Search engine manipulation effect: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:18, 25 August 2015

Latest revision as of 22:25, 20 July 2025

(73 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{notability|date=May 2022}}

The '''search engine manipulation effect''' (SEME) is the change in consumer preference from manipulations of search results by search engine providers. SEME is one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. This includes voting preferences. A 2015 study indicated that such manipulations could shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more and up to 80 percent in some demographics.<ref name=poli>{{Cite web|title = How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election|url = http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?hp=rc3_4#.VduFK6sVhhH|accessdate = 2015-08-24|first = Robert|last = Epstein |date=August 19, 2015 |publisher=Politico.com}}</ref>

{{Short description|Effect 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 Epstein, search engine companies both massively manipulate consumer and vote sentiment, and furthermore do so to ensure their favored candidates win. Epstein’s research shows that such manipulations can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more, and up to 80 percent in some demographics, and can 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|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>

The study estimated that this could change the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of national elections worldwide.

{{toclimit|3}}

== Scenarios ==

Line 11 ⟶ 15:

Five experiments were conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. The experiments were randomized (subjects were randomly assigned to groups), controlled (including groups with and without interventions), counterbalanced (critical details, such as names, were presented to half the participants in one order and to half in the opposite order) and double-blind (neither subjects nor anyone who interacted with them knows the hypotheses or group assignments). The results were replicated four times.<ref name=poli/>

=== USUnited States ===

In experiments conducted in the United States, the proportion of people who favored any candidate rose by between 37 and 63 percent after a single search session.<ref name=poli/>

Line 17 ⟶ 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 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

Divorcees, Republicans and those who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the most subject to the effect, while participants who were better informed, married or reported annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible, increasing support for the favored candidate by 80%.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Internet search engines may be influencing elections|url = http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/08/internet-search-engines-may-be-influencing-elections|first=David |last=Shultz |publisher=Science Magazine |date=August 7, 2015|accessdate = 2015-08-24}}</ref>

| url = https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts

| title = How the internet flips elections and alters our thoughts — Robert Epstein — Aeon Essays

| website = Aeon

| access-date = 2016-02-28

}}</ref>

Later research suggested that search rankings impact virtually all issues on which people are initially undecided around the world. Search results that favour one point of view tip the opinions of those who are undecided on an issue. In another experiment, [[biased search results]] shifted people's opinions about the value of [[Hydraulic fracturing|fracking]] by 33.9 per cent.<ref name=":1" />

=== India ===

A second experiment involedinvolved 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 [[Lok Sabha]] election. The subjects were familiar with the candidates and were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric. Search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent and more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.<ref name="poli" />

A second experiment involed 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 [[Lok Sabha]] election. The subjects were familiar with the candidates and were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric. Search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent and more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.<ref name=poli/>

=== 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 had some suppressive effects.<ref name="poli" />

== European antitrust lawsuit ==

European regulators accused Google of manipulating its search engine results to favor its own services, even though competitive services would otherwise have ranked higher. As of August 2015, the complaint had not reached resolution, leaving the company facing a possible fine of up to $6 billion and tighter regulation that could limit its ability to compete in Europe. In November 2014 the European Parliament voted 384 to 174 for a symbolic proposal to break up the search giant into two pieces—its monolithic search engine and everything else.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title = Google’s $6 Billion Miscalculation on the EU|url = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-08-06/google-s-6-billion-miscalculation-on-the-eu|website = Bloomberg.com|accessdate = 2015-08-25|first = Vernon|last = Silver|last2 = Stone|first2 = Brad|date = August 6, 2015}}</ref>

== 2016 U.S. presidential election ==

The case began in 2009 when Foundem, a British online shopping service, filed the first antitrust complaint against Google in Brussels. In 2007, Google had introduced a feature called Universal Search. A search for a particular city address, a stock quote, or a product price returned an answer from one of its own services, such as [[Google Maps]] or [[Google Finance]]. This saved work by the user. Later tools such as OneBox supplied answers to specific queries in a box at the top of search results. Google integrated profile pages, contact information and customer reviews from [[Google Plus]]. That information appeared above links to other websites that offered more comprehensive data, such as [[Yelp]] or [[TripAdvisor]].<ref name=":0" />

Epstein had previously disputed with Google over his website, and posted opinion pieces and essays fiercely attacking Google afterward. He claimed that Google was using its influence to ensure [[Hillary Clinton]] was elected in the [[2016 United States presidential election]].<ref name=":1" />

== See also ==

Google executives [[Larry Page]] and [[Marissa Mayer]], among others, privately advocated for favoring Google’s own services, even if its algorithms deemed that information less relevant or useful.<ref name=":0" />

* [[Algorithmic radicalization]]

== Google Trends ==

[[Google]] acknowledges adjusting its algorithm 600 times a year, but does not disclose the substance of its changes.<ref name=poli/>

== References ==

{{reflist|30em}}

== External links ==

* {{Cite journal|title = The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|url = http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512|journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|date = 2015-08-18|issn = 0027-8424|pmid = 26243876|pages = E4512-E4521E4512–E4521|volume = 112|issue = 33|doi = 10.1073/pnas.1419828112|languagefirst1 = enRobert|firstlast1 = Robert|lastEpstein |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:ElectionsSearch engine optimization]]

[[Category:Digital marketing]]