Search engine manipulation effect: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:54, 23 May 2022

Latest revision as of 22:25, 20 July 2025

(25 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{mergeto|Robert Epstein|date=May 2022}}

{{notability|date=May 2022}}

{{Short description|TermEffect of search engines on user attitudes}}

The '''search engine manipulation effect''' ('''SEME''') is a term invented by [[psychologist]] [[Robert Epstein]] in 2015 to describe a hypothesized change in [[consumer behaviour|consumer preference]]s and [[voting behaviour|voting preferences]] by search engines. Rather than [[search engine optimization]] where advocates, websites, and businesses seek to optimize their placement in the search engine's algorithm, SEME focuses on the search engine companies themselves. According to the psychologist Epstein, search engine companies both could massively manipulate consumer and vote sentiment, and furthermore would do so to ensure their favored candidates win. Epstein’s Epsteinresearch propounded thatshows that such manipulations couldcan shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more, and up to 80 percent in some demographics, and wouldcan change the outcomes in over 25% of national elections.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Crain|first1=Matthew|last2=Nadler|first2=Anthony|date=2019|title=Political Manipulation and Internet Advertising Infrastructure|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|journal=Journal of Information Policy|volume=9|pages=370–410|doi=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|jstor=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|s2cid=214217187|issn=2381-5892|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=poli>{{Cite web|title = How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election|url = https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548/|access-date = 2015-08-24|first = Robert|last = Epstein |date=August 19, 2015 |publisher=Politico.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Epstein|first1=Robert|last2=Robertson|first2=Ronald E.|date=2015-08-18|title=The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=112|issue=33|pages=E4512–E4521|doi=10.1073/pnas.1419828112|issn=0027-8424|pmc=4547273|pmid=26243876|bibcode=2015PNAS..112E4512E|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In response to the allegations, [[Google]] denied re-ranking search results to manipulate user sentiment, or tweaking ranking specially for elections or political candidates.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766/|title=A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory|website=POLITICO Magazine|date=26 August 2015 |access-date=2016-04-02}}</ref>

{{toclimit|3}}

Line 22 ⟶ 21:

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a manipulated search engine. Each group had access to the same 30 search results—each linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages.<ref name=poli/>

After searching, on all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably.<ref>{{Cite web |url = https://suchmaschinen-optimierung-seo-google.de/suchmaschinenoptimierung/ |title = Suchmaschinenoptimierung |date = 6 October 2018 |language = de}}</ref> 36 percent of those who were unaware of the rankings bias shifted toward the highest ranked candidate, along with 45 percent of those who were aware of the bias.<ref name=poli/>

Slightly reducing the bias on the first result page of search results – specifically, by including one search item that favoured the&nbsp;other candidate in the third or fourth position masked the manipulation so that few or even&nbsp;no subjects noticed the bias, while still triggering the preference change.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web

Line 38 ⟶ 37:

=== United Kingdom ===

A UK experiment was conducted with nearly 4,000 people just before the 2015 national elections examinedto examine ways to prevent manipulation. Randomizing the rankings or including alerts that identify bias had some suppressive effects.<ref name="poli" />

== 2016 U.S. presidential election ==

Epstein had previously disputed with Google over his website, and posted opinion pieces and essays fiercely attacking Google afterward. He claimed without evidence that Google was using its influence to ensure [[Hillary Clinton]] was elected in the [[2016 United States presidential election]].<ref name=":1" />

== See also ==

* [[Algorithmic radicalization]]

== References ==

Line 50 ⟶ 53:

* {{Cite journal|title = The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|date = 2015-08-18|issn = 0027-8424|pmid = 26243876|pages = E4512–E4521|volume = 112|issue = 33|doi = 10.1073/pnas.1419828112|first1 = Robert|last1 = Epstein |author-link1=Robert Epstein|first2 = Ronald E.|last2 = Robertson|pmc=4547273|bibcode = 2015PNAS..112E4512E|doi-access = free}}

* {{Cite news|url=https://promarket.org/unprecedented-power-digital-platforms-control-opinions-votes/|title=The Unprecedented Power of Digital Platforms to Control Opinions and Votes -|last=Epstein|first=Robert|date=2018-04-12|access-date=2018-05-17|language=en-US}}

* How to Avoid [https://eartdigital.com/seo-manipulation/ SEO Manipulation]

[[Category:Internet search engines]]

[[Category:Google]]

[[Category:Search engine optimization]]

[[Category:Digital marketing]]