Facebook running involuntary psych experiments

RichardGarfinkle said:

There's a distinction between examining data arising from observation and manipulating people to see what happens.

Click to expand...

I guess I've just known about this since early in 2013 so the shock has worn off. But ya know they've been doing this to us since psychology was born. They just weren't so blatant about it.

veinglory said:

The Journal should not rest on the review board, their ethics are in their own hands. I have seen journals reject papers on ethical grounds dozens of times and they were right to do so. Institutional ethical review is hit and miss.

This is PNAS FFS. Unless I am missing something their choice to run this is bizarre.

Click to expand...

Had they not published this though, we likely wouldn't know anywhere near as much about it.

Pretty good article about why this study was a steaming turd that nobody should pay any serious attention to.

Putting aside the ridiculous language used in these kinds of studies (really, emotions spread like a “contagion”?), these kinds of studies often arrive at their findings by conducting language analysis on tiny bits of text. On Twitter, they’re really tiny — less than 140 characters. Facebook status updates are rarely more than a few sentences. The researchers don’t actually measure anybody’s mood.

So how do you conduct such language analysis, especially on 689,003 status updates? Many researchers turn to an automated tool for this, something called the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count application (LIWC 2007).

...

And since much of human communication includes subtleties such as this — without even delving into sarcasm, short-hand abbreviations that act as negation words, phrases that negate the previous sentence, emojis, etc. — you can’t even tell how accurate or inaccurate the resulting analysis by these researchers is. Since the LIWC 2007 ignores these subtle realities of informal human communication, so do the researchers.

...

Which is why I have to say that even if you believe this research at face value despite this huge methodological problem, you’re still left with research showing ridiculously small correlations that have little to no meaning to ordinary users.

For instance, Kramer et al. (2014) found a 0.07% — that’s not 7 percent, that’s 1/15th of one percent!! — decrease in negative words in people’s status updates when the number of negative posts on their Facebook news feed decreased. Do you know how many words you’d have to read or write before you’ve written one less negative word due to this effect? Probably thousands.

This isn’t an “effect” so much as a statistical blip that has no real-world meaning.

Click to expand...

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...n-on-facebook-more-like-bad-research-methods/

I was talking to someone about this last night and the 'and btw, it's shitty pseudo-research' came up more than once. It appears (I didn't read the paper) to be an ill-conceived, ill-designed thing, aside from that it's completely bereft of ethics.

I wonder about the backgrounds of the hoodie-wearing tools who thought this up, and thought they had any right to do this.

Cassiopeia said:

I guess I've just known about this since early in 2013 so the shock has worn off. But ya know they've been doing this to us since psychology was born. They just weren't so blatant about it.

Click to expand...

How could you have known about it? Psychologists engaging in research don't do this to the public - that's why IRBs exist, and are so strict.

There obviously have, through history, been people who performed experiments on unwilling/unknowing subjects, same as there have been doctors who performed procedures on the same and etc. It's not a facet of one branch of science.

Yet another in the long list of reasons why I do not engage in so called social media. As long as you don't count AW. No facebook for me.

Facebook Added 'Research' To User Agreement 4 Months After Emotion Manipulation Study

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...ch-on-users-after-emotion-manipulation-study/

(exactly what it says on the tin)

cornflake said:

I was talking to someone about this last night and the 'and btw, it's shitty pseudo-research' came up more than once. It appears (I didn't read the paper) to be an ill-conceived, ill-designed thing, aside from that it's completely bereft of ethics.

I wonder about the backgrounds of the hoodie-wearing tools who thought this up, and thought they had any right to do this.



How could you have known about it? Psychologists engaging in research don't do this to the public - that's why IRBs exist, and are so strict.

There obviously have, through history, been people who performed experiments on unwilling/unknowing subjects, same as there have been doctors who performed procedures on the same and etc. It's not a facet of one branch of science.

Click to expand...

Um...I go to university and it was discussed in depth in a cultural media class that examined the effects of media on culture and was quite thorough on what FB and other social media are doing. My final thesis on the class was about the use of social media, "liking", and the data being used to study and draw conclusions about the users to determine a myriad of things involving the psychology of influence.

And yes...it has been done though branches of science for decades.

Cassiopeia said:

Um...I go to university and it was discussed in depth in a cultural media class that examined the effects of media on culture and was quite thorough on what FB and other social media are doing. My final thesis on the class was about the use of social media, "liking", and the data being used to study and draw conclusions about the users to determine a myriad of things involving the psychology of influence.

And yes...it has been done though branches of science for decades.

Click to expand...

That - studying the data that users generate on their own, with or without their input - is entirely different than what happened here, with FB manipulating the feeds as a variable.

cornflake said:

That - studying the data that users generate on their own, with or without their input - is entirely different than what happened here, with FB manipulating the feeds as a variable.

Click to expand...

But that's what studies do, right? They manipulate variables and focus groups.

I don't agree they should be doing it. I'm just not shocked by it and have known about it since January 2013.

Cassiopeia said:

But that's what studies do, right? They manipulate variables and focus groups.

I don't agree they should be doing it. I'm just not shocked by it and have known about it since January 2013.

Click to expand...

No, studies can do lots of things, including combing through and using data (either gathered by the study or from other areas) to draw conclusions, or base new theories off of.

Experiments manipulate variables, and that's what no one knew FB was doing - experimenting, actively, on unknowing users, which is unethical as hell and deeply concerning, and why people are shocked.

Using aggregate data is one thing that yes, everyone knows companies and others on the Internet have been doing for ages. Such is the basis of marketing, after all. Experimenting is a whole other kettle of fish.

cornflake said:

No, studies can do lots of things, including combing through and using data (either gathered by the study or from other areas) to draw conclusions, or base new theories off of.

Experiments manipulate variables, and that's what no one knew FB was doing - experimenting, actively, on unknowing users, which is unethical as hell and deeply concerning, and why people are shocked.

Using aggregate data is one thing that yes, everyone knows companies and others on the Internet have been doing for ages. Such is the basis of marketing, after all. Experimenting is a whole other kettle of fish.

Click to expand...

I guess what I'm confused about is when you say "no one knew what FB was doing". When I did the research for my paper on how powerful liking and unliking is...I came across peer reviewed academic journal articles that have been examining FB doing this for several years now. So clearly we (general we) have known about it for sometime.

I guess it just took longer to circulate in social settings and I only found out sooner because of academic research.

Cassiopeia said:

I guess what I'm confused about is when you say "no one knew what FB was doing". When I did the research for my paper on how powerful liking and unliking is...I came across peer reviewed academic journal articles that have been examining FB doing this for several years now. So clearly we (general we) have known about it for sometime.

I guess it just took longer to circulate in social settings and I only found out sooner because of academic research.

Click to expand...

I've not heard about any article besides the one that's in the post that referenced them doing this.

How could there be, before they published their own results?

Do you remember any of the titles or journals or anything or have the stuff still?

cornflake said:

I've not heard about any article besides the one that's in the post that referenced them doing this.

How could there be, before they published their own results?

Do you remember any of the titles or journals or anything or have the stuff still?

Click to expand...

Somewhere in my files, I usually keep everything and I am certain I kept the paper I wrote with the resources.

I just have to find time to go digging through all that and I got rather upsetting news today so I'm not quite up to all that. I'll try to remember soon though.

I'm not buying it.

Yes, it's general knowledge that social media companies, through websites and apps, use algorithms to manipulate user content in relation to advertising. I doubt whatever media class you took broke any new ground in covering a subject that has been all over the news for years and has even been lampooned in an episode of Futurama (season 6, episode 3: "Attack of the Killer App," if you want specifics).

I'm hoping your class at least covered, in depth, Gerbner's "Cultivation Theory" within the context of social media and/or made Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, required reading.

Sure, you had cursory knowledge that they use "likes" and profile data to manipulate advertising content via their proprietary algorithms but, as I said, that's pretty common knowledge. Perhaps your paper went into more detail than most people have access to.

But, yeah, I'm questioning your claim that somehow you (and your undergraduate class) knew of this exact experiment that Facebook was running, around the time they were running it, given that they didn't tell anyone until after the fact. Somehow you and your class had the insider info that FB hadn't released to the public and somehow the rest of the world was oblivious to it? That seems far-fetched to me.

If you really did, and the proof is in your research as you claim it is, then simply copy and paste your bibliography. I have university-level access to most major journals, so I can easily obtain copies of articles to see if they do, indeed, spill the beans on this study before FB had ever publicly released info on it.

This situation, as cornflake and Richard have more-patiently-than-I-am-capable-of pointed out, is entirely different than simply using profile data and "likes" to focus advertising content. They tweaked an algorithm to intentionally manipulate the emotional states of their users by manipulating their News Feeds.

To our knowledge, this has not been done before, at least not on this scale and/or by a company like this.

Thankfully, the experimental design was shitty and their results were non-significant to the point of nearly being non-existent, and are therefore useless. But, the ethical issues remain.

Opty said:

I'm not buying it.

Yes, it's general knowledge that social media companies, through websites and apps, use algorithms to manipulate user content in relation to advertising. I doubt whatever media class you took broke any new ground in covering a subject that has been all over the news for years and has even been lampooned in an episode of Futurama (season 6, episode 3: "Attack of the Killer App," if you want specifics).

Click to expand...

I don't believe I said it was ground breaking. It was just the FIRST time I knew in depth how it was being used. I believe it's cornflake who thinks this is new.

I'm hoping your class at least covered, in depth, Gerbner's "Cultivation Theory" within the context of social media and/or made Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, required reading.

Sure, you had cursory knowledge that they use "likes" and profile data to manipulate advertising content via their proprietary algorithms but, as I said, that's pretty common knowledge. Perhaps your paper went into more detail than most people have access to.

But, yeah, I'm questioning your claim that somehow you (and your undergraduate class) knew of this exact experiment that Facebook was running, around the time they were running it, given that they didn't tell anyone until after the fact. Somehow you and your class had the insider info that FB hadn't released to the public and somehow the rest of the world was oblivious to it? That seems far-fetched to me.

If you really did, and the proof is in your research as you claim it is, then simply copy and paste your bibliography. I have university-level access to most major journals, so I can easily obtain copies of articles to see if they do, indeed, spill the beans on this study before FB had ever publicly released info on it.

This situation, as cornflake and Richard have more-patiently-than-I-am-capable-of pointed out, is entirely different than simply using profile data and "likes" to focus advertising content. They tweaked an algorithm to intentionally manipulate the emotional states of their users by manipulating their News Feeds.

To our knowledge, this has not been done before, at least not on this scale and/or by a company like this.

Thankfully, the experimental design was shitty and their results were non-significant to the point of nearly being non-existent, and are therefore useless. But, the ethical issues remain.

Click to expand...

HEY! Dude...or dudette...I didn't make any such claims that it was this EXACT "experiment".

I'm speaking in generalizations that I knew such things were being done and have been done for decades. And yeah, if I get time to dig out a paper from 2012, I'll be happy to post the resources...but honestly, being diagnosed today with a serious disease is weighing more heavily on my mind than what you think you need me to prove to you about something I didn't say. Thanks for playing.

Cassiopeia said:

I don't believe I said it was ground breaking. It was just the FIRST time I knew in depth how it was being used. I believe it's cornflake who thinks this is new.

Click to expand...

This specific use of the data in this specific type of experimental way which defied professional ethics IS new. That's the entire point that you seem to be missing.

HEY! Dude...or dudette...I didn't make any such claims that it was this EXACT "experiment".

I'm speaking in generalizations that I knew such things were being done and have been done for decades.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but when you said...

Cassiopeia said:

I guess I've just known about this since early in 2013 so the shock has worn off.

Click to expand...

...in direct response to Richard describing why this specific type of experimental social data manipulation was different from past data mining by social media groups, it reads like you were referring to the experiment he was describing. Since, you know, you had just quoted him talking about it.

I bolded for emphasis. Your wording, not mine.

cornflake said:

I was talking to someone about this last night and the 'and btw, it's shitty pseudo-research' came up more than once. It appears (I didn't read the paper) to be an ill-conceived, ill-designed thing, aside from that it's completely bereft of ethics.

I wonder about the backgrounds of the hoodie-wearing tools who thought this up, and thought they had any right to do this.



How could you have known about it? Psychologists engaging in research don't do this to the public - that's why IRBs exist, and are so strict.

There obviously have, through history, been people who performed experiments on unwilling/unknowing subjects, same as there have been doctors who performed procedures on the same and etc. It's not a facet of one branch of science.

Click to expand...

I live in a university town, it's amazing how much the psych's here love to brag about their research and their test subjects, they're not exactly top secret studies.

milkweed said:

I live in a university town, it's amazing how much the psych's here love to brag about their research and their test subjects, they're not exactly top secret studies.

Click to expand...

I'm not positive what this is meant to mean, exactly, but what you bolded was two different things.

I was asking Cassiopeia how she could have known about it, and saying psychologists don't do this, that's why IRBs exist and are strict.

Cassiopeia - I'm sorry about your diagnosis. That sucks. Hope it's something that can be dealt with well.

In relation to this - we really seem to be talking about two entirely different things. One data-based, one experiential, as Opty and RG have also noted. If you find the articles though, happy to look.