IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/iprjir/214097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voter preferences, voter manipulation, voter analytics: policy options for less surveillance and more autonomy

Author

Listed:
  • Burkell, Jacquelyn
  • Regan, Priscilla M.

Abstract

Researchers in psychology have long known that preferences are constructed in the decision-making process, influenced by choice environments that trigger unconscious biases and heuristics. As a result, choices, including those of voters, can be manipulated by political information. Personalised political messages, designed to influence based on detailed personal profiles, can undermine voter autonomy. We suggest that these practices should therefore be regulated, and discuss policy options and approaches, specifically the appropriate balance between freedom of political speech and privacy rights and interests, the implications of voter analytics for the electoral process, and how and by whom sophisticated voter analytics practices should be regulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Burkell, Jacquelyn & Regan, Priscilla M., 2019. "Voter preferences, voter manipulation, voter analytics: policy options for less surveillance and more autonomy," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214097
    DOI: 10.14763/2019.4.1438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/214097/1/IntPolRev-2019-4-1438.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.14763/2019.4.1438?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalla, Joshua L. & Broockman, David E., 2018. "The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(1), pages 148-166, February.
    2. Susser, Daniel & Roessler, Beate & Nissenbaum, Helen, 2019. "Technology, autonomy, and manipulation," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22.
    3. Chester, Jeff & Montgomery, Kathryn C., 2017. "The role of digital marketing in political campaigns," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 6(4), pages 1-20.
    4. Kalla, Joshua & Broockman, David, 2017. "The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments," Research Papers repec:ecl:stabus:3593, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Bodó, Balázs & Helberger, Natali & de Vreese, Claes H., 2017. "Political micro-targeting: a Manchurian candidate or just a dark horse?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. N. Helberger & M. Sax & J. Strycharz & H.-W. Micklitz, 2022. "Choice Architectures in the Digital Economy: Towards a New Understanding of Digital Vulnerability," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-200, June.
    2. Eric K. Clemons & Ravi V. Waran & Sebastian Hermes & Maximilian Schreieck & Helmut Krcmar, 2022. "Computing and Social Welfare," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 417-436, June.
    3. Julien Figeac & Marie Neihouser & Ferdinand Le Coz, 2024. "Data-Campaigning on Facebook: Do Metrics of User Engagement Drive French Political Parties’ Publications?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    4. Stephanie Luke & Esmeralda Bon & Katharine Dommett & Rachel Gibson & Sophie Lecheler & Sanne Kruikemeier, 2024. "Editorial: Data-Driven Campaigning in a Comparative Context—Toward a 4th Era of Political Communication?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.

    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. Leerssen, Paddy & Ausloos, Jef & Zarouali, Brahim & Helberger, Natali & de Vreese, Claes H., 2019. "Platform ad archives: promises and pitfalls," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21.
    2. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Baum, Charles L. & Owens, Mark F., 2023. "Does personal door-to-door campaigning influence voters? Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Anna M. Wilke & Donald P. Green & Jasper Cooper, 2020. "A placebo design to detect spillovers from an education–entertainment experiment in Uganda," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1075-1096, June.
    5. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    6. Avidit Acharya & Edoardo Grillo & Takuo Sugaya & Eray Turkel, 2019. "Dynamic Campaign Spending," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 601, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    7. Vincenzo Galasso & Massimo Morelli & Tommaso Nannicini & Piero Stanig, 2022. "Fighting Populism on Its Own Turf: Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9789, CESifo.
    8. Chester, Jeff & Montgomery, Kathryn C., 2019. "The digital commercialisation of US politics — 2020 and beyond," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-23.
    9. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    10. Anselm Hager & Lukas Hensel & Christopher Roth & Andreas Stegmann, 2021. "Voice and Political Engagement: Evidence From a Natural Field Experiment," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 601, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    11. Kai Jäger, 2020. "When Do Campaign Effects Persist for Years? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 836-851, October.
    12. Wencheng Lu, 2024. "Inevitable challenges of autonomy: ethical concerns in personalized algorithmic decision-making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Pollmann, Kathrin & Loh, Wulf & Fronemann, Nora & Ziegler, Daniel, 2023. "Entertainment vs. manipulation: Personalized human-robot interaction between user experience and ethical design," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    14. Little, Andrew T., 2022. "Bayesian Explanations for Persuasion," OSF Preprints ygw8e, Center for Open Science.
    15. Shelleka Gupta & Vinay Chauhan, 2023. "Understanding the Role of Social Networking Sites in Political Marketing," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 12(1), pages 58-72, June.
    16. Beknazar-Yuzbashev, George & Stalinski, Mateusz, 2022. "Do social media ads matter for political behavior? A field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    17. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    18. Gregory Eady & Tom Paskhalis & Jan Zilinsky & Richard Bonneau & Jonathan Nagler & Joshua A. Tucker, 2023. "Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Joanna Papińska-Kacperek & Krystyna Polańska, 2019. "Analiza obecności polskiej administracji lokalnej w mediach społecznościowych," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 56, pages 185-196.
    20. Yasmine Bekkouche & Julia Cage, 2019. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03393084, HAL.

    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:zbw:iprjir:214097. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://policyreview.info/ .

    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.