Understanding Foreign Measures Targeting US Elections

Research Report C O R P O R A T I O N MAREK N. POSARD, MARTA KEPE, HILARY REININGER, JAMES V. MARRONE, TODD C. HELMUS, AND JORDAN R. REIMER From Consensus to Conflict Understanding Foreign Measures Targeting U.S. Elections hroughout the remaining U.S. political campaign season of 2020, Russia might try again to manipulate and divide U.S. voters through social media. This report is the first in a four-part series aimed at helping policymakers and the public understand—and T 1 mitigate—the threat of online foreign interference in national, state, and local elections. Concerns over foreign influence in U.S. politics date back to the founding of this country. Alexander Hamilton warned about “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” (Hamilton, 1788). George Washington’s farewell speech cautioned that “foreign influence is one of the most bane- ful foes of republican government” KEY FINDINGS (Washington, 1796). During the Civil War, the Confederacy solicited the Q Foreign interference in U.S. politics has been a concern since the support of Britain and France against nation was founded. the Union (Central Intelligence Q Russian information efforts aim to elicit strong reactions and drive Agency, undated). In 1940, the British people to extreme positions to lower the odds they will reach a covertly intervened in the U.S. pres- consensus—the bedrock of U.S. democracy. idential election in hopes to garner Q New technologies have made Russia’s information efforts easier support for U.S. intervention in to implement than the propaganda campaigns that the Soviets World War II (Usdin, 2017). During conducted during the Cold War. the Cold War, the Soviet Union Q Studies about how to defend against these efforts have focused operated a sophisticated program on different units of analysis: Some studies focus on the original involving covert and overt informa- content; others focus on how this content spreads within networks; tion efforts against the United States and still others focus on protecting consumers. (Jones, 2019; Schoen and Lamb, 2012). Q To respond to foreign interference, we recommend (1) taking a More recently, the U.S. Senate holistic approach that anticipates which groups of Americans are Committee on Intelligence pre- likely to become targets and (2) designing evidence-based preven- sented evidence that Russia directed tive practices to protect them. activities against state and local election infra- review select research on strategies that inform how structures and tried to spread disinformation on to defend against online information efforts. social media during the 2016 presidential election We recommend that any strategies for responding (Select Committee on Intelligence of the United to foreign information efforts be broad rather than States Senate, 2019, undated, 2020). In 2018, the narrow and that they anticipate which subgroups of Department of Justice indicted the Internet Research Americans are likely targets of information efforts by Agency LLC, located in St. Petersburg, Russia, for foreign adversaries. Additionally, there is a need to interfering in U.S. elections as far back as 2014 develop evidence-based preventive interventions for (United States v. Internet Research Agency LLC, 2018). those who are most likely targets within our society. Given these past and likely extant threats to U.S. elections, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services asked the RAND Corporation’s Modern Methods Are Rooted in National Security Research Division for research the Cold War to help them analyze, forecast, and mitigate threats We believe that reflexive control theory is, in part, by foreign actors targeting local, state, and national the intellectual basis of current information efforts elections. targeting the United States that are perpetrated by This four-part series (Figure 1) will present Russia and its proxies.4 Scholars have described • what the literature says about information reflexive control as a means of conveying infor- efforts by foreign actors mation to others that leads them to make some • the results of an analysis of social media to predetermined decision (Thomas, 2004). Reflexive identify potential exploits control theory is a formal theoretical research pro- • a survey experiment to assess interventions to gram exploring this technique; it was developed by defend against some of these exploits Vladimir Lefebvre and others and first appeared • qualitative interviews of survey respondents to in Soviet military literature in the 1960s (Chotikul, understand their views on falsehoods. 1986; Radin, Demus, and Marcinek, 2020; Thomas, In this report, we review some of the research 2004). Unlike game theory, this theory does not on information efforts by foreign actors, focusing assume that individuals act rationally; rather, it mainly on online environments.2 First, we review assumes that people act “according to their image of what we believe is the intellectual basis of existing the world and their image of their adversary’s image Russian information efforts: reflexive control theory.3 of the world.”5 (Appendix A has a more detailed Second, we review examples of information efforts by description of the reflexive control theory.) the Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Third, we In general, reflexive control theory presents the world as a set of binary relationships: People are FIGURE 1 What This Series Covers Disinformation Series PART 1 (this report) PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 Reviews what existing Identifies potential Assesses interventions Explores people’s research tells us about information exploits in to defend against views on falsehoods information efforts by social media exploits foreign actors 2 either in conflict or cooperation with one another, and their actions are either passive or aggressive in Defining Key Concepts nature (Lefebvre, 1965, 1966). Although the binary • Information efforts: Activities that “influence, view is an oversimplification, this assumption is disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision- based on how some historians characterize human making of targets while protesting one’s own” relationships in the Soviet Union.6 (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2014, The model structure implies that a person’s deci- p. A-1). sions depend on what is socially desirable, insofar as • Creation and dissemination: Content— which might be authentic (for example, cre- they perceive what is desirable to others. Outside par- ated by human users or trolls) or inauthentic ties can manipulate this perception, which forms the (for example, created by bots)—is created and basis for reflexive control as a tool for understanding disseminated by state-sponsored actors or information efforts. Belief in falsehoods is merely their proxies (who could be willing or unwilling a byproduct of reflexive control, not the end goal. participants). Disseminating false content is a tactic to manipulate • Information environment: The area in which one group’s view of others. information efforts exist, broadly defined as We have identified at least two key features of “the aggregate of individuals, organizations, reflexive control theory that seem applicable to recent and systems” (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs information efforts targeting U.S. elections. of Staff, 2014, p. GL-6). These environments involve any collection of people who interact with each other online or in person. One Feature of Reflexive Control Theory Is to Alter People’s Perceptions of people find common ground on issues of public First, the model accepts as a given that relationships concern. After all, it’s difficult to find commonality between individuals are defined by conflict or collab- on such topics as property taxes or farm subsidies oration. The interpersonal influences between groups when opponents see each other as un-American or of people are inputs. Information efforts are trying to racist and each believes these views are deep-seated shift people’s perceptions, not alter this fundamental within the other. group structure. For example, reflexive control does This binary framework also suggests a direct not try to convince people in political party A that way to operationalize reflexive control. Manipulating they are in conflict with those from political party B. someone’s perception of others is most feasible, and It assumes this conflict already exists. Instead, these most effective, if that perception can be collapsed information efforts try to amplify the degree that into a one-dimensional caricature. If someone is “one people from party A believe that those from party B of them” and if “they” are a monolithic group easily view them as adversaries. summarized by one characteristic, then perceptions are more easily manipulated and reinforced. Thus, Another Feature Is to Elicit Reactions, we hypothesize that reflexive control in practice Not Necessarily to Change Behavior is a priming technique that encourages people to self-identify with a particular group and to simplify The second relevant feature of reflexive control the characterization of that group as homogenous theory is the goal of eliciting reactions from targets. and ultimately in conflict with another group. The theory views the world as a dichotomy between Thus, foreign adversaries might try to opera- conflict and collaboration. Successful information tionalize reflexive control by targeting those who are efforts sow deep divisions between groups of peo- likely to have the strongest reactions to group-based ple and generate a perception of “us” versus “them” differences. The sources of these differences are that, in turn, elicits strong reactions in people. The broad: They might focus on race, class, gender, ultimate goal is to reduce the probability that groups sexual orientation, political affiliation, or geography 3 on Intelligence of the United States Senate, 2019, undated). Furthermore, we believe that Russia is an Active measures are equal opportunity exploiter of social cleavages, as evidenced by reporting that online Russian trolls covert and overt appeared to have targeted white supremacists and civil rights activists (Derysh, 2020; Glaser, 2018; Lockhart, information efforts 2018; Ward, 2018).

Load more