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

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 33, 2015, Pages E4512-E4521

  Epstein, Robert ^a   Robertson, Ronald E ^a  

^a American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital bandwagon effect; Internet influence; Search engine manipulation effect; Search rankings; Voter manipulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DEMOGRAPHY; ELECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDIA; INTERNET; MALE; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEARCH ENGINE MANIPULATION EFFECT; SOCIAL BELIEF; SOCIETY; UNITED STATES; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CALIFORNIA; DECISION MAKING; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; RANDOMIZATION; SEARCH ENGINE; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CALIFORNIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIA; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SEARCH ENGINE; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84940206474     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1419828112     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Joachims T, et al. (2007) Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. Association for Computing Machinery Transactions on Information Systems 25(2):7.
2. Pan B, et al. (2007) In Google we trust: User's decisions on rank, position, and relevance. J Comput Mediat Commun 12(3):801-823.
3. Guan Z, Cutrell E (2007) An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search. Proceedings of the Special Interest Group for Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, New York), pp 417-420.
4. Lorigo L, et al. (2008) Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(7):1041-1052.
5. th Annual International Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM, New York, NY), pp 478-479.
6. th Annual International Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM, New York, NY), pp 3-10.
7. Chitika (2013) The value of Google result positioning. Available at perma.cc/7AGC-HTDH. Accessed June 30, 2015.
8. Optify (2011) The changing face of SERPS: Organic CTR. Available at perma.cc/KZ5X-78TL. Accessed June 30, 2015.
9. Jansen BJ, Spink A, Saracevic T (2000) Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Inf Process Manage 36(2):207-227.
10. Spink A, Wolfram D, Jansen BJ, Saracevic T (2001) Searching the web: The public and their queries. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 53(3):226-234.
11. Silverstein C, Marais H, Henzinger M, Moricz A (1999) Analysis of a very large web search engine query log. Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Forum 33(1):6-12.
12. Purcell K, Brenner J, Rainie L (2012) Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life project: Search engine use 2012. Available at perma.cc/NF6C-JCPW. Accessed June 30, 2015.
13. Learmonth M (2010) What big brands are spending on Google. Available at perma.cc/5L3B-SPTX. Accessed June 30, 2015.
14. Econsultancy (2012) SEMPO state of search marketing report 2012. Available at perma.cc/A3KH-6QVB. Accessed June 30, 2015.
15. Gerhart S (2004) Do Web search engines suppress controversy? First Monday 9(1):1111.
16. Ebbinghaus H (1913) Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology (No. 3) (Teachers College, Columbia Univ, New York).
17. Murdock BB (1962) The serial position effect of free recall. J Exp Psychol 64(5):482-488.
18. Asch SE (1946) Forming impressions of personality. J Abnorm Psychol 41:258-290.
19. Lund FH (1925) The psychology of belief. J Abnorm Soc Psych 20(1):63-81.
20. Hovland CI (1957) The Order of Presentation in Persuasion (Yale Univ Press, New Haven, CT).
21. Baird JE, Zelin RC (2000) The effects of information ordering on investor perceptions: An experiment utilizing presidents' letters. J Financial Strategic Decisions 13(3):71-80.
22. Tourangeau R, Couper MP, Conrad FG (2013) "Up means good" The effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys. Public Opin Q 77(1, Suppl 1):69-88.
23. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF (1987) An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order effects in survey measurement. Pub Op Quarterly 51(2):201-219.
24. Stern MJ, Dillman DA, Smyth JD (2007) Visual design, order effects, and respondent characteristics in a self-administered survey. Surv Res Methods 1(3):121-138.
25. Miller JE (1980) Menu Pricing and Strategy (CBI Publishing, Boston).
26. Ho DE, Imai K (2008) Estimating causal effects of ballot order from a randomized natural experiment the California alphabet lottery, 1978-2002. Pub Op Quarterly 72(2):216-240.
27. Chen E, Simonovits G, Krosnick JA, Pasek J (2014) The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes in North Dakota. Elect Stud 35:115-122.
28. Krosnick JA, Miller JM, Tichy MP (2004) An unrecognized need for ballot reform. Rethinking the Vote, eds Crigler A, Just M, McCaffery E (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 51-74.
29. Koppell JG, Steen JA (2004) The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. J Polit 66(1):267-281.
30. Kim N, Krosnick JA, Casasanto D (2014) Moderators of candidate name-order effects in elections: An experiment. Polit Psychol, 10.1111/pops.12178.
31. Miller JM, Krosnick JA (1998) The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Pub Op Quarterly 62(3):291-330.
32. Pasek J, et al. (2014) Prevalence and moderators of the candidate name-order effect evidence from statewide general elections in California. Pub Op Quarterly 78(2):416-439.
33. Murphy J, Hofacker C, Mizerski R (2006) Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. J Comput Mediat Commun 11(2):522-535.
34. Ansari A, Mela CF (2003) E-customization. J Mark Res 40(2):131-145.
35. Drèze X, Zufryden F (2004) Measurement of online visibility and its impact on Internet traffic. J Interact Market 18:20-37.
36. Chiang CF, Knight BG (2011) Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements. Rev Econ Stud 78(3):795-820.
37. Druckman JN, Parkin M (2005) The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. J Polit 67(4):1030-1049.
38. Gerber A, Karlan DS, Bergan D (2009) Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. Am Econ J Appl Econ 1(2):35-52.
39. Morwitz VG, Pluzinski C (1996) Do pools reflect opinions or do opinions reflect polls? The impact of political polling on voters' expectation, preferences, and behavior. J Consum Res 23(1):53-67.
40. DellaVigna S, Kaplan E (2007) The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. Q J Econ 122(3):1187-1234.
41. Lakoff G (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
42. DeMarzo PM, Vayanos D, Zwiebel J (2003) Persuasion bias, social influence, and unidimensional opinions. Q J Econ 118(3):909-968.
43. Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco).
44. Bond RM, et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489(7415):295-298.
45. Zittrain J (2014) Engineering an election. Digital gerrymandering poses a threat to democracy. Harvard Law Review Forum 127(8):335-341.
46. US Census Bureau (2011) Voting and registration in the election of November 2010. Available at perma.cc/DU9N-C6XT. Accessed June 30, 2015.
47. Loftus EF (1996) Eyewitness Testimony (Harvard Univ Press, Boston).
48. Kühberger A, Fritz A, Scherndl T (2014) Publication bias in psychology: A diagnosis based on the correlation between effect size and sample size. PLoS One 9(9):e105825.
49. Paolacci G, Chandler J (2014) Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 23(3):184-188.
50. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical turk. Polit Anal 20(3):351-368.
51. Gates GJ (2011) How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? Available at perma.cc/N7P2-TXHV. Accessed June 30, 2015.
52. Gelman A, Hill J (2006) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ Press, Boston).
53. Census of India (2011) Population enumeration data. Available at perma.cc/4JKF-UWQZ. Accessed June 30, 2015.
54. Simon HA (1954) Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. Pub Op Quarterly 18(3):245-253.
55. Leip D (2012) Dave Leip's atlas of U.S. presidential elections. Available at perma.cc/G9YF-6CPE. Accessed June 30, 2015.
56. Rogers D, Cage F (2012) US house and senate elections 2012. Available at perma.cc/5QSK-FNCL. Accessed June 30, 2015.
57. Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (2012) CAB undecided voters study 2012. Available at perma.cc/T82K-YC38. Accessed June 30, 2015.
58. Rutenberg J (2012) Obama campaign endgame: Grunt work and cold math. Available at perma.cc/X74D-YNM5. Accessed June 30, 2015.
59. Cox GW, McCubbins MD (1986) Electoral politics as a redistributive game. J Polit 48(2): 370-389.
60. Lindbeck A, Weibull JW (1987) Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice 52(3):273-297.
61. Smith A (2011) Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project: The Internet and campaign 2010. Available at perma.cc/3U9R-EUQQ. Accessed June 30, 2015.
62. Smith A, Duggan M (2012) Pew Research Center's Internet & American life project: Online political videos and campaign 2012. Available at perma.cc/5UX2-LELJ. Accessed June 30, 2015.
63. Cisco (2014) VNI Global IP Traffic Forecast, 2013-2018. Available at perma.cc/AE9R-JSHL. Accessed June 30, 2015.
64. Ash T, Ginty M, Page R (2012) Landing Page Optimization: The Definitive Guide to Testing and Tuning for Conversions (John Wiley & Sons, Indianapolis).
65. Kraus SJ (1995) Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 21(1):58-75.
66. Zajonc RB (2001) Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 10(6):224-228.
67. Berger J, Fitzsimons G (2008) Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. J Mark Res 45(1):1-14.
68. Brasel SA, Gips J (2011) Red bull "gives you wings" for better or worse: A double-edged impact of brand exposure on consumer performance. JConsumPsychol21(1):57-64.
69. Fransen ML, Fennis BM, Pruyn ATH, Das E (2008) Rest in peace? Brand-induced mortality salience and consumer behavior. J Bus Res 64(10):1053-1061.
70. Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM, Lee-Chai A, Barndollar K, Trötschel R (2001) The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(6): 1014-1027.
71. Pronin E, Kugler MB (2007) Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J Exp Soc Psychol 43(4):565-578.
72. Winkielman P, Berridge KC, Wilbarger JL (2005) Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31(1):121-135.
73. Karremans JC, Stroebe W, Claus J (2006) Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. J Exp Soc Psychol 42(6):792-798.
74. Légal JB, Chappé J, Coiffard V, Villard-Forest A (2012) Don't you know that you want to trust me? Subliminal goal priming and persuasion. J Exp Soc Psychol 48(1):358-360.
75. Mills J, Aronson E (1965) Opinion change as a function of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to influence. J Pers Soc Psychol 1(2):173-177.
76. nd International Conference on World Wide Web (International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland), pp 131-140.
77. th International Conference on World Wide Web (ACM, New York), pp 261-270.
78. rd Annual International Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM, New York), pp 523-530.
79. Mayer WG (2008) The Swing Voter in American Politics (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC).
80. Cox GW (2010) Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics. Political Representation, eds Shapiro I, Stokes SC, Wood EJ, Kirshner AS (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 342-357.
81. Bickers KN, Stein RM (1996) The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. Am J Pol Sci 40(4):1300-1325.
82. Dahlberg M, Johansson E (2002) On the vote-purchasing behavior of incumbent governments. Am Polit Sci Rev 96(1):27-40.
83. Stein RM, Bickers KN (1994) Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel. J Polit 56(2): 377-399.
84. Stokes SC (2005) Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. Am Polit Sci Rev 99(3):315-325.
85. Mayer WG (2012) The disappearing-but still important-swing voter. Forum 10(3): 1520.
86. th Annual International Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM, New York), pp 19-26.
87. st Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (ACM, New York), pp 1737-1741.
88. th Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery in Data International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (ACM, New York), pp 209-218.
89. Höchstötter N, Lewandowski D (2009) What users see - Structures in search engine results pages. Inf Sci 179(12):1796-1812.
90. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T (1999) The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report (Stanford InfoLab, Palo Alto, CA).