Internet Search Engines May Be Influencing Elections

sciencehabit writes: Thomas Epstein, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research in Vista, California, has found that the higher a politician ranks on a page of Internet search results, the more likely you are to vote for them — 80% more likely in some cases. The story also suggests that the folks at Google may already be influencing elections. "Google's algorithm has been determining the outcome of close elections around the world," says Epstein. As predicted, subjects spent far more time reading Web pages near the top of the list (abstract). But what surprised researchers was the difference those rankings made: Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list.

Comments

No-information voters

[Fwipp]

The researchers saw the most pronounced effects, as you'd expect, when their study included candidates that the subjects had no prior knowledge on. In their first study, they asked Californians about 2010 candidates for PM of Australia.

In their followup, they again note that it's only really effective on people who don't know what's going on (and aren't likely voters anyway): "Divorcees, Republicans, and subjects who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the easiest groups to influence, whereas participants who were better informed, married, or reported an annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible of any group: The manipulated search results increased the number of undecided voters who said they would choose the favored candidate by 80%."

When they tried a third study in India, about Indian elections, that impressive 80% figure dropped to only 12% (of undecided voters).

Re: No-information voters

[Rockoon]

If you ask people to choose among candidates they don't know, and then manipulate the information sources that are available to them, what in the world would make you think that their opinions should remain random?

Clearly the world of Democrats, who apparently wouldnt change their opinion about candidates they were originally uninformed about, regardless of what information you then gave them.

It is still better than the alternative

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

These low information voters usually stay out and do not vote at all. Or they vote based on inertia, "we always vote for DMK or BJP or CPI-M".If they take the trouble do a minimal google search before voting it is a step in the right direction. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. They may have a long way to go. But at least they have started the process.

Re:It is still better than the alternative

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The greatest enemy for democracy is not totalitarianism or communism or any thisism or thatism. It is apathy. The moment someone takes the trouble to look something up before voting it is good. Once they start some of them would eventually start using more reliable information. In that respect it is a good beginning. It is not perfect. It is barely better than random voting or inertia voting or not voting. But it is a good start, that is all I am saying.