skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Suppressing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)

Published:06 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A recent series of experiments demonstrated that introducing ranking bias to election-related search engine results can have a strong and undetectable influence on the preferences of undecided voters. This phenomenon, called the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), exerts influence largely through order effects that are enhanced in a digital context. We present data from three new experiments involving 3,600 subjects in 39 countries in which we replicate SEME and test design interventions for suppressing the effect. In the replication, voting preferences shifted by 39.0%, a number almost identical to the shift found in a previously published experiment (37.1%). Alerting users to the ranking bias reduced the shift to 22.1%, and more detailed alerts reduced it to 13.8%. Users' browsing behaviors were also significantly altered by the alerts, with more clicks and time going to lower-ranked search results. Although bias alerts were effective in suppressing SEME, we found that SEME could be completely eliminated only by alternating search results -- in effect, with an equal-time rule. We propose a browser extension capable of deploying bias alerts in real-time and speculate that SEME might be impacting a wide range of decision-making, not just voting, in which case search engines might need to be strictly regulated.

References

  1. Amr Ahmed, Mohamed Aly, Abhimanyu Das, Alexander J Smola, and Tasos Anastasakos. 2012. Web-scale multi-task feature selection for behavioral targeting Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1737--1741. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ahmed Allam, Peter Johannes Schulz, and Kent Nakamoto. 2014. The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: two experiments manipulating Google output. Journal of Medical Internet Research Vol. 16, 4 (2014), e100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Sinan Aral and Dylan Walker. 2012. Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science, Vol. 337, 6092 (2012), 337--341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, Vol. 348, 6239 (2015), 1130--1132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. John A Bargh, Peter M Gollwitzer, Annette Lee-Chai, Kimberly Barndollar, and Roman Trötschel. 2001. The automated will: nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, 6 (2001), 1014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. James R Beniger. 1987. Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community. Communication research Vol. 14, 3 (1987), 352--371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. George R Bergus, Irwin P Levin, and Arthur S Elstein. 2002. Presenting risks and benefits to patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine Vol. 17, 8 (2002), 612--617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Adam J Berinsky, Gregory A Huber, and Gabriel S Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, Vol. 20, 3 (2012), 351--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Shlomo Berkovsky, Jill Freyne, and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2012. Influencing individually: fusing personalization and persuasion. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), Vol. 2, 2 (2012), 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Edelman Berland. 2017. 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer. http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/. (2017). Accessed: 2017-03-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Robert M Bond, Christopher J Fariss, Jason J Jones, Adam DI Kramer, Cameron Marlow, Jaime E Settle, and James H Fowler. 2012. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, Vol. 489, 7415 (2012), 295--298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jack W Brehm. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance.Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science Vol. 6, 1 (2011), 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, Vol. 356, 6334 (2017), 183--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. David Chavalarias. 2016. The unlikely encounter between von Foerster and Snowden: When second-order cybernetics sheds light on societal impacts of Big Data. Big Data & Society, Vol. 3, 1 (2016), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Eric Chen, Gábor Simonovits, Jon A Krosnick, and Josh Pasek. 2014. The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes in North Dakota. Electoral Studies Vol. 35 (2014), 115--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2016. An empirical analysis of algorithmic pricing on Amazon marketplace Proceedings of the 25th International World Wide Web Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ye Chen, Dmitry Pavlov, and John F Canny. 2009. Large-scale behavioral targeting. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 209--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Sidharth Chhabra and Paul Resnick. 2012. Cubethat: news article recommender. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 295--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sidharth Chhabra and Paul Resnick. 2013. Does clustered presentation lead readers to diverse selections? CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1689--1694. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Chun-Fang Chiang and Brian Knight. 2011. Media Bias and Influence: Evidence from Newspaper Endorsements. The Review of Economic Studies Vol. 78, 3 (2011), 795--820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Inc comScore. 2017. comScore Explicit Core Search Query Report (Desktop Only). https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings. (2017). Accessed: 2017-02--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan. 2007. The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 122, 3 (2007), 1187--1234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2014. Algorithmic accountability reporting: On the investigation of black boxes. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM Vol. 59, 2 (2016), 56--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Dimitar Dimitrov, Philipp Singer, Florian Lemmerich, and Markus Strohmaier. 2016. Visual positions of links and clicks on wikipedia. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 27--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Luke Dormehl. 2014. The formula: How algorithms solve all our problems--and create more. Penguin, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. James N Druckman and Michael Parkin. 2005. The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, 4 (2005), 1030--1049.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Hermann Ebbinghaus. 1913. Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Number 3. University Microfilms.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Robert Epstein and Ronald E Robertson. 2015. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112, 33 (2015), E4512--E4521.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Robert Epstein and Ronald E Robertson. 2017. A method for detecting bias in search rankings, with evidence of systematic bias related to the 2016 presidential election. Technical Report White Paper no. WP-17-02. American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, Vista, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Eyal Ert and Aliza Fleischer. 2016. Mere Position Effect in Booking Hotels Online. Journal of Travel Research Vol. 55, 3 (2016), 311--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Motahhare Eslami, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015 a. Feedvis: A path for exploring news feed curation algorithms Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Motahhare Eslami and Karrie Karahalios. 2017. Understanding and Designing around Users' Interaction with Hidden Algorithms in Sociotechnical Systems. In CSCW Companion. 57--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Alex Kirlik. 2016. First I like it, then I hide it: Folk theories of social feeds Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2371--2382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015 b. I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to {her}: Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Karrie Karahalios, and Kevin Hamilton. 2017. "Be careful; things can be worse than they appear": Understanding biased algorithms and users' behavior around them in rating platforms. ICWSM. 62--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Facebook. 2017. News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/. (2017). Accessed: 2017-07--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Baruch Fischoff. 1982. Debiasing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. B.J. Fogg. 2002. Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Marieke L Fransen, Bob M Fennis, Ad Th H Pruyn, and Enny Das. 2008. Rest in peace? Brand-induced mortality salience and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research Vol. 61, 10 (2008), 1053--1061.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Jonathan L Freedman and David O Sears. 1965 a. Selective exposure. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 2 (1965), 57--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jonathan L Freedman and David O Sears. 1965 b. Warning, distraction, and resistance to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 3 (1965), 262--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Alan S Gerber, Dean Karlan, and Daniel Bergan. 2009. Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 1, 2 (2009), 35--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Tarleton Gillespie. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. Vol. Vol. 167. MIT Press Cambridge, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. David F Gleich, Paul G Constantine, Abraham D Flaxman, and Asela Gunawardana. 2010. Tracking the random surfer: empirically measured teleportation parameters in PageRank Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 381--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Google. 2017. Fact Check now available in Google Search and News around the world. https://www.blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-available-google-search-and-news-around-world/. (2017). Accessed: 2017-07--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Laura A Granka, Thorsten Joachims, and Geri Gay. 2004. Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 478--479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Edith Greene, Marlene S Flynn, and Elizabeth F Loftus. 1982. Inducing resistance to misleading information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 21, 2 (1982), 207--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Zhiwei Guan and Edward Cutrell. 2007. An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 417--420. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Xunhua Guo, Mingyue Zhang, Chenyue Yang, et almbox. 2016. Order Effects in Online Product Recommendation: A Scenario-based Analysis Proceedings of the 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, and Motahhare Eslami. 2014. A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 631--642. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Aniko Hannak, Piotr Sapie.zy'nski, Arash Molavi Kakhki, Balachander Krishnamurthy, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2013. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. In Proceedings of the 22nd International World Wide Web Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Aniko Hannak, Gary Soeller, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2014. Measuring price discrimination and steering on e-commerce Web sites Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Aniko Hannak, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2017). Portland, OR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Daniel E Ho and Kosuke Imai. 2008. Estimating causal effects of ballot order from a randomized natural experiment the California alphabet lottery, 1978--2002. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 72, 2 (2008), 216--240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Statistics Brain Research Institute. 2017. Facebook Company Statistics. http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/. (2017). Accessed: 2017-02--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Tiffany A Ito, Jeff T Larsen, N Kyle Smith, and John T Cacioppo. 1998. Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, 4 (1998), 887.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Mohit Iyyer, Peter Enns, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Philip Resnik. 2014. Political Ideology Detection Using Recursive Neural Networks Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Filip Radlinski, and Geri Gay. 2007. Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 25, 2 (2007), 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Yvonne Kammerer and Peter Gerjets. 2014. The role of search result position and source trustworthiness in the selection of web search results when using a list or a grid interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 30, 3 (2014), 177--191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. José H Kerstholt and Janet L Jackson. 1998. Judicial decision making: Order of evidence presentation and availability of background information. Applied Cognitive Psychology Vol. 12, 5 (1998), 445--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Nuri Kim, Jon Krosnick, and Daniel Casasanto. 2015. Moderators of candidate name-order effects in elections: An experiment. Political Psychology, Vol. 36, 5 (2015), 525--542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Chloe Kliman-Silver, Aniko Hannak, David Lazer, Christo Wilson, and Alan Mislove. 2015. Location, location, location: The impact of geolocation on Web search personalization Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Eric S Knowles and Jay A Linn. 2004. Resistance and persuasion. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Ron Kohavi, Alex Deng, Brian Frasca, Toby Walker, Ya Xu, and Nils Pohlmann. 2013. Online controlled experiments at large scale. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1168--1176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Alona Kolomiiets, Nathalie Dens, and Patrick De Pelsmacker. 2016. The wrap effect in online review sets revisited: How perceived usefulness mediates the effect on intention formation. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research Vol. 17, 4 (2016), 280--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Jonathan GS Koppell and Jennifer A Steen. 2004. The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. Journal of Politics, Vol. 66, 1 (2004), 267--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Adam DI Kramer, Jamie E Guillory, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2014. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111, 24 (2014), 8788--8790.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Jon A Krosnick, Joanne M Miller, and Michael P Tichy. 2004. An unrecognized need for ballot reform: Effects of candidate name order. Rethinking the vote: The politics and prospects of american election reform, bibfieldeditorA.N Crigler, M.R. Just, and E.J. McCaffery (Eds.). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 51--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Juhi Kulshrestha, Motahhare Eslami, Johnnatan Messias, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Saptarshi Ghosh, Krishna P Gummadi, and Karrie Karahalios. 2017. Quantifying search bias: Investigating sources of bias for political searches in social media 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Howard Lavine, Joseph W Huff, Stephen H Wagner, and Donna Sweeney. 1998. The moderating influence of attitude strength on the susceptibility to context effects in attitude surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, 2 (1998), 359--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Nicole R LaVoie, Brian L Quick, Julius M Riles, and Natalie J Lambert. 2015. Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research (2015), 416--436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. David Lazer, Alex Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert-László Barabási, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, Noshir Contractor, James Fowler, Myron Gutmann, Tony Jebara, Gary King, Michael Macy, Deb Roy, and Marshall Van Alstyne. 2009. Computational Social Science. Science, Vol. 323, 5915 (2009), 721--723.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Bing Liu, Minqing Hu, and Junsheng Cheng. 2005. Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the web Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 342--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Elizabeth F Loftus and Guido Zanni. 1975. Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society Vol. 5, 1 (1975), 86--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Lori Lorigo, Maya Haridasan, Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir, Ling Xia, Thorsten Joachims, Geri Gay, Laura Granka, Fabio Pellacini, and Bing Pan. 2008. Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59, 7 (2008), 1041--1052. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Ramona Ludolph, Ahmed Allam, and Peter J Schulz. 2016. Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph box to counter biased information processing during an online search on vaccination: application of a technological debiasing strategy. Journal of Medical Internet research Vol. 18, 6 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. William J McGuire. 1964. Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 1 (1964), 191--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Jakub Mikians, László Gyarmati, Vijay Erramilli, and Nikolaos Laoutaris. 2012. Detecting price and search discrimination on the Internet Proceedings of the 11th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Jakub Mikians, László Gyarmati, Vijay Erramilli, and Nikolaos Laoutaris. 2013. Crowd-assisted search for price discrimination in e-commerce: First results Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Katherine L Milkman, Dolly Chugh, and Max H Bazerman. 2009. How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on psychological science Vol. 4, 4 (2009), 379--383.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Claude H Miller. 2015. Persuasion and psychological reactance: The effects of explicit, high controlling language. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Ronald B Mincy. 1993. The Urban Institute audit studies: their research and policy context. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America (1993), 165--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Katerina Eva Matsa. 2015. Millennials and political news. Technical Report. Pew Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Sean A Munson, Stephanie Y Lee, and Paul Resnick. 2013. Encouraging Reading of Diverse Political Viewpoints with a Browser Widget ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Sean A Munson and Paul Resnick. 2010. Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1457--1466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Bennet B Murdock. 1962. The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology Vol. 64, 5 (1962), 482--488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Jamie Murphy, Charles Hofacker, and Richard Mizerski. 2006. Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Vol. 11, 2 (2006), 522--535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering Ethics Vol. 2, 1 (1996), 25--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Alamir Novin and Eric Meyers. 2017. Making sense of conflicting science information: Exploring bias in the search engine result page Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. ACM, 175--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Alice H Oh, Hyun-Jong Lee, and Young-Min Kim. 2009. User Evaluation of a System for Classifying and Displaying Political Viewpoints of Weblogs. ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Thorsten Joachims, Lori Lorigo, Geri Gay, and Laura Granka. 2007. In google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Vol. 12, 3 (2007), 801--823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  96. Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. Souneil Park, Seungwoo Kang, Sangyoung Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2009. NewsCube: delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 443--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Souneil Park, Seungwoo Kang, Sangyoung Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2012. A computational framework for media bias mitigation. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), Vol. 2, 2 (2012), 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. Souneil Park, Minsam Ko, Jungwoo Kim, Ying Liu, and Junehwa Song. 2011. The politics of comments: predicting political orientation of news stories with commenters' sentiment patterns. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 113--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. Josh Pasek, Daniel Schneider, Jon A Krosnick, Alexander Tahk, Eyal Ophir, and Claire Milligan. 2014. Prevalence and moderators of the candidate name-order effect evidence from statewide general elections in California. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 78, 2 (2014), 416--439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  101. Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Eyal Peer, Joachim Vosgerau, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2014. Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior research methods Vol. 46, 4 (2014), 1023--1031.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Richard E Petty and Pablo Brinol. 2010. Attitude change. Oxford University Press Oxford, England, 217--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Politico. 2017. Facebook undermines its own effort to fight fake news. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/facebook-fake-news-social-media-242407. (2017). Accessed: 2017-09-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Kristen Purcell, Joanna Brenner, and Lee Rainie. 2012. Search engine use 2012. Technical Report. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Emilee Rader and Rebecca Gray. 2015. Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 173--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  107. Stephen A Rains. 2013. The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research Vol. 39, 1 (2013), 47--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. Advanced Web Ranking. 2017. CTR study. https://www.advancedwebranking.com/cloud/ctrstudy. (2017). Accessed: 2017-04-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  109. Marta Recasens, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Dan Jurafsky. 2013. Linguistic Models for Analyzing and Detecting Biased Language 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, 1650--1659.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. Derek D Rucker, Zakary L Tormala, and Richard E Petty. 2004. Individual differences in resistance to persuasion: The role of beliefs and meta-beliefs. Resistance and persuasion (2004), 83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Matthew J Salganik, Peter Sheridan Dodds, and Duncan J Watts. 2006. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, Vol. 311, 5762 (2006), 854--856.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Matthew J Salganik and Duncan J Watts. 2008. Leading the herd astray: An experimental study of self-fulfilling prophecies in an artificial cultural market. Social psychology quarterly Vol. 71, 4 (2008), 33Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Suppressing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader