IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2209.14000.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Personalization of Web Search During the 2020 US Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Matter
  • Roland Hodler
  • Johannes Ladwig

Abstract

Search engines play a central role in routing political information to citizens. The algorithmic personalization of search results by large search engines like Google implies that different users may be offered systematically different information. However, measuring the causal effect of user characteristics and behavior on search results in a politically relevant context is challenging. We set up a population of 150 synthetic internet users ("bots") who are randomly located across 25 US cities and are active for several months during the 2020 US Elections and their aftermath. These users differ in their browsing preferences and political ideology, and they build up realistic browsing and search histories. We run daily experiments in which all users enter the same election-related queries. Search results to these queries differ substantially across users. Google prioritizes previously visited websites and local news sites. Yet, it does not generally prioritize websites featuring the user's ideology.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Matter & Roland Hodler & Johannes Ladwig, 2022. "Personalization of Web Search During the 2020 US Elections," Papers 2209.14000, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2209.14000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.14000
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 35-71, January.
    2. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    3. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen & Sergio Galletta, 2022. "Measuring Judicial Sentiment: Methods and Application to US Circuit Courts," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 362-376, April.
    2. Berman, Nicolas & Brey, Björn & Laurent-Lucchetti, Jeremy, 2023. "Panic Politics in the US West Coast," CEPR Discussion Papers 17874, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Aprigliano, Valentina & Emiliozzi, Simone & Guaitoli, Gabriele & Luciani, Andrea & Marcucci, Juri & Monteforte, Libero, 2023. "The power of text-based indicators in forecasting Italian economic activity," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 791-808.
    4. Gómez-Cram, Roberto & Grotteria, Marco, 2022. "Real-time price discovery via verbal communication: Method and application to Fedspeak," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 993-1025.
    5. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cage & Michael Sinkinson, 2020. "Media Competition and News Diets," Working Papers hal-03393063, HAL.
    6. Caroline Le Pennec, 2020. "Strategic Campaign Communication: Evidence from 30,000 Candidate Manifestos," SoDa Laboratories Working Paper Series 2020-05, Monash University, SoDa Laboratories.
    7. Hansen, Stephen & Davis, Steven & Seminario-Amez, Cristhian, 2020. "Firm-level Risk Exposures and Stock Returns in the Wake of COVID-19," CEPR Discussion Papers 15314, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Junze Sun & Arthur Schram & Randolph Sloof, 2019. "A Theory on Media Bias and Elections," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-048/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. J Anthony Cookson & Joseph E Engelberg & William Mullins & Hui Chen, 0. "Does Partisanship Shape Investor Beliefs? Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(4), pages 863-893.
    10. Jeffrey P. Clemens & Parker Rogers, 2020. "Demand Shocks, Procurement Policies, and the Nature of Medical Innovation: Evidence from Wartime Prosthetic Device Patents," CESifo Working Paper Series 8781, CESifo.
    11. Morales, Juan S., 2021. "Legislating during war: Conflict and politics in Colombia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    12. Matthew Gentzkow & Bryan T. Kelly & Matt Taddy, 2017. "Text as Data," NBER Working Papers 23276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Andres Algaba & David Ardia & Keven Bluteau & Samuel Borms & Kris Boudt, 2020. "Econometrics Meets Sentiment: An Overview Of Methodology And Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 512-547, July.
    14. Elliott Ash & Sergio Galletta & Tommaso Giommoni, 2021. "A Machine Learning Approach to Analyze and Support Anti-Corruption Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 9015, CESifo.
    15. Michael Thaler, 2021. "The Supply of Motivated Beliefs," Papers 2111.06062, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    16. Jon H. Fiva & Oda Nedregård & Henning Øien, 2021. "Polarization in Parliamentary Speech," CESifo Working Paper Series 8818, CESifo.
    17. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4ec86lkes59hv9tfv77ld1p5fr is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Stefano DellaVigna & Ruben Durante & Brian Knight & Eliana La Ferrara, 2016. "Market-Based Lobbying: Evidence from Advertising Spending in Italy," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 224-256, January.
    19. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2020. "Measuring partisan media bias in US Newscasts from 2001-2012," Working Paper 183/2020, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, revised 15 Nov 2022.
    20. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    21. Simon P. Anderson & John McLaren, 2012. "Media Mergers And Media Bias With Rational Consumers," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 831-859, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2209.14000. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.