Facebook Plays With Your Emotions

Image by Kvarki1/Creative Commons

There is no arguing that Facebook is a huge part of modern culture. With over 1.5 billion active, current monthly users, it is easily the most popular online social network. Unfortunately, Facebook isn't always as transparent as we would like for it to be.

 

In 2012, psychologists conducted an experiment by altering users' Facebook news feeds to see if it would affect how a user posts after seeing the distorted feed. The study concluded that when positive posts were removed from users' news feeds leaving mainly negative posts, users then posted more negative posts than positive as a result and vice versa.

________________________________________________________

TIMELINE OF EVENTS:

• January 2012 – researchers secretly manipulate users’ feeds in a week-long experiment
• May 2012 – the term “research” was added to appear in FB’s terms
• March 2014 – results of the secret study were published
• March 2014 - many users respond negatively to the news

 ________________________________________________________

Facebook's actions were not illegal, but many considered them unethical. Typically research that will involve humans is scrutinized for ethics violations by an IRB (institutional review board). Facebook did not consult an IRB before beginning this experiment. Reports say that Facebook only used an internal review.

_________________________________________________________

"A new study that manipulated emotion messages on Facebook gets a big thumbs-down from Facebook users, and may also amplify a public distrust of behavioral research that has been fed by decades of deceptive laboratory studies." - Bruce Bower

 ________________________________________________________

Copyright National Academy of Sciences

While the users were angered, in order to create a Facebook account you have to agree to a statement that allows Facebook to use personal information for research purposes. Bruce Bower says, "To the researchers, that constituted informed consent for the study." That doesn't mean, however, that the users were specifically informed as there was no direct announcement or other communication announcing this study prior to its completion. Additionally, there was not an opportunity that would have allowed participants to opt out of the study. Many people, when creating an online account, don't read all the terms of service involved.That is, of course, up to each individual. It also is a technicality, something that if you have to use as your defense, you've already made an error in establishing trust.

Public Domain

The American Psychological Association requires any test subject that is tricked in lab experiments to be debriefed afterwards. These tricked subjects often lose their trust in the researchers and inform others of the deception. This can adversely affect the researchers when trying to obtain new test subjects. In a sense, the bad PR that resulted from Facebook's lack of transparency about this experiment could cause similar effects regarding the number of subscribed users. Many believe that Facebook defines informed consent to meet their needs.

This specific experiment is not the only one Facebook has conducted. They often alter people's news feeds to determine how many advertisements may be included. Business pages have also seen the reach of their posts decline in an attempt by Facebook to sell "boosted" posts. Some of this is typical analysis of consumer habits through marketing. Companies like Google and Yahoo analyze the search patterns of its users to adjust what is shown, something they claim improves the user's experience. It also helps them sell advertisements. This Facebook study, however, went well beyond those typical practices. They weren't trying to change behaviors, but rather alter users' moods. Privacy is an issue that Facebook has struggled with before.

_________________________________________________________

"The definition of informed consent for members of

online communities has barely been addressed by 

ethicists and scientists." - Bruce Bower

 ________________________________________________________

Facebook responded with an apology and tried to downplay the issue. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said, "I want to be clear -- Facebook can't control emotions and cannot and will not try to control emotions." In addition to acknowledging Facebook's poor communication in this matter, she went on to say, "We never meant to upset you." That didn't stop a leading privacy group from filing a complaint that at the time of the experiment, Facebook's terms of use did not include a clause that would allow researchers access to this information. Facebook did establish new research guidelines and protocols months after the debacle to hopefully avoid a recurrence.

Much of the concern about the issue has been misplaced as the results of manipulated feeds was statistically very small. There was no significant evidence that what the researchers did caused much of an effect on users' emotional states. Some think that this instance isn't a big deal. Others have called it "creepy," or went as far as "brand suicide." I think that's a bit too far, but it was definitely a public misstep.

Ironically, the researchers did indeed find out if emotions can spread through online networks, but not only in the way they intended. Once the results of the studies were released in 2014, many users were infuriated that they had unknowingly been a test subject.

Something that definitely resulted from the study was a loss of trust in Facebook. As with all public relations communications, transparency is key. Had Facebook followed a more ethical, transparent approach to their study, this PR blunder could have been avoided.

Public Domain

FURTHER READINGS AND VIEWINGS
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/technology/facebook-agrees-to-ftc-settlement-on-privacy.html?_r=0
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/research-at-facebook/
http://crenshawcomm.com/summer-pr-crisis-management-report-card/
http://mashable.com/2014/07/02/facebook-sandberg-emotions-experiment/#QUkRNfmiEsqc
http://mashable.com/2014/07/01/facebook-emotions-study-legal/#vXp5fN9rE8qi
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/privacy-group-complains-to-f-t-c-about-facebook-emotion-study/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/main-result-facebook-emotion-study-less-trust-facebook
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/07/facebook%E2%80%99s-experiment-and-its-cia-roots/
http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-have-legitimately-approved-the-facebook-experimentand-why-that-may-be-a-good-thing.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/even-the-editor-of-facebooks-mood-study-thought-it-was-creepy/373649/
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/29/facebook-doesnt-understand-the-fuss-about-its-emotion-manipulation-study/#746a57e6fb33 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/30/facebook-only-got-permission-to-do-research-on-users-after-emotion-manipulation-study/#3e4c573a10c1 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/06/30/facebooks-experiment-on-emotions-sounds-creepier-than-it-was/#73156857388a 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTEgR5LyHls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas93OxooVA