ArticlePloS one2025
The "multiple exposure effect" (MEE): How multiple exposures to similarly biased online content can cause increasingly larger shifts in opinions and voting preferences.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In three randomized, controlled experiments performed on simulations of three popular online platforms - Google search, X/Twitter, and Alexa - with a total of 1,488 undecided, eligible US voters, we asked whether multiple exposures to similarly biased content on those platforms could shift opinions and voting preferences more than a single exposure could. All participants were first shown brief biographies of two political candidates, then asked about their voting preferences, then exposed to biased content on one of our three simulated platforms, and then asked again about their voting preferences. In all experiments, participants in different groups saw biased content favoring one candidate, his or her opponent, or neither. In all the experiments, our primary dependent variable was Vote Manipulation Power (VMP), the percentage increase in the number of participants inclined to vote for one candidate after having viewed content favoring that candidate. In Experiment 1 (on our Google simulator), the VMP increased with successive searches from 14.3% to 20.2% to 22.6%. In Experiment 2 (on our X/Twitter simulator), the VMP increased with successive exposures to biased tweets from 49.7% to 61.8% to 69.1%. In Experiment 3 (on our Alexa simulator), the VMP increased with successive exposures to biased replies from 72.1% to 91.2% to 98.6%. Corresponding shifts were also generally found for how much participants reported liking and trusting the candidates and for participants' overall impression of the candidates. Because multiple exposures to similarly biased content might be common on the internet, we conclude that our previous reports about the possible impact of biased content - always based on single exposures - might have underestimated its possible impact. Findings in our new experiments exemplify what we call the "multiple exposure effect" (MEE).
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.