How a Daily Regimen of Operant Conditioning Might Explain the Power of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)

IF 1.6 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Robert Epstein, Michael Lothringer, Vanessa R. Zankich
{"title":"How a Daily Regimen of Operant Conditioning Might Explain the Power of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)","authors":"Robert Epstein, Michael Lothringer, Vanessa R. Zankich","doi":"10.1007/s42822-023-00155-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent studies have shown that biased search results can produce substantial shifts in the opinions and voting preferences of undecided voters – a phenomenon called the “search engine manipulation effect” (SEME), one of the most powerful list effects ever discovered. We believe this is so because, unlike other list effects, SEME is supported by a daily regimen of operant conditioning. When people conduct searches for simple facts (86% of searches), the correct answer invariably turns up in the top position, which teaches users to attend to and click on high-ranking search results. As a result, when people are undecided, they tend to formulate opinions based on web pages linked to top search results. We tested this hypothesis in a controlled experiment with 551 US voters. Participants in our High-Trust group conducted routine searches in which the correct answer always appeared in the first search result. In our Low-Trust group, the correct answer could appear in any search position other than the first two. In all, participants had to answer five questions during this pre-training, and we focused our analysis on people who answered all the questions correctly (<i>n</i> = 355) – in other words, on people who were maximally impacted by the pre-training contingencies. A difference consistent with our hypothesis emerged between the groups when they were subsequently asked to search for information on political candidates. Voting preferences in the High-Trust group shifted toward the favored candidate at a higher rate (34.6%) than voting preferences in the Low-Trust group (17.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.001).</p>","PeriodicalId":44553,"journal":{"name":"Behavior and Social Issues","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior and Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00155-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that biased search results can produce substantial shifts in the opinions and voting preferences of undecided voters – a phenomenon called the “search engine manipulation effect” (SEME), one of the most powerful list effects ever discovered. We believe this is so because, unlike other list effects, SEME is supported by a daily regimen of operant conditioning. When people conduct searches for simple facts (86% of searches), the correct answer invariably turns up in the top position, which teaches users to attend to and click on high-ranking search results. As a result, when people are undecided, they tend to formulate opinions based on web pages linked to top search results. We tested this hypothesis in a controlled experiment with 551 US voters. Participants in our High-Trust group conducted routine searches in which the correct answer always appeared in the first search result. In our Low-Trust group, the correct answer could appear in any search position other than the first two. In all, participants had to answer five questions during this pre-training, and we focused our analysis on people who answered all the questions correctly (n = 355) – in other words, on people who were maximally impacted by the pre-training contingencies. A difference consistent with our hypothesis emerged between the groups when they were subsequently asked to search for information on political candidates. Voting preferences in the High-Trust group shifted toward the favored candidate at a higher rate (34.6%) than voting preferences in the Low-Trust group (17.1%, p = 0.001).

Abstract Image

日常操作性条件反射如何解释搜索引擎操纵效应 (SEME) 的力量
最近的研究表明,有偏见的搜索结果会对未决定选民的意见和投票倾向产生实质性的影响,这种现象被称为 "搜索引擎操纵效应"(SEME),是迄今为止发现的最强大的列表效应之一。我们认为,之所以会出现这种现象,是因为与其他列表效应不同,SEME 是通过日常的操作性条件反射来支持的。当人们搜索简单的事实时(占搜索次数的 86%),正确答案总是出现在最前面的位置,这就教会了用户关注并点击排名靠前的搜索结果。因此,当人们犹豫不决时,往往会根据与排名靠前的搜索结果相关联的网页来形成观点。我们以 551 名美国选民为对象,通过对照实验验证了这一假设。高信任度组的参与者在进行常规搜索时,正确答案总是出现在第一个搜索结果中。而在低信任度组中,正确答案可能出现在前两个搜索结果之外的任何搜索结果中。在预培训期间,参与者总共需要回答五个问题,我们的分析主要集中在正确回答所有问题的人(n = 355)--换句话说,也就是受预培训突发事件影响最大的人。在随后要求他们搜索政治候选人信息时,两组之间出现了与我们的假设相符的差异。高信任度组的投票偏好转向支持的候选人的比例(34.6%)高于低信任度组(17.1%,P = 0.001)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavior and Social Issues
Behavior and Social Issues PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
50.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The primary intellectual framework for Behavior and Social Issues is the science of behavior analysis and its sub-discipline of cultural systems analysis, but contributions from contrasting viewpoints will occasionally be considered if of specific interest to behavior analysts. We recommend that potential authors examine recent issues to determine whether their work is appropriate to the journal. Appropriate contributions include theoretical and conceptual analyses, research articles and brief reports, dialogues, and research reviews. Behavior and Social Issues is an appropriate forum for the work of senior scholars in the field, many of whom serve on the editorial board, as well as for the work of emerging scholars, including students, who have an interest in the contributions of a natural science of behavior to constructing cultures of social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信