ArticlePloS one2024
Can biased search results change people's opinions about anything at all? a close replication of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME).
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Through a Glass Darkly: Perceptions of Ethnoracial Identity in Artificial Intelligence Generated Medical Vignettes and Images.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In previous experiments we have conducted on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), we have focused on the ability of biased search results to shift voting preferences. In three new experiments with a total of 1,137 US residents (mean age = 33.2), we sought to determine whether biased search rankings could shift people's opinions on topics that do not involve candidates or elections. Each of the new experiments looked at a different topic, and participants were pre-screened to make sure they didn't have strong opinions about these topics. The topics were: Is artificial intelligence useful or dangerous? Is fracking helpful or dangerous? And: Are people born gay or do they choose to be gay? All participants were first asked various demographic questions, then shown brief summaries of the "pro" and "anti" views on each topic, and then asked their opinions about each topic. Next, participants were allowed to conduct an online search using our mock search engine (Kadoodle) lasting up to 15 minutes. In each experiment, one-third of the participants saw biased search results favoring one perspective; one-third saw biased search results favoring the opposing perspective; and one-third (the control group) saw mixed search results. After completing their search, participants were again asked for their opinions about the topic. Our primary dependent variable was Manipulation Power (MP), the percentage increase in the number of participants favoring one viewpoint after having viewed search rankings favoring that viewpoint. The MPs in the three experiments were 25.0%, 30.9%, and 17.8%, respectively. Corresponding shifts were also found for how persuasive participants found each viewpoint to be and for how much they trusted each viewpoint. We conclude that search rankings favoring one viewpoint on a wide range of topics might be able to cause people who have not yet formulated a strong opinion on such topics to adopt the favored perspective. If our findings prove to be robust, we are exposing what might be considered an unforeseen consequence of the creation of search engines, namely that even without human interference, search algorithms will inevitably alter the thinking and behavior of billions of people worldwide on perhaps any topic for which they have not yet formed strong opinions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.