Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#2> When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred.
More precisely, this research appears to show how emotions expressed in Facebook posts get mimicked by connections. Should this be taken as literally reflecting people’s underlying emotional states[0]? I’d accept that they correlate to a degree, but not completely, especially not on a platform that mandates real names.
[0] Anecdotally, I could be on balance in a happy state but express annoyance at minor aspects of life in my posts. In fact, the existence of things to complain about is a sign things are going relatively well (when things are looking down on a fundamental level, going on record with that under a real name is risking to alienate IRL connections, and minor nuisances of life seem too insignificant to be worth mentioning).
Conversely, seeing more negative posts would make me feel compelled to post more of the same, but on balance feel better about my own situation after seeing what emotions others have to deal with.
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#3This is insanity. How did this study pass an ethics council? They admit to exposing people to negative emotional cues at random?
Their N is 689K. At this point, they are certainly responsible for some number of suicides.
The authors should be ashamed of themselves. Their salary is being paid by manipulating people's emotions on purpose. Something is wrong with that.
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#4This is insanity. How did this study pass an ethics council? They admit to exposing people to negative emotional cues at random? Their N is 689K. At this point, they are certainly responsible for some number of suicides. The authors should be ashamed of themselves. Their salary is being paid by manipulating people's emotions on purpose. Something is wrong with that.
Sorry but you can't hold someone else responsible for suicide unless they were specifically taunting and influencing someone to commit that act.
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#5This is insanity. How did this study pass an ethics council? They admit to exposing people to negative emotional cues at random? Their N is 689K. At this point, they are certainly responsible for some number of suicides. The authors should be ashamed of themselves. Their salary is being paid by manipulating people's emotions on purpose. Something is wrong with that.
Unless I am mistaken, this study reports on Facebook’s own test of News Feed algorithms. Facebook ran the test in 2012, supposedly to determine whether posts with emotional content are more engaging. This study (published in 2014, by the way—could someone edit the title?) appears to be examining the data from that test.
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#6> When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. More precisely, this research appears to show how emotions expressed in Facebook posts get mimicked by connections. Should this be taken as literally reflecting people’s underlying emotional states[0]? I’d accept that they correlate to a degree,…
Yes if I'm remembering correctly this study was published by Facebook data science after some psych lab published a study that went semi-viral suggesting people were more unhappy when their network made mostly happy posts (which was explained by jealousy/comparing self to others).
I remember thinking both studies had limitations, the main one here being that the interpretation is a stretch and to me was obviously trying to push back on the original popular narrative.
Point being, I agree it is definitely plausible that seeing positive posts encourages more showing off rather than actual happiness. I would be interested if anyone is aware of any more recent follow-up studies?
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#7This is insanity. How did this study pass an ethics council? They admit to exposing people to negative emotional cues at random? Their N is 689K. At this point, they are certainly responsible for some number of suicides. The authors should be ashamed of themselves. Their salary is being paid by manipulating people's emotions on purpose. Something is wrong with that.
FWIW there was some backlash at the time: https://www.wsj.com/articles/furor-erupts-over-facebook-expe...
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#8This is insanity. How did this study pass an ethics council? They admit to exposing people to negative emotional cues at random? Their N is 689K. At this point, they are certainly responsible for some number of suicides. The authors should be ashamed of themselves. Their salary is being paid by manipulating people's emotions on purpose. Something is wrong with that.
Sorry but you can't hold someone else responsible for suicide unless they were specifically taunting and influencing someone to commit that act.
But they were specifically taunting them and influencing them. They put up posts with negative emotions. If just one post caused someone to commit suicide in the negative study group, and facebook showed it to them one time more than normal, they are culpable. Given the large N value, I find it difficult to believe this didn't happen.
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but you can't hold someone else responsible for suicide unless they were specifically taunting and influencing someone to commit that act.
But they were specifically taunting them and influencing them. They put up posts with negative emotions. If just one post caused someone to commit suicide in the negative study group, and facebook showed it to them one time more than normal, they are culpable. Given the large N value, I find it difficult to believe this didn't happen.
Negative emotions is already a significant chunk of social media in general and news media as well. So...very slippery slope definition for culpability you've got there.
Re: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion thru social networks (2014)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but you can't hold someone else responsible for suicide unless they were specifically taunting and influencing someone to commit that act.
But they were specifically taunting them and influencing them. They put up posts with negative emotions. If just one post caused someone to commit suicide in the negative study group, and facebook showed it to them one time more than normal, they are culpable. Given the large N value, I find it difficult to believe this didn't happen.
"Normal" is already determined by their AB testing which is already massive scale human experimentation.