Baltimore, September 1814, where a combined British sea/land invasion was repelled. As part of this battle Fort McHenry withstood massive bombardment by the British Navy. The next day the fort raised a huge American flag which inspired a lawyer, Francis Scott Key, to write “The Star-Spangled Banner” which would eventually become the national anthem. The British commander was killed, and Britain suffered heavy losses and would withdraw to regroup for an attack on New Orleans. The Battle for New Orleans would be fought on January 8, 1815 and was an overwhelming defeat for the British at the hands of General Andrew Jackson. The battle was unnecessary however as the Treaty of Ghent had been signed on December 24, 1814 ending the war officially. Word of the wars end had not reached either side until after the battle. The treaty returned things to pretty much the way they were before the war between Britain and the United States. What America did gain from the war was an increased sense of national pride and confidence. They had also gained major victories over the Indian population who had suffered several crushing defeats. Now without British support the Indians were doomed to defeat and the door of American westward expansion was wide open.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/the-war-of-1812-essay/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Soviet Union
• Adolf Hitler
• Black Death
• Bubonic plague
• Primary source
• Middle Ages
• Missouri Compromise
• Ancient Rome

Check more samples on your topics

The war of 1812 is often called the “second war of american independence.

The War of 1812 was really the second war of American Independence for many reasons. The first major reason is that like the First War of Independence this war also was fought between America and United Kingdom., and secondly because the war was fought due to the autocratic policies of UK.  American Revolution ended in

The War of 1812: Was the War of 1812 Justified? Sample

James Madison

For America. the War of 1812 was justified. Clearly there were sufficient grounds for America to declare war with Great Britain. Time after clip the British violated American rights and freedoms. Acts such as impressments. the onslaught on the USS Chesapeake. the misdemeanor of American impersonal rights and Waterss. encirclements on U. S. ports. and

Indigenous People of the Americas and European Colonization of the Americas

The North American continent, in this case, the United States emerged with a cultural background of both Native American traditional tribal culture, and a more modernized European culture, that of the Spanish, English, and French. This culture merger was a result of a prolonged interaction between the Native American peoples and the colonial powers, and

War of 1812: The Second American Revolution

The War of 1812 is often referred to as the second American Revolution. I, personally, disagree with this statement. To thoroughly explain my reasoning behind my opinion, we must first take a look at the original American Revolution. First and foremost, the main cause of the American Revolution was the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment “embraced the

A Comparison of the Similarities Between the Revolutionary War in 1775 and the War of 1812

The Revolutionary War in 1775 and the War of 1812 share similarities and differences. Both wars involved British forces and North American colonists, but they were influenced by different factors. When the colonists settled in North America, Britain interfered with their economic and political affairs. Political meddling was evident through laws like

Woman’s Fight for Independence Right

Independence

The Awakening: A Woman's Fight for Independence Right from the beginning the plot is almost conveniently evident. You find a woman, Edna Pontellier, tired of living her life as a pampered and "owned" wife and mother. She is searching for much more in her life, some sort of meaning for her whole existence.She searches for

Ex-Prisoners Need a Second Second Chance

There is a social stigma that has been portrayed throughout recent years that has prevented the employment of ex-prisoners. I have sorrowed over this as I witnessed my own brother after being incarcerated for 16 years, and with education received within his institution, could not find employment for over a year after his release. This

Piracy and The War of 1812

When people talk about the War of 1812, you'll hear a lot about Andrew Jackson or the British. Perhaps if they've really researched and done their homework, you'll hear about the fact that the war was also against the Shawnee war chief, Tecumseh, and his brother Tenskwatawa, both of whom led the Indian Confederation consisting

An Analysis of the Reasons for the War of 1812

There were many reasons that lead to the war of 1812; the main reason was that British ships were attacking American vessels, which cause the President Jefferson to enact the embargo act, which banned all American vessels from sailing to foreign ports. When Madison became President, he adopted a new policy, which allowed trade to

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Peer Reviewed

Stochastic lies: How LLM-powered chatbots deal with Russian disinformation about the war in Ukraine

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Research on digital misinformation has turned its attention to large language models (LLMs) and their handling of sensitive political topics. Through an AI audit, we analyze how three LLM-powered chatbots (Perplexity, Google Bard, and Bing Chat) generate content in response to the prompts linked to common Russian disinformation narratives about the war in Ukraine. We find major differences between chatbots in the accuracy of outputs and the integration of statements debunking Russian disinformation claims related to prompts’ topics. Moreover, we show that chatbot outputs are subject to substantive variation, which can result in random user exposure to false information.

Institute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Switzerland

Research Group “Platform Algorithms and Digital Propaganda,” Weizenbaum Institute, Germany

Research Questions

• Do LLM-powered chatbots generate false information in response to prompts related to the common Russian disinformation narratives about the war in Ukraine?
• Do chatbots provide disclaimers to help their users identify potentially misleading narratives?
• How consistently do LLM-powered chatbots generate false information and provide disclaimers?

Essay Summary

• To examine how chatbots respond to prompts linked to Russian disinformation, we audited three popular chatbots: Perplexity, Google Bard (a predecessor of Gemini), and Bing Chat (currently known as Copilot). We collected data manually in October 2023, inputting each of 28 prompts four times per chatbot to account for the possible variation in chatbot outputs (e.g., due to built-in stochasticity).
• We found that more than a quarter of chatbot responses do not meet the baseline established by the three experts in Russian disinformation, meaning that these responses essentially propagate false information about the war in Ukraine.
• Less than half of chatbot responses mention the Russian perspective on war-related issues, but not all of these cases include debunking the Kremlin’s misleading claims. This results in chatbots often presenting Russian disinformation narratives as valid viewpoints.
• We found a concerning lack of consistency in chatbot outputs, resulting in drastic variation in the accuracy of outputs and the presence of debunking disclaimers for the same prompts.
• Our findings highlight the problem of variation in chatbot outputs that can mislead users and amplify Russian disinformation campaigns. Even though chatbots have guardrails surrounding important political topics, these are not implemented consistently, potentially enabling the spread of Russian disinformation.

Implications

Automated content selection, filtering, and ranking systems powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have long been key elements of infrastructural affordances and business models of major online platforms, from search engines to social media (Poell et al., 2022). The recent developments in generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs) that are capable of not only retrieving existing information but also generating new types of textual content, have given new possibilities to platforms for satisfying user information needs. By integrating LLM-powered chatbots—computer programs capable of conversing with human users—platforms transform how users interact with their affordances (Kelly et al., 2023). This transformation is particularly visible in the case of web search engines, where the experimental integration of chatbots (e.g., Google Bard and Bing Chat) into the user interface is ongoing. Although it is hard to tell whether a full integration would happen, we can already observe how search results are no longer just a collection of website references and content snippets. Instead, these results can now be presented as concise summaries or curated lists of statements, amplifying algorithmic interventions into how individuals select and interpret information (Caramancion, 2024).   

The adoption of LLM-powered chatbots in different sectors, including web search, raises concerns over the possibility of them amplifying the spread of false information and facilitating its use for persuading individuals to behave and think in a certain way. Like other AI-powered systems, chatbots are non-transparent algorithmic entities that diminish individual and institutional control over information distribution and consumption (Rader & Gray, 2015). Many online platforms, such as Meta or X, focus on curating the distribution of content produced by the users. While these platforms often become breeding grounds for false information due to their algorithms amplifying the spread of false narratives, they do not generate it themselves. Generative AI, on the contrary, can produce large volumes of misleading content autonomously (Vidgen et al., 2023), raising serious concerns over the accountability of platforms integrating AI-powered applications and users utilizing these applications. Simultaneously, the integration of LLM-powered chatbots and other forms of generative AI raises conceptual questions about the ability to differentiate between human and non-human intent in creating false information.

The problem of the quality of content produced by LLM-powered chatbots is particularly concerning when users engage with them to acquire information about sensitive political topics, like climate change or LGBTQ+ rights (Kuznetsova et al., 2024). Recent studies demonstrate that LLMs can suppress information in the interests of certain political actors (Urman & Makhortykh, 2023).  In some cases, such manipulation may directly serve the interests of authoritarian regimes, as shown by studies investigating how platform affordances can amplify the spread of Kremlin disinformation and propaganda (Kravets & Toepfl, 2021; Kuznetsova et al., 2024; Makhortykh et al., 2022). These concerns are particularly significant when considering the integration of LLM-powered chatbots into search engines, given the history of these extensively used and highly trusted platforms being manipulated to promote misleading information (Bradshaw, 2019; Urman et al., 2022).

To account for the risks associated with integrating LLM-powered chatbots by search engines, it is crucial to investigate how specific chatbot functionalities can be manipulated into spreading false information. For example, Atkins et al. (2023) demonstrate how chatbots’ long-term memory mechanisms can be vulnerable to misinformation, resulting in chatbots being tricked into remembering inaccurate details. Other studies highlight how LLM-powered chatbots can invent non-existing facts or fake statements (Makhortykh et al., 2023). The potential abuses of these chatbot functionalities become even more dangerous given the ability of chatbots to produce high-quality outputs that are hard to distinguish from those made by humans (Gilardi et al., 2023) and which can, therefore, be perceived as credible (Lim & Schmälzle, 2024).

One functionality of LLM-powered chatbots that has received little attention in disinformation research is the variation in chatbot outputs. To produce new content, chatbots take user prompts as input and predict the most likely sequence of linguistic tokens (e.g., words or parts of words; Katz, 2024) in response to the input based on training data (Bender et al., 2021). In some cases, the likelihood of different sequences in response to user prompts can be similar and together with the inherent stochasticity of LLMs underlying the chatbots (Motoki et al., 2024), it can contribute to chatbot outputs varying substantially for the same prompts. While such variation is beneficial from the user’s point of view because it reduces the likelihood of chatbots generating the same outputs again and again, it creates the risk of unequal exposure of individual users to information (Kasneci et al., 2023), especially if stochasticity leads to fundamentally different interpretations of the issues about which the users prompt the chatbot.

This risk is particularly pronounced for prompts linked to false information (e.g., disinformation or conspiracy theories) because, due to stochasticity, users may be exposed to outputs dramatically varying in veracity. Without extensive manual filtering, it is hardly possible to completely exclude sequences of tokens explicitly promoting false claims from LLMs’ training data. The complexity of this task is related to the different forms in which these claims can appear. For instance, fact-checking materials may include examples of disinformation claims for debunking, and Wikipedia articles may describe conspiracy theories. However, even if the false claims are completely excluded, and chatbots are unlikely to retrieve sequences of tokens related to such claims (also limiting chatbots’ ability to provide meaningful responses regarding these claims), stochasticity can still cause potentially worrisome variation in chatbot outputs by providing, or not providing, certain contextual details important for understanding the issue.

Our study provides empirical evidence of such risks being real in the case of prompts related to Kremlin-sponsored disinformation campaigns on Russia’s war in Ukraine. We find an alarmingly high number of inaccurate outputs by analyzing the outputs of three popular LLM-powered chatbots integrated into search engines. Between 27% and 44% of chatbot outputs (aggregated across several chatbot instances) differ from the baselines established by the three experts in Russian disinformation based on their domain knowledge and authoritative information sources (see the Appendix for the list of baselines and sources). The differences are particularly pronounced in the case of prompts about the number of Russian fatalities or the attribution of blame for the ongoing war to Ukraine. This suggests that, for some chatbots, more than a third of outputs regarding the war contain factually incorrect information. Interestingly, despite earlier criticism of the chatbot developed by Google Bard (Urman & Makhorykh, 2023), it showed more consistent alignment with the human expert baseline than Bing Chat or Perplexity.

Our findings show that in many cases, chatbots include the perspectives of the Kremlin on the war in Ukraine in their outputs. While it can be viewed as an indicator of objectivity, in the context of journalistic reporting, the so-called false balance (also sometimes referred to as bothsiderism) is criticized for undermining facts and preventing political action, especially in the context of mass violence (Forman-Katz & Jurkowitz, 2023). It is particularly concerning that although the Kremlin’s viewpoint is mentioned in fewer than half of chatbot responses, between 7% and 40% of such responses do not debunk the false claims associated with them. Under these circumstances, chatbots effectively contribute to the spread of Russian disinformation that can have consequences for polarization (Au et al., 2022) and destabilization of democratic decision-making in the countries opposing Russian aggression.

Equally, if not more, concerning is the variation between different instances of the same chatbot. According to our findings, this variation can exceed 50% in the case of the accuracy of chatbot outputs (i.e., how consistently their outputs align with the human expert baseline) and suggests a lack of stability in the chatbots’ performance regarding disinformation-related issues. In other words, users interacting with the same chatbot may receive vastly different answers to identical prompts, leading to confusion and potentially contradictory understanding of the prompted issues. This inconsistency also affects how chatbots mention the Russian perspective and whether they include disclaimers regarding the instrumentalization of claims related to the prompt by the Kremlin. Under these circumstances, substantive variation in the chatbot outputs can undermine trust in chatbots and lead to confusion among users seeking information about Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Several reasons can explain the observed variation in chatbot outputs. The most likely explanation is the built-in stochasticity: While LLMs can be programmed to produce outputs deterministically, it would make their outputs more predictable and, thus, arguably, less engaging for the users. Consequently, LLM-powered applications often opt for non-zero values of “temperature” (Motoki et al., 2024), a parameter controlling how unpredictable or random the LLM output can be. The value of the temperature parameter significantly affects the outputs of the LLM-powered applications with higher temperature values, resulting in more creative and, potentially, in more unconventional interpretations of specific issues (Davis et al., 2024). Considering that LLM outputs are, by default, based on probabilities (e.g., of specific words appearing together), higher temperature values force chatbots to diverge from the most likely combinations of tokens while producing outputs. Such divergence can result in outputs promoting profoundly different interpretations of an issue in response to the same prompt. Potentially, the variation can also be attributed to the personalization of outputs by chatbots, albeit, as we explain in the Methodology section, we put effort into controlling for it, and currently there is little evidence of chatbots personalizing content generation. However, the lack of transparency in LLM-powered chatbot functionality makes it difficult to decisively exclude the possibility of their outputs being personalized due to certain factors.

Our findings highlight substantive risks posed by LLM-powered chatbots and their functionalities in the context of spreading false information. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that LLM-powered chatbots can be used not only to create false information (Spitale et al., 2023) but also to detect and counter its spread (Hoes et al., 2023; Kuznetsova et al., 2023). Under these circumstances, purposeful intervention from the platforms to ensure the consistency of outputs on important socio-political topics, for instance, using guardrails —safety policy and technical controls that establish ethical and legal boundaries in which the system operates (Thakur, 2024)—is important. Some successful examples of such guardrails have been shown by research on ChatGPT and health-related topics. Goodman et al. (2023) have demonstrated the consistency in the accuracy of GPT 3.5 and 4 outputs over time. Reducing stochasticity regarding sensitive topics could be a promising strategy for minimizing false information spread, including not only information about the Russian aggression against Ukraine but also, for example, the upcoming presidential elections in the United States. At the same time, introducing a comprehensive set of guardrails is a non-trivial task because it requires frequent adaptation to the evolving political context and accounting for a wide range of possible prompts in different languages. Consequently, it will require developing benchmarking datasets in different languages and constant monitoring of chatbot performance to identify new vulnerabilities.

Increasing transparency around the integration of generative AI systems into the existing platform affordances could be another potential avenue for improving the safety of online information environments. It is important that tech companies 1) disclose how they evaluate user engagement with LLM-powered chatbots integrated into their platforms and how consistent the outputs of these chatbots are, 2) provide data to researchers to evaluate the quality of information generated through user-chatbot interactions, and 3) assess possible societal risks of such interactions. Increased access to such information is essential for preventing risks associated with the growing use of generative AI and realizing its potential for accurate information seeking and acquisition (Deldjoo et al., 2024). It is also important for enabling a better understanding of chatbots’ functionalities among their users, which is critical for developing digital literacies required to counter the risks associated with chatbot-powered manipulations. 

Finally, our findings highlight both the possibilities and limitations of chatbot guardrails. Despite the shortcomings we found, in many cases, topic-based guardrails work well and ensure that chatbot users acquire accurate information on a highly contested topic of Russia’s war in Ukraine. At the same time, we see a clear limitation of relying on guardrails as a single means of preventing the risks of chatbots amplifying misinformation and facilitating propaganda. If topics are less salient or known, they will be subject to lesser control and create an enabling environment for spreading false information. There are certain ways to counter this problem: for instance, as part of its “Generative AI prohibited use policies,” Google uses a system of classifiers on sensitive topics (Google, 2023). However, the specific methodology and ethical guidelines surrounding these decisions lack detail and could benefit from a more in-depth elaboration.

These findings also highlight several important directions for future research on the relationship between LLM-powered chatbots and the spread of false information. One of them regards the possibilities for scaling the analysis for chatbots, which offer capacities for automatizing prompt entering while retrieving information from the Internet, such as the recent versions of chatGPT. Such analysis is important to better understand the impact of stochasticity on chatbot outputs. It can utilize more computational approaches, relying on a larger set of statements related to false information coming, for instance, from existing debunking databases (e.g., Politifact or EU vs. disinfo). Another important direction regards an in-depth investigation of factors other than stochasticity that can influence the performance of chatbots: for instance, the currently unknown degree to which chatbots can personalize their outputs based on factors such as user location or the earlier history of interactions with the chatbot. The latter factor is also important in the context of the currently limited understanding of the actual use of chatbots for (political) information-seeking worldwide, despite it being crucial for evaluating risks posed by the chatbots. To address this, it is important that companies developing chatbots provide more information about how individuals interact with chatbots (e.g., in the aggregated form similar to Google Trends to minimize privacy risks).

Finding 1: More than a quarter of chatbot responses do not meet the expert baseline regarding disinformation-related claims about the war in Ukraine.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses to prompts regarding the war in Ukraine aggregated across multiple instances for specific chatbots to compare how they perform on average in terms of accuracy. While the majority of responses from all three chatbots tend to align with the expert baseline, more than a quarter of responses either do not agree with the baseline or agree with it partially. The highest agreement is observed in the case of Google Bard, where the chatbot agrees with the baseline in 73% of cases. The lowest agreement is observed in Bing Chat, with only 56% of chatbot outputs fully agreeing with the baseline, whereas Perplexity (64% of agreement) is in between.

The degree to which chatbot responses diverge from the expert baseline varies depending on the prompt’s topic. For some prompts, chatbots align with the baseline consistently. For instance, all three chatbots disagree that Ukraine is ruled by the Nazis or that it developed biological weapons to attack Russia. Similarly, chatbots consistently argue against the claims that the Bucha massacre was made up by Ukraine and agree that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.

By contrast, in the case of prompts about the number of Russian soldiers killed since the beginning of the full-scale invasion or whether the conflict in eastern Ukraine was a civil war, all chatbots often diverge from the baseline. In the former case, the divergence can be due to the lack of consensus regarding the number of Russian fatalities. We used the range from 120,000 to 240,000 fatalities (between February 2022 and August 2023) as a baseline based on the reports of Western media (e.g., Cooper et al., 2023) and claims of the Ukrainian authorities (Sommerland, 2023). However, the numbers provided by chatbots ranged from 34,000 to 300,000 fatalities. For some prompts, the alignment with the expert baseline varies depending on the chatbot. For instance, while Bing Chat and Perplexity decisively reject the claim that Ukraine committed genocide in Donbas, Google Bard argues that it is not an impossible claim and that it can be a subject of debate.

Under these conditions, the question of sources used by chatbots to generate outputs regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine is particularly important. Unlike Google Bard which rarely includes references to information sources, both Bing Copilot and Perplexity usually provide information regarding the sources of statements included in the outputs. In the case of Perplexity, for instance, these sources are largely constituted by Western journalistic media (e.g., Reuters or The New York Times ) and non-governmental organizations (e.g., Human Rights Watch or Atlantic Council). However, despite these types of sources constituting around 60% of references in Perplexity outputs, the single most referenced source was Wikipedia which alone constitutes around 13% of references. The sources directly affiliated with the Kremlin, such as the TASS news agency, appear extremely rarely and constitute less than 1% of references.

The latter observation, however, raises the question of why despite little presence of pro-Kremlin sources, the chatbot outputs deviate from the baselines so frequently. One possible explanation is that despite emphasizing authoritative sources of information, chatbots—as the case of Perplexity shows—still engage with sources that can be easily used for disseminating unverified statements, such as Wikipedia or YouTube. Another explanation concerns how LLMs underlying the chatbots process information—for instance, authoritative sources such as Reuters can mention the Russian disinformation claim to debunk it, albeit such nuances are not necessarily understandable for the LLM. Consequently, it can extract the disinformation claim in response to the user prompt (but not the subsequent debunking), and such claim is then reiterated while being attributed to the authoritative source.

Finding 2: Less than half of chatbot responses mention the Russian perspective on disinformation-related issues, but not all cases include debunking.

Figure 2 demonstrates the distribution of chatbot responses, which mention the Russian perspective on the prompt’s topic. The exact formats in which the Russian perspective is mentioned vary. Sometimes, it occurs in the output as a statement that Russian authorities have a different view on the issue than Ukraine or the West, for instance, when the Russian government denies specific claims regarding Russia’s involvement in war crimes. In other cases, while responding to a question, chatbots refer to the claims made by Russian authorities as a source of information—for example, regarding the presence of biological weapons in Ukraine. As we suggested earlier, Western authoritative sources (e.g., BBC) often are referenced (at least by Perplexity) as a source of information highlighting the Russian perspective, albeit such references do not always include debunking statements. Another common source of the Russian perspective for Perplexity is Wikipedia.

Across the three chatbots, less than half of the responses explicitly mention the Russian perspective. Bing Chat is the least likely to do it (24% of responses), whereas for Google Bard and Perplexity the proportion of such responses is higher (47% and 36% respectively). The Russian perspective is almost never mentioned in response to prompts dealing with the number of fatalities among the Russian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians or the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian war. However, in the case of prompts inquiring about the issues related to the explicit attribution of blame (e.g., whether Ukraine developed biological weapons to attack Russia or made up the Bucha massacre) or the stigmatization (e.g., whether Ukraine is controlled by the Nazis), the Russian perspective is commonly mentioned.

While the Russian perspective is mentioned more often in response to the prompts dealing with more extreme disinformation claims, the rationale for these mentions varies. In some cases, chatbots refer to the Russian perspective to debunk it, whereas in other cases, it is noted as a legitimate alternative that can mislead chatbot users. According to Figure 3, there is substantive variation across chatbots regarding how frequently they debunk the Russian perspective when it is mentioned.

Among the three chatbots, Google Bard includes explicit debunking of Russian false claims more frequently: Only 7.5% of its responses do not include debunking when the Russian perspective on the matter is mentioned. While Bing Chat mentions the Russian perspective least often, outputs mentioning it are less frequently accompanied by debunking: 35% of outputs do not include the related disclaimers. Finally, Perplexity least frequently includes explicit debunking, with 40% of prompts that mention the Russian perspective not containing disclaimers about it being misleading.

The chatbots also differ in terms of the sources of debunking. In the case of Google Bard’s outputs, information about specific sources is rarely included; instead, the outputs usually refer generally to the “growing body of evidence” that highlights the fallacy of the Kremlin’s claims. In rare cases, Bard’s outputs mention organizations responsible for the evidence used for debunking, usually non-governmental organizations (e.g., Human Rights Watch). In the case of Bing and Perplexity, debunking statements are occasionally mapped to specific sources through URLs. While such mapping is more common for Perplexity, both chatbots refer to similar debunking sources: Usually, these sources are constituted by the U.S.- and U.K.-based quality media, such as The Guardian , BBC, or NBC News. 

Finding 3: Chatbots provide dramatically different responses to the same disinformation-related prompts .

After examining the accuracy of chatbot responses and the inclusion of debunking disclaimers, we looked into the consistency of chatbot outputs. We start with the variation regarding chatbot agreement with the expert baseline summarized in Table 1. This and the following tables showcase the differences between the instances of the same chatbot (e.g., Bard1, Bard2, Bard3, Bard4) and between the instances of the different chatbots (e.g., Bard1 and Bing1).

Figure 4 indicates several important points. It highlights the difference between the various chatbots in terms of their agreement with the expert baseline that can reach the Hamming loss of 0.60 (e.g., between instance 2 of Bing and instance 3 of Perplexity). Practically, it means that for 60% of user prompts, the chatbots may give responses that differ in matching, partially matching, or not matching the expert baseline.

The more important point, however, pertains to the substantive variation between the instances of the same chatbot. In this case, the smallest Hamming loss scores are 0.03 and 0.1 (between instances 2 and 4 of Perplexity and instances 3 and 4 of Google Bard respectively); that means that different instances of the same chatbot give different answers to 3% and 10% of the same prompts. In other cases, however, the variation affects up to 53% of outputs (e.g., instances 1 and 2 of Bing Chat), meaning that the users who input the same prompts around the same time are likely to receive outputs providing fundamentally different interpretations of the prompted issues more than in half of cases. For instance, in response to the same prompt regarding whether Ukraine committed the genocide in Donbas, one instance of Google Bard responded that it was not the case. In contrast, another argued that it could be a realistic possibility.

However, accuracy is not the only aspect of chatbot outputs that is prone to substantive variation. Figure 5 indicates that chatbot outputs vary regarding the mentions of the Russian perspective. Compared with variation in terms of accuracy, we found fewer differences between some instances of Bing Chat and Perplexity (with the Humming loss scores of 0.14 and 0.11 for instances 3 and 4 of Bing and instances 2 and 4 of Perplexity). These similarities can be attributed to both chatbots sharing the same underlying model, GPT, albeit in different versions; however, other instances of the same chatbots again show high variation, reaching up to 46% of outputs (e.g., instance 2 of Bing Chat and instance 1 of Perplexity).

Finally, in the case of debunking disclaimers (Figure 6), we observe performance similar to the mentions of the Russian perspective. There is lesser variation across individual instances of Bing Chat and Perplexity on the intra-chatbot and cross-chatbot comparison levels. However, the Humming scores still vary substantially: from 0.39 to 0.04. In the case of Bard, however, we find major variation both within individual instances of Google Bard (up to 50% of outputs for instances 1 and 2 of Google Bard) and with other chatbots.

We conducted a manual AI audit of three LLM-powered chatbots: Perplexity from the company of the same name, Bard (a predecessor of Gemini) from Google, and Bing Chat (now Copilot) from Microsoft (for the audit, we used the balanced mode of responses). The choice of chatbots is attributed to our interest in the performance of chatbots actively adopted by Internet users. Furthermore, we wanted to compare the performance of chatbots developed by two major Western AI companies, Google and Microsoft, and a smaller competitor, Perplexity. Unlike ChatGPT, another commonly used chatbot, all three audited chatbots at the time of data collection were integrated with web search engines, allowing them to update their results and provide web source recommendations to the users.

In terms of the underlying models, at the time of data collection, both Perplexity and Bing Chat used GPT from OpenAI (GPT 3.5 for the free version of Perplexity used in this study and GPT 4.0 for Bing Chat), whereas Google Bard relied on PaLM. Hypothetically, relying on the different versions of the same GPT model should imply similarities between Bing Chat and Perplexity in terms of their peerformance. However, the earlier studies comparing ChatGPT and Bing Chat (e.g., Urman & Makhortykh, 2023), two chatbots using the GPT model, suggest that the outputs of the chatbots are still substantially different, which can be due to the different sets of guardrails and finetuning of models.

To conduct the audit, we developed a set of 28 prompts dealing with the common Kremlin disinformation narratives in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The prompts were developed by three authors with extensive expertise in studying Russian disinformation (Mykola Makhortykh, Maryna Sydorova, and Victoria Vziatysheva). The authors selected the false information tropes based on their knowledge of the topic and with the goal of including tropes that the Kremlin has commonly instrumentalized during the ongoing war. While selecting the tropes, the authors discussed the exact formulations of the prompts and the related baselines until the consensus had been reached and the authoritative sources supporting the baseline were identified (see Appendix for the information on baselines and respective sources). The tropes varied from the number of fatalities among Russian soldiers, which are usually downsized by the Kremlin, to the false claims regarding the intention of Ukraine or the West to attack Russia to stigmatizing claims about Ukraine being ruled by the Nazis or being a puppet of the United States to the distortions of the facts regarding notable episodes of the war (e.g., the downing of MH17 or the mass murder of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Olenivka).

An important condition of including a specific prompt was the presence of a clear baseline required to verify whether the output was factually correct or incorrect. Each prompt was formulated as a question in English. Most questions were phrased as polar (i.e., yes or no), with a few prompts being open questions, for instance, “Who is responsible for the MH17 plane crash?” and “Is Ukraine being controlled by the United States?” (see the complete list of the prompts in the Appendix).

The audit was conducted in October 2023. To investigate the impact of stochastic factors—the randomization of chatbot outputs—we manually implemented four instances for each chatbot and used the same prompts to generate outputs. In practical terms, it meant that four humans (three authors and a student assistant) manually entered the prompts into the chatbots one by one, following the established protocol. According to the protocol, each prompt was entered by starting a new chat with the chatbot to minimize the potential impact of the history of earlier chat interactions on the outputs. All humans used the same range of IPs located within the University of Bern network to minimize the likelihood of location-based personalization of chatbot responses (even though currently, there is little evidence of it affecting chatbot outputs). Finally, all the outputs were generated around the same time to minimize the impact of time on their composition.

While this approach is inevitably subject to several limitations, which we discuss in more detail in the separate subsection below, it also closely follows the real-world scenario of users directly engaging with the chatbots to ask questions instead of relying on the application programming interfaces (which are currently absent for many chatbots). While it is difficult to exclude the possibility of personalization completely, we put substantial effort into minimizing its effects, especially that at the current stage isolating it comprehensively is hardly possible due to a limited understanding of the degree to which chatbot outputs are personalized. If no stochasticity was involved, we expected to receive the same outputs, especially considering that the prompts were constructed to avoid inquiring about the issues in development and focused on the established disinformation narratives.

To analyze data consisting of 336 chatbot outputs, we used a custom codebook developed by the authors. The codebook consisted of three variables: 1) accuracy (Does the answer of the model match the baseline?), 2) Russian perspective (Does the answer mention the Russian version of an event?), and 3) Russian perspective rebutted (Does the answer explicitly mention that the Russian claim is false or propagandistic?). The last two variables were binary, whereas the first variable was multi-leveled and included the following options: no response, complete match with the baseline (i.e., true), partial match with the baseline (i.e., partially true), and no match with the baseline (i.e., false).

The coding was done by two coders. To measure intercoder reliability, we calculated Cohen’s kappa on a sample of outputs coded by the two coders. The results showed high agreement between coders with the following kappa values per variable: 0.78 (accuracy), 1 (Russian perspective), 0.96 (Russian perspective rebutted). Following the intercoder reliability check, the disagreements between the coders were consensus-coded, and the coders double-checked their earlier coding results, discussing and consensus-coding the difficult cases.

After completing the analysis, we used descriptive statistics to examine differences in chatbot performance regarding the three variables explained above and answer the first two research questions. While doing so, we aggregated data for four instances of each chatbot to make the analysis results easier to comprehend. Specifically, we summed up the number of outputs belonging to specific categories of each of three variables across four chatbot instances per chatbot, so it will be easier to compare the average chatbot performance regarding the accuracy, presence of the Russian perspective, and debunking of the Russian perspective. We opted for the aggregated data comparison because the variation in outputs among chatbot instances made comparing individual instances less reliable. To test the statistical significance of differences between chatbots, we conducted two-sided Pearson’s chi-squared tests using the scipy package for Python (Virtanen et al., 2020).

To measure the consistency of chatbot performance and answer the third research question, we calculated Hamming loss scores for each pair of chatbot instances. Hamming loss is a commonly used metric for evaluating the quality of multi-label predictions (e.g., Destercke, 2014). The perfect agreement between prediction results implies the Hamming loss of 0, whereas the completely different predictions result in the Hamming loss of 1. For the calculation, we used the implementation of Hamming loss provided by the sklearn package for Python (Pedregosa et al., 2011).

Limitations

It is important to mention several limitations of the analysis that highlight directions for future research besides the ones outlined in the Implications section. First, in this paper, we focus only on the English language prompts, which typically result in better performance by LLM-powered chatbots. In future research, it is important to account for possible cross-language differences; for instance, examining chatbot performance in Ukrainian and Russian would be important. Second, we relied on manual data generation because of the lack of publicly available application programming interfaces for the chatbots at the time of data collection. Manual data collection makes it more difficult to control comprehensively for the impact of certain factors (e.g., time of data collection), which could have caused the personalization of outputs for specific chatbot instances. Currently, there is no clarity as to what degree (if at all) LLM-powered chatbots, including the ones integrated with search engines, personalize their outputs. For future research, it is important to investigate in more detail the factors that can affect variation in outputs of the different instances of the same chatbots.

Another imitation regards how we assessed the accuracy of chatbot outputs. Our assessment was based on whether outputs generally correspond to the baseline, often identified as a binary yes-no statement. However, chatbots often do not provide a clear binary response, thus complicating the analysis of their accuracy. Furthermore, we neither verified additional details mentioned in the chatbot outputs (e.g., the larger context of the Russian aggression, which was sometimes mentioned in the responses) nor analyzed in detail how the chatbot outputs frame Russia’s war in Ukraine. Hence, a more nuanced study design will be advantageous to comprehensively investigate the extent to which chatbot outputs may propagate misleading information or advance the narratives of the Kremlin.

• Artificial Intelligence
• / Disinformation
• / Information Bias

Cite this Essay

Makhortykh, M., Sydorova, M., Baghumyan, A., Vziatysheva, V., & Kuznetsova, E. (2024). Stochastic lies: How LLM-powered chatbots deal with Russian disinformation about the war in Ukraine. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-154

• / Appendix B

Bibliography

Atkins, C., Zhao, B. Z. H., Asghar, H. J., Wood, I., & Kaafar, M. A. (2023). Those aren’t your memories, they’re somebody else’s: Seeding misinformation in chat bot memories . In M. Tibouchi & X. Wang (Eds.), Applied Cryptography and Network Security (pp. 284–308). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33488-7_11

Au, C. H., Ho, K. K. W., & Chiu, D. K. W. (2022). The role of online misinformation and fake news in ideological polarization: Barriers, catalysts, and implications. Information Systems Frontiers , 24 (4), 1331–1354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10133-9

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? 🦜. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Bradshaw, S. (2019). Disinformation optimised: Gaming search engine algorithms to amplify junk news. Internet Policy Review , 8 (4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1442

Caramancion, K. M. (2024). Large language models vs. search engines: Evaluating user preferences across varied information retrieval scenarios . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.05761

Cooper, H. et al. (2023, August 18). Troop deaths and injuries in Ukraine war near 500,000, U.S. officials say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

Davis, J., Van Bulck, L., Durieux, B. N., & Lindvall, C. (2024). The temperature feature of ChatGPT: Modifying creativity for clinical research. JMIR Human Factors , 11(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/53559

Deldjoo, Y., He, Z., McAuley, J., Korikov, A., Sanner, S., Ramisa, A., Vidal, R., Sathiamoorthy, M., Kasirzadeh, A., & Milano, S. (2024). A review of modern recommender systems using generative models (Gen-RecSys) . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.00579

Destercke, S. (2014). Multilabel prediction with probability sets: The Hamming loss case . In A. Laurent, O. Strauss, B. Bouchon-Meunier, & R. R. Yager (Eds.), International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (pp. 496–505). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08855-6_50

Forman-Katz, N., & Jurkowitz, M. (2022, July 13). U.S. journalists differ from the public in their views of ‘bothsidesism’ in journalism . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/07/13/u-s-journalists-differ-from-the-public-in-their-views-of-bothsidesism-in-journalism

Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubil, M. (2023). ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 120 (30). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305016120

Goodman, R. S., Patrinely, J. R., Stone, C. A., Jr, Zimmerman, E., Donald, R. R., Chang, S. S., Berkowitz, S. T., Finn, A. P., Jahangir, E., Scoville, E. A., Reese, T. S., Friedman, D. L., Bastarache, J. A., van der Heijden, Y. F., Wright, J. J., Ye, F., Carter, N., Alexander, M. R., Choe, J. H., … Johnson, D. B. (2023). Accuracy and reliability of chatbot responses to physician questions. JAMA Network Open , 6 (10).  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36483

Google. (2023, March 14). Generative AI prohibited use policy. https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy

Hoes, E., Altay, S., & Bermeo, J. (2023). Leveraging ChatGPT for efficient fact-checking . PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qnjkf

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences , 103 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Katz, J. (2024, January 9). Understanding large language models – words vs tokens . Kelvin Legal Data OS. https://kelvin.legal/understanding-large-language-models-words-versus-tokens/

Kelly, D., Chen, Y., Cornwell, S. E., Delellis, N. S., Mayhew, A., Onaolapo, S., & Rubin, V. L. (2023). Bing Chat: The future of search engines? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 60 (1), 1007–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.927

Kravets, D., & Toepfl, F. (2021). Gauging reference and source bias over time: How Russia’s partially state-controlled search engine Yandex mediated an anti-regime protest event. Information, Communication & Society , 25 (15), 2207–2223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1933563

Kuznetsova, E., Makhortykh, M., Vziatysheva, V., Stolze, M., Baghumyan, A., & Urman, A. (2023). In generative AI we trust: Can chatbots effectively verify political information? arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.13096

Kuznetsova, E., Makhortykh, M., Sydorova, M., Urman, A., Vitulano, I., & Stolze, M. (2024). Algorithmically curated lies: How search engines handle misinformation about US biolabs in Ukraine . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.13832

Lim, S., & Schmälzle, R. (2024). The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans , 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058

Makhortykh, M., Urman, A., & Wijermars, M. (2022). A story of (non)compliance, bias, and conspiracies: How Google and Yandex represented Smart Voting during the 2021 parliamentary elections in Russia. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-94

Makhortykh, M., Vziatysheva, V., & Sydorova, M. (2023). Generative AI and contestation and instrumentalization of memory about the Holocaust in Ukraine. Eastern European Holocaust Studies , 1 (2), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/eehs-2023-0054

Motoki, F., Pinho Neto, V., & Rodrigues, V. (2024). More human than human: Measuring ChatGPT political bias. Public Choice , 198 (1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01097-2

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., & Grisel, O. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12 , 2825–2830. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume12/pedregosa11a/pedregosa11a.pdf

Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2022). Spaces of negotiation: Analyzing platform power in the news industry. Digital Journalism , 11 (8), 1391–1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2103011

Rader, E., & Gray, R. (2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 173–182). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702174

Spitale, G., Biller-Andorino, N., & Germani, F. (2023). AI model GPT-3 (dis)informs us better than humans. Science Advances , 9 (26). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh1850

Sommerlad, J. (2023, August 11). How many casualties has Russia suffered in Ukraine? The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-losses-update-b2391513.html

Thakur, S. (2024, February 13). The concept of AI guardrails and their significance in upholding responsible AI practices . Voiceowl. https://voiceowl.ai/the-concept-of-ai-guardrails-and-their-significance-in-upholding-responsible-ai-practices/

Urman, A., & Makhortykh, M. (2023). The silence of the LLMs: Cross-lingual analysis of political bias and false information prevalence in ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/q9v8f

Urman, A., Makhortykh, M., Ulloa, R., & Kulshrestha, J. (2022). Where the earth is flat and 9/11 is an inside job: A comparative algorithm audit of conspiratorial information in web search results. Telematics and Informatics, 72 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101860

Vidgen, B., Scherrer, N., Kirk, H. R., Qian, R., Kannappan, A., Hale, S. A., & Röttger, P. (2023). SimpleSafetyTests: A test suite for identifying critical safety risks in large language models . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.08370

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., … SciPy 1.0 Contributors (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods , 17 (3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

This work has been financially supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no.: 16DII131 – “Weizenbaum-Institut”).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Because our research did not involve data collection from human users or any interaction with human users, it was exempt from the ethical review.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All materials needed to replicate this study are available via the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZEDNXH

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for the excellent feedback, which helped us to improve the manuscript substantially. We also would like to thank Dr. Tobias Rohrbach for his valuable methodological feedback.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Kamala Harris Begins to Sketch a New Economic Vision

By Jen Harris

Ms. Harris served as the senior director of international economics on the National Security Council and National Economic Council.

Kamala Harris is beginning to offer the first definitive clues of a new economic vision — one with the potential not only to offer a unifying vision for the Democratic Party but also to serve as the foundation for a governing philosophy that crosses party lines.

In recent years, both parties have broken with a markets-know-best default setting. The question is, what comes next?

One influential school of thought , advanced by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, argues for increasing the supply of essentials such as housing, health care and clean energy, in part by using government to break the choke points that make these goods too scarce and costly in the first place. This has truth — the much-criticized million-dollar-toilet problem gets at something real.

But it doesn’t fully reflect the realities of how powerful interests hold captive parts of our economy, and then our political system. A second intellectual camp focuses on these forces, and its avatars include Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission and the modern antitrust movement, and the U.A.W. leader Shawn Fain and re-energized labor unions. Yet it, too, is incomplete as a governing wisdom, as it lacks affirmative answers for our largest challenges, like how to decarbonize quickly and at scale, and how to contend with a rising geopolitical competitor in China.

Ms. Harris’s early proposals suggest she is drawing from both strands in telling a more holistic and entirely new story about how the economy works and the aims it should serve. Put differently, her slogan “We’re not going back” might well extend beyond political and social rights to include a different brand of economics.

This new story has two themes — call them “build” and “balance.” The first focuses on pointing and shaping markets toward worthy aims; the second corrects upstream power imbalances so that market outcomes are fairer and need less after-the-fact redistribution.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .