Revision as of 03:48, 19 June 2016 edit 2601:603:4300:a20:7506:5490:c690:e84f (talk) →2016 Presidential election: Corrected "...Google Autocomplete suggest 'Hillary Clinton India'" to "...Google Autocomplete suggested 'Hillary Clinton Indiana'". ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:54, 22 July 2016 edit undo Kepija (talk \| contribs) 1 edit Requires more specific data to establish the validity of study with regards to whether Arizona crowdsourcing website generates traffic that legitimately can be extrapolated as applicable across US. Cherry picks data then phrasing labors to trash R's. Next edit →
Line 24: 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. 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/> 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> Slightly reducing the bias on the first result page of search results – specifically, by including one search item that favoured the other candidate in the third or fourth position masked the manipulation so that few or even no subjects noticed the bias, while still triggering the preference change.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web

Search engine manipulation effect: Difference between revisions