News Navigation

Facebook Emotion Contagion: For Better or Worse?

Over the past week, Facebook has courted controversy when a Facebook Scientist and two academics published a paper revealing that they manipulated close to 700,000 Facebook feeds to test the psychological theory of "emotion contagion" - namely that our social circles' mood affects our own. While some baulked at the research taking place at all, others questioned the research methods' validity, hypothesising that it was merely a cheap trick to farm more advertising revenue. Of course, most were just shocked that their data could be used in this way without consent (note that Facebook's Ts&Cs only added a research clause to their privacy policy four months after the study began, according to The Guardian). Originally appearing in The Drum, FCB Inferno's David Jackson plays devil's advocate, arguing the case for the study to take place: 

In defence of Facebook's controversial news feed experiment

by David Jackson, senior strategist, FCB Inferno

Facebook’s "emotion contagion" experiment, in which the social media giant edited feeds to highlight either positive or negative items, has caused outrage among users and the media alike.
I personally find this experiment fascinating; to do an emotional experiment with a sample of nearly 700,000 people would be very hard and prohibitively expensive. So, what a fantastic opportunity Facebook has with access to 1 billion users to further understand human behaviour. The strategy department at FCB Inferno recently completed an interesting course in behavioural economics from Dan Ariely (Predictably Irrational) and this experiment is not dissimilar to some of the work in human behaviour that Dan has been doing.
With the massive rise of social media, we must better understand the emotional impact it has on us, though studies have already shown that the more interaction someone has on Facebook the more concerned they are with their physical appearance. We can also no longer hide away and forget ex-partners as their every move is documented for us to see and cyber bullying is a growing problem in schools. Both of these examples have caused upsetting news stories lately.
Social media has an emotional impact on every user and all this experiment was trying to ascertain was what impact the sentiment of our networks has on our own behaviour and emotional state. I suppose the results are not that surprising - happy people make us happy - but the level at which a Facebook news feed can influence our emotions is slightly concerning: maybe we should be questioning that and not the experiment itself.
There is an on-going backlash against personal data privacy and this trend is growing, but I think it is getting to the stage of complaining for the sake of complaining.  We have Facebook accounts and openly give them data: I say how they run their website is down to them. They want to improve their service and get us to spend more time on site, if you don’t like that, close your account. It’s really that simple.
The thing is, the majority of people don’t understand the extent in which their personal data is used every day to deliver both content and advertising. Online digital manipulation is happening all the time without us knowing or complaining, so much so that two different people searching for "Apple" could be shown leading results as different as the fruit and the iPhone based on their online footprint.
We have learnt more about the human brain over the last few years than ever before, we believe we are all individual and unique but we herd like animals and our behaviour is surprisingly predictable. I personally believe that the more we can learn about what influences our behaviour the better. 

Nefarious methods and murky ethics, fact of the future or much ado about nothing? Tweet us your thoughts on the issue at @FCBglobal!