The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections

Significance We present evidence from five experiments in two countries suggesting the power and robustness of the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Specifically, we show that (i) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) such rankings can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. Knowing the proportion of undecided voters in a population who have Internet access, along with the proportion of those voters who can be influenced using SEME, allows one to calculate the win margin below which SEME might be able to determine an election outcome. Internet search rankings have a significant impact on consumer choices, mainly because users trust and choose higher-ranked results more than lower-ranked results. Given the apparent power of search rankings, we asked whether they could be manipulated to alter the preferences of undecided voters in democratic elections. Here we report the results of five relevant double-blind, randomized controlled experiments, using a total of 4,556 undecided voters representing diverse demographic characteristics of the voting populations of the United States and India. The fifth experiment is especially notable in that it was conducted with eligible voters throughout India in the midst of India’s 2014 Lok Sabha elections just before the final votes were cast. The results of these experiments demonstrate that (i) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) search ranking bias can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. We call this type of influence, which might be applicable to a variety of attitudes and beliefs, the search engine manipulation effect. Given that many elections are won by small margins, our results suggest that a search engine company has the power to influence the results of a substantial number of elections with impunity. The impact of such manipulations would be especially large in countries dominated by a single search engine company.

[1]  Helge Lundholm,et al.  The Psychology Of Belief , 1936 .

[2]  S. Asch.  Forming impressions of personality. , 1946, Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

[3]  H. Simon,et al.  American Association for Public Opinion Research Bandwagon and Underdog Effects and the Possibility of Election Predictions , 2009 .

[4]  Murdock,et al.  The serial position effect of free recall , 1962 .

[5]  E. Aronson,et al.  OPINION CHANGE AS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMUNICATOR'S ATTRACTIVENESS AND DESIRE TO INFLUENCE. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  C. I. Hovland.  The Order Of Presentation In Persuasion , 1966 .

[7]  Jack E. Miller.  Menu pricing and strategy , 1980 .

[8]  Jennings Jt.  Voting and registration in the election of November 1980 (advance report). , 1981, Current population reports. Series P-20, Population characteristics.

[9]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game , 1986, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  J. Krosnick,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF A COGNITIVE THEORY OF RESPONSE-ORDER EFFECTS IN SURVEY MEASUREMENT , 1987 .

[11]  J. Weibull,et al.  Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition , 1987 .

[12]  George Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things , 1987 .

[13]  S. J. Kraus,et al.  Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 1990 .

[14]  Kenneth N. Bickers,et al.  Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel , 1994, The Journal of Politics.

[15]  Kenneth N. Bickers,et al.  The Electoral Dynamics of the Federal Pork Barrel , 1996 .

[16]  Vicki G. Morwitz,et al.  Do Polls Reflect Opinions or Do Opinions Reflect Polls? The Impact of Political Polling on Voters' Expectations, Preferences, and Behavior , 1996 .

[17]  J. Krosnick,et al.  The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes , 1998 .

[18]  Monika Henzinger,et al.  Analysis of a very large web search engine query log , 1999, SIGF.

[19]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[20]  Jane E. Baird,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION ORDERING ON INVESTOR PERCEPTIONS : AN EXPERIMENT UTILIZING PRESIDENTS ’ LETTERS , 2000 .

[21]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[22]  J. Bargh,et al.  The automated will: nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  R. Zajonc.  Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal , 2001 .

[24]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Searching the Web: the public and their queries , 2001 .

[25]  M. Dahlberg,et al.  On the Vote-Purchasing Behavior of Incumbent Governments , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[26]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[27]  Carl F. Mela,et al.  E-Customization , 2003 .

[28]  Elizabeth A. Olson,et al.  Eyewitness testimony. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[29]  P. DeMarzo,et al.  Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Uni-Dimensional Opinions , 2001 .

[30]  Susan L. Gerhart,et al.  Do Web search engines suppress controversy? , 2004, First Monday.

[31]  Jonathan G. S. Koppell,et al.  The Effects of Ballot Position on Election Outcomes , 2004, The Journal of Politics.

[32]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  An Unrecognized Need for Ballot Reform: Effects of Candidate Name Order: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Re , 2004 .

[33]  Xavier Drèze,et al.  Measurement of online visibility and its impact on Internet traffic , 2004 .

[34]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[35]  S. Stokes.  Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina , 2005, American Political Science Review.

[36]  Kent C. Berridge,et al.  Unconscious Affective Reactions to Masked Happy Versus Angry Faces Influence Consumption Behavior and Judgments of Value , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[37]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects Voters , 2005, The Journal of Politics.

[38]  Stefano DellaVigna,et al.  The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting , 2006 .

[39]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2006 .

[40]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[41]  Dean S. Karlan,et al.  Does the Media Matter? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political Opinions , 2006 .

[42]  W. Stroebe,et al.  Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice , 2006 .

[43]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Learning user interaction models for predicting web search result preferences , 2006, SIGIR.

[44]  Edward Cutrell,et al.  An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search , 2007, CHI.

[45]  Jolene D Smyth,et al.  Visual Design, Order Effects, and Respondent Characteristics in a Self-Administered Survey , 2007 .

[46]  Matthew B. Kugler,et al.  Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot , 2007 .

[47]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  In Google We Trust: Users' Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[48]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in Web search , 2007, TOIS.

[49]  G. Cox.  Political Representation: Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics , 2010 .

[50]  Enny Das,et al.  Rest in peace? Brand-induced mortality salience and consumer behavior , 2008 .

[51]  William G. Mayer.  The Swing Voter in American Politics , 2008 .

[52]  Tim Ash,et al.  Landing Page Optimization: The Definitive Guide to Testing and Tuning for Conversions , 2008 .

[53]  Brian G. Knight,et al.  Media Bias and Influence: Evidence from Newspaper Endorsements , 2008 .

[54]  Gráinne M. Fitzsimons,et al.  Dogs on the Street, Pumas on Your Feet: How Cues in the Environment Influence Product Evaluation and Choice , 2008 .

[55]  Ling Xia,et al.  Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[56]  Daniel E. Ho,et al.  Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002 , 2008 .

[57]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  What Users See - Structures in Search Engine Results Pages , 2009, Inf. Sci..

[58]  Wen Zhang,et al.  How much can behavioral targeting help online advertising? , 2009, WWW '09.

[59]  John F. Canny,et al.  Large-scale behavioral targeting , 2009, KDD.

[60]  G. Cox.  Political Representation: Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics , 2010 .

[61]  Ingmar Weber,et al.  The demographics of web search , 2010, SIGIR.

[62]  James Gips,et al.  Red Bull “Gives You Wings” for better or worse: A double-edged impact of brand exposure on consumer performance , 2011 .

[63]  G. Gates,et al.  How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender? , 2011 .

[64]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[65]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Web-scale multi-task feature selection for behavioral targeting , 2012, CIKM '12.

[66]  The Disappearing--but Still Important--Swing Voter , 2012 .

[67]  Julien Chappé,et al.  Don't you know that you want to trust me? Subliminal goal priming and persuasion , 2012 .

[68]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk , 2012, Political Analysis.

[69]  Hermann Ebbinghaus,et al.  Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. , 1987, Annals of neurosciences.

[70]  Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885).  Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology , 2013, Annals of Neurosciences.

[71]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  "Up Means Good": The Effect of Screen Position on Evaluative Ratings in Web Surveys. , 2013, Public opinion quarterly.

[72]  Milad Shokouhi,et al.  Inferring the demographics of search users: social data meets search queries , 2013, WWW.

[73]  Jonathan L. Zittrain.  Engineering an Election , 2014 .

[74]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Prevalence and Moderators of the Candidate Name-Order Effect Evidence from Statewide General Elections in California , 2014 .

[75]  Anton Kühberger,et al.  Publication Bias in Psychology: A Diagnosis Based on the Correlation between Effect Size and Sample Size , 2014, PloS one.

[76]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes in North Dakota , 2014 .

[77]  Daniel Casasanto,et al.  Moderators of Candidate Name‐Order Effects in Elections: An Experiment , 2015 .