Please read the attached pages. – respond to questions – Summary resp

Please read the attached pages.

– respond to questions
– Summary responding question
Experimentalevidenceofmassive-scaleemotionalcontagionthroughsocialnetworksAdamD.I.Kramera,1,JamieE.Guilloryb,2,andJeffreyT.Hancockb,caCoreDataScienceTeam,Facebook,Inc.,MenloPark,CA94025;andDepartmentsofbCommunicationandcInformationScience,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY14853EditedbySusanT.Fiske,PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ,andapprovedMarch25,2014(receivedforreviewOctober23,2013)Emotionalstatescanbetransferredtoothersviaemotionalcontagion,leadingpeopletoexperiencethesameemotionswithouttheirawareness.Emotionalcontagioniswellestablishedinlaboratoryexperiments,withpeopletransferringpositiveandnegativeemotionstoothers.Datafromalargereal-worldsocialnetwork,collectedovera20-yperiodsuggeststhatlonger-lastingmoods(e.g.,depression,happiness)canbetransferredthroughnetworks[FowlerJH,ChristakisNA(2008)BMJ337:a2338],al-thoughtheresultsarecontroversial.InanexperimentwithpeoplewhouseFacebook,wetestwhetheremotionalcontagionoccursoutsideofin-personinteractionbetweenindividualsbyreducingtheamountofemotionalcontentintheNewsFeed.Whenpositiveexpressionswerereduced,peopleproducedfewerpositivepostsandmorenegativeposts;whennegativeexpressionswerere-duced,theoppositepatternoccurred.TheseresultsindicatethatemotionsexpressedbyothersonFacebookinfluenceourownemotions,constitutingexperimentalevidenceformassive-scalecontagionviasocialnetworks.Thisworkalsosuggeststhat,incontrasttoprevailingassumptions,in-personinteractionandnon-verbalcuesarenotstrictlynecessaryforemotionalcontagion,andthattheobservationofothersÕpositiveexperiencesconstitutesapositiveexperienceforpeople.computer-mediatedcommunication|socialmedia|bigdataEmotionalstatescanbetransferredtoothersviaemotionalcontagion,leadingthemtoexperiencethesameemotionsasthosearoundthem.Emotionalcontagioniswellestablishedinlaboratoryexperiments(1),inwhichpeopletransferpositiveandnegativemoodsandemotionstoothers.Similarly,datafromalarge,real-worldsocialnetworkcollectedovera20-yperiodsuggeststhatlonger-lastingmoods(e.g.,depression,happiness)canbetransferredthroughnetworksaswell(2,3).TheinterpretationofthisnetworkeffectascontagionofmoodhascomeunderscrutinyduetothestudyÕscorrelationalnature,includingconcernsovermisspecificationofcontextualvariablesorfailuretoaccountforsharedexperiences(4,5),raisingim-portantquestionsregardingcontagionprocessesinnetworks.Anexperimentalapproachcanaddressthisscrutinydirectly;how-ever,methodsusedincontrolledexperimentshavebeencriti-cizedforexaminingemotionsaftersocialinteractions.Interactingwithahappypersonispleasant(andanunhappyperson,un-pleasant).Assuch,contagionmayresultfromexperiencinganinteractionratherthanexposuretoapartnerÕsemotion.Priorstudieshavealsofailedtoaddresswhethernonverbalcuesarenecessaryforcontagiontooccur,orifverbalcuesalonesuffice.Evidencethatpositiveandnegativemoodsarecorrelatedinnetworks(2,3)suggeststhatthisispossible,butthecausalquestionofwhethercontagionprocessesoccurforemotionsinmassivesocialnetworksremainselusiveintheabsenceofex-perimentalevidence.Further,othershavesuggestedthatinonlinesocialnetworks,exposuretothehappinessofothersmayactuallybedepressingtous,producinganÒalonetogetherÓsocialcomparisoneffect(6).Threestudieshavelaidthegroundworkfortestingthesepro-cessesviaFacebook,thelargestonlinesocialnetwork.Thisresearchdemonstratedthat(i)emotionalcontagionoccursviatext-basedcomputer-mediatedcommunication(7);(ii)contagionofpsy-chologicalandphysiologicalqualitieshasbeensuggestedbasedoncorrelationaldataforsocialnetworksgenerally(7,8);and(iii)peopleÕsemotionalexpressionsonFacebookpredictfriendsÕemotionalexpressions,evendayslater(7)(althoughsomesharedexperiencesmayinfactlastseveraldays).Todate,however,thereisnoexperimentalevidencethatemotionsormoodsarecontagiousintheabsenceofdirectinteractionbetweenexperiencerandtarget.OnFacebook,peoplefrequentlyexpressemotions,whicharelaterseenbytheirfriendsviaFacebookÕsÒNewsFeedÓproduct(8).BecausepeopleÕsfriendsfrequentlyproducemuchmorecontentthanonepersoncanview,theNewsFeedfiltersposts,stories,andactivitiesundertakenbyfriends.NewsFeedistheprimarymannerbywhichpeopleseecontentthatfriendsshare.WhichcontentisshownoromittedintheNewsFeedisde-terminedviaarankingalgorithmthatFacebookcontinuallydevelopsandtestsintheinterestofshowingviewersthecontenttheywillfindmostrelevantandengaging.Onesuchtestisreportedinthisstudy:Atestofwhetherpostswithemotionalcontentaremoreengaging.Theexperimentmanipulatedtheextenttowhichpeople(N=689,003)wereexposedtoemotionalexpressionsintheirNewsFeed.Thistestedwhetherexposuretoemotionsledpeopletochangetheirownpostingbehaviors,inparticularwhetherex-posuretoemotionalcontentledpeopletopostcontentthatwasconsistentwiththeexposureÑtherebytestingwhetherexposuretoverbalaffectiveexpressionsleadstosimilarverbalexpressions,aformofemotionalcontagion.PeoplewhoviewedFacebookinEnglishwerequalifiedforselectionintotheexperiment.Twoparallelexperimentswereconductedforpositiveandnegativeemotion:OneinwhichexposuretofriendsÕpositiveemotionalcontentintheirNewsFeedwasreduced,andoneinwhichex-posuretonegativeemotionalcontentintheirNewsFeedwasreduced.Intheseconditions,whenapersonloadedtheirNewsFeed,poststhatcontainedemotionalcontentoftherelevantemotionalvalence,eachemotionalposthadbetweena10%andSignificanceWeshow,viaamassive(N=689,003)experimentonFacebook,thatemotionalstatescanbetransferredtoothersviaemotionalcontagion,leadingpeopletoexperiencethesameemotionswithouttheirawareness.Weprovideexperimentalevidencethatemotionalcontagionoccurswithoutdirectinteractionbe-tweenpeople(exposuretoafriendexpressinganemotionissufficient),andinthecompleteabsenceofnonverbalcues.Authorcontributions:A.D.I.K.,J.E.G.,andJ.T.H.designedresearch;A.D.I.K.performedresearch;A.D.I.K.analyzeddata;andA.D.I.K.,J.E.G.,andJ.T.H.wrotethepaper.Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.ThisarticleisaPNASDirectSubmission.FreelyavailableonlinethroughthePNASopenaccessoption.1Towhomcorrespondenceshouldbeaddressed.Email:[email protected]:CenterforTobaccoControlResearchandEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,CA94143.8788Ð8790|PNAS|June17,2014|vol.111|no.24www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
90%chance(basedontheirUserID)ofbeingomittedfromtheirNewsFeedforthatspecificviewing.ItisimportanttonotethatthiscontentwasalwaysavailablebyviewingafriendÕscon-tentdirectlybygoingtothatfriendÕsÒwallÓorÒtimeline,ÓratherthanviatheNewsFeed.Further,theomittedcontentmayhaveappearedonpriororsubsequentviewsoftheNewsFeed.Fi-nally,theexperimentdidnotaffectanydirectmessagessentfromoneusertoanother.Postsweredeterminedtobepositiveornegativeiftheycon-tainedatleastonepositiveornegativeword,asdefinedbyLinguisticInquiryandWordCountsoftware(LIWC2007)(9)wordcountingsystem,whichcorrelateswithself-reportedandphysiologicalmeasuresofwell-being,andhasbeenusedinpriorresearchonemotionalexpression(7,8,10).LIWCwasadaptedtorunontheHadoopMap/Reducesystem(11)andintheNewsFeedfilteringsystem,suchthatnotextwasseenbytheresearchers.Assuch,itwasconsistentwithFacebookÕsDataUsePolicy,towhichallusersagreepriortocreatinganaccountonFacebook,constitutinginformedconsentforthisresearch.Bothexperimentshadacontrolcondition,inwhichasimilarpro-portionofpostsintheirNewsFeedwereomittedentirelyatrandom(i.e.,withoutrespecttoemotionalcontent).Separatecontrolconditionswerenecessaryas22.4%ofpostscontainednegativewords,whereas46.8%ofpostscontainedpositivewords.Soforapersonforwhom10%ofpostscontainingposi-tivecontentwereomitted,anappropriatecontrolwouldwith-hold10%of46.8%(i.e.,4.68%)ofpostsatrandom,comparedwithomittingonly2.24%oftheNewsFeedinthenegativity-reducedcontrol.Theexperimentstookplacefor1wk(January11Ð18,2012).ParticipantswererandomlyselectedbasedontheirUserID,resultinginatotalof??155,000participantsperconditionwhopostedatleastonestatusupdateduringtheexperimentalperiod.Foreachexperiment,twodependentvariableswereexaminedpertainingtoemotionalityexpressedinpeopleÕsownstatusupdates:thepercentageofallwordsproducedbyagivenpersonthatwaseitherpositiveornegativeduringtheexperimentalperiod(asinref.7).Intotal,over3millionpostswereanalyzed,containingover122millionwords,4millionofwhichwerepositive(3.6%)and1.8millionnegative(1.6%).IfaffectivestatesarecontagiousviaverbalexpressionsonFacebook(ouroperationalizationofemotionalcontagion),peo-pleinthepositivity-reducedconditionshouldbelesspositivecomparedwiththeircontrol,andpeopleinthenegativity-reducedconditionshouldbelessnegative.Asasecondarymea-sure,wetestedforcross-emotionalcontagioninwhichtheoppositeemotionshouldbeinverselyaffected:Peopleinthepositivity-reducedconditionshouldexpressincreasednegativity,whereaspeopleinthenegativity-reducedconditionshouldex-pressincreasedpositivity.Emotionalexpressionwasmodeled,onaper-personbasis,asthepercentageofwordsproducedbythatpersonduringtheexperimentalperiodthatwereeitherpositiveornegative.Positivityandnegativitywereevaluatedseparatelygivenevidencethattheyarenotsimplyoppositeendsofthesamespectrum(8,10).Indeed,negativeandpositivewordusescarcelycorrelated[r=??0.04,t(620,587)=??38.01,P<0.001].Weexaminedthesedatabycomparingeachemotionconditiontoitscontrol.Afterestablishingthatourexperimentalgroupsdidnotdifferinemotionalexpressionduringtheweekbeforetheexperiment(allt0.13),weexaminedoverallpostingrateviaaPoissonregression,usingthepercentofpostsomittedasaregressionweight.Omittingemotionalcontentreducedtheamountofwordsthepersonsubsequentlyproduced,bothwhenpositivitywasreduced(z=??4.78,P<0.001)andwhennegativitywasreduced(z=??7.219,P<0.001).Thiseffectoccurredbothwhennegativewordswereomitted(99.7%asmanywordswereproduced)andwhenpositivewordswereomitted(96.7%).Aninteractionwasalsoobserved,showingthattheeffectwasstrongerwhenpositivewordswereomitted(z=??77.9,P<0.001).Assuch,directexaminationofthefrequencyofpositiveandnegativewordswouldbeinappropriate:Itwouldbeconfoundedwiththechangeinoverallwordsproduced.Totestourhypothesisregardingemotionalcontagion,weconductedweightedlinearregressions,predictingthepercentageofwordsthatwerepositiveornegativefromadummycodeforcondition(experimentalver-suscontrol),weightedbythelikelihoodofthatpersonhavinganemotionalpostomittedfromtheirNewsFeedonagivenviewing,suchthatpeoplewhohadmorecontentomittedweregivenhigherweightintheregression.WhenpositivepostswerereducedintheNewsFeed,thepercentageofpositivewordsinpeopleÕsstatusupdatesdecreasedbyB=??0.1%comparedwithcontrol[t(310,044)=??5.63,P<0.001,CohenÕsd=0.02],whereasthepercentageofwordsthatwerenegativeincreasedbyB=0.04%(t=2.71,P=0.007,d=0.001).Conversely,whennegativepostswerereduced,thepercentofwordsthatwerenegativedecreasedbyB=??0.07%[t(310,541)=??5.51,P<0.001,d=0.02]andthepercentageofwordsthatwerepositive,conversely,increasedbyB=0.06%(t=2.19,P<0.003,d=0.008).Theresultsshowemotionalcontagion.AsFig.1illustrates,forpeoplewhohadpositivecontentreducedintheirNewsFeed,alargerpercentageofwordsinpeopleÕsstatusupdateswerenegativeandasmallerpercentagewerepositive.Whennegativitywasreduced,theoppositepatternoccurred.Theseresultssug-gestthattheemotionsexpressedbyfriends,viaonlinesocialnetworks,influenceourownmoods,constituting,toourknowl-edge,thefirstexperimentalevidenceformassive-scaleemotionalcontagionviasocialnetworks(3,7,8),andprovidingsupportforpreviouslycontestedclaimsthatemotionsspreadviacontagionthroughanetwork.Theseresultshighlightseveralfeaturesofemotionalconta-gion.First,becauseNewsFeedcontentisnotÒdirectedÓtowardanyone,contagioncouldnotbejusttheresultofsomespecificinteractionwithahappyorsadpartner.Althoughpriorresearchexaminedwhetheranemotioncanbecontractedviaadirectinteraction(1,7),weshowthatsimplyfailingtoÒoverhearÓafriendÕsemotionalexpressionviaFacebookisenoughtobuffer??1.505.05.15.25.35.4??1.80??1.70??1.60Positive Words (per cent)Negative Words (per cent)Negativity ReducedPositivity ReducedControlExperimentalFig.1.Meannumberofpositive(Upper)andnegative(Lower)emotionwords(percent)generatedpeople,bycondition.Barsrepresentstandarderrors.Krameretal.PNAS|June17,2014|vol.111|no.24|8789PSYCHOLOGICALANDCOGNITIVESCIENCES
onefromitseffects.Second,althoughnonverbalbehavioriswellestablishedasonemediumforcontagion,thesedatasuggestthatcontagiondoesnotrequirenonverbalbehavior(7,8):Textualcontentaloneappearstobeasufficientchannel.Thisisnotasimplecaseofmimicry,either;thecross-emotionalencourage-menteffect(e.g.,reducingnegativepostsledtoanincreaseinpositiveposts)cannotbeexplainedbymimicryalone,althoughmimicrymaywellhavebeenpartoftheemotion-consistenteffect.Further,wenotethesimilarityofeffectsizeswhenpositivityandnegativitywerereduced.Thisabsenceofnegativitybiassuggeststhatourresultscannotbeattributedsolelytothecontentofthepost:Ifapersonissharinggoodnewsorbadnews(thusexplaininghis/heremotionalstate),friendsÕresponsetothenews(in-dependentofthesharerÕsemotionalstate)shouldbestrongerwhenbadnewsisshownratherthangood(orascommonlynoted,Òifitbleeds,itleads;Óref.12)iftheresultswerebeingdrivenbyreactionstonews.Incontrast,aresponsetoafriendÕsemotionexpression(ratherthannews)shouldbeproportionaltoexposure.Aposthoctestcomparingeffectsizes(comparingcorrelationcoefficientsusingFisherÕsmethod)showednodifferencede-spiteourlargesamplesize(z=??0.36,P=0.72).Wealsoobservedawithdrawaleffect:Peoplewhowereex-posedtofeweremotionalposts(ofeithervalence)intheirNewsFeedwerelessexpressiveoverallonthefollowingdays,ad-dressingthequestionabouthowemotionalexpressionaffectssocialengagementonline.Thisobservation,andthefactthatpeopleweremoreemotionallypositiveinresponsetopositiveemotionupdatesfromtheirfriends,standsincontrasttotheoriesthatsuggestviewingpositivepostsbyfriendsonFacebookmaysomehowaffectusnegatively,forexample,viasocialcomparison(6,13).Infact,thisistheresultwhenpeopleareexposedtolesspositivecontent,ratherthanmore.Thiseffectalsoshowednonegativitybiasinposthoctests(z=??0.09,P=0.93).Althoughthesedataprovide,toourknowledge,someofthefirstexperimentalevidencetosupportthecontroversialclaimsthatemotionscanspreadthroughoutanetwork,theeffectsizesfromthemanipulationsaresmall(assmallasd=0.001).Theseeffectsnonethelessmattergiventhatthemanipulationoftheindependentvariable(presenceofemotionintheNewsFeed)wasminimalwhereasthedependentvariable(peopleÕsemo-tionalexpressions)isdifficulttoinfluencegiventherangeofdailyexperiencesthatinfluencemood(10).Moreimportantly,giventhemassivescaleofsocialnetworkssuchasFacebook,evensmalleffectscanhavelargeaggregatedconsequences(14,15):Forexample,thewell-documentedconnectionbetweenemotionsandphysicalwell-beingsuggeststheimportanceofthesefindingsforpublichealth.Onlinemessagesinfluenceourexperienceofemotions,whichmayaffectavarietyofofflinebehaviors.Andafterall,aneffectsizeofd=0.001atFacebookÕsscaleisnotnegligible:Inearly2013,thiswouldhavecorre-spondedtohundredsofthousandsofemotionexpressionsinstatusupdatesperday.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.WethanktheFacebookNewsFeedteam,especiallyDanielSchafer,forencouragementandsupport;theFacebookCoreDataScienceteam,especiallyCameronMarlow,MoiraBurke,andEytanBakshy;plusMichaelMacyandMathewAldridgefortheirfeedback.Dataprocessingsystems,per-useraggregates,andanonymizedresultsavailableuponrequest.1.HatfieldE,CacioppoJT,RapsonRL(1993)Emotionalcontagion.CurrDirPsycholSci2(3):96Ð100.2.FowlerJH,ChristakisNA(2008)Dynamicspreadofhappinessinalargesocialnetwork:Longitudinalanalysisover20yearsintheFraminghamHeartStudy.BMJ337:a2338.3.RosenquistJN,FowlerJH,ChristakisNA(2011)Socialnetworkdeterminantsofde-pression.MolPsychiatry16(3):273Ð281.4.Cohen-ColeE,FletcherJM(2008)Isobesitycontagious?Socialnetworksvs.environ-mentalfactorsintheobesityepidemic.JHealthEcon27(5):1382Ð1387.5.AralS,MuchnikL,SundararajanA(2009)Distinguishinginfluence-basedcontagionfromhomophily-drivendiffusionindynamicnetworks.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA106(51):21544Ð21549.6.TurkleS(2011)AloneTogether:WhyWeExpectMorefromTechnologyandLessfromEachOther(BasicBooks,NewYork).7.GuilloryJ,etal.(2011)Upsetnow?Emotioncontagionindistributedgroups.ProcACMCHIConfonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(AssociationforComputingMachinery,NewYork),pp745Ð748.8.KramerADI(2012)ThespreadofemotionviaFacebook.ProcCHI(AssociationforComputingMachinery,NewYork),pp767Ð770.9.PennebakerJW,ChungCK,IrelandM,GonzalesA,BoothRJ(2007)ThedevelopmentandpsychologicalpropertiesofLIWC2007.Availableathttp://liwc.net/howliwcworks.php.AccessedMay10,2014.10.GolderSA,MacyMW(2011)Diurnalandseasonalmoodvarywithwork,sleep,anddaylengthacrossdiversecultures.Science333(6051):1878Ð1881.11.ThusooA;FacebookDataInfrastructureTeam(2009)HiveÐAwarehousingsolutionoveramap-reduceframework.ProcVLDB2(2):1626Ð1629.12.BaumeisterRF,BratslavskyE,FinkenauerC,VohsKD(2001)Badisstrongerthangood.RevGenPsychol5(4):323Ð370.13.FestingerL(1954)Atheoryofsocialcomparisonprocesses.HumRelat7(2):117Ð140.14.PrenticeDA,MillerDT(1992)Whensmalleffectsareimpressive.PsycholBull112(1):160Ð164.15.BondRM,etal.(2012)A61-million-personexperimentinsocialinfluenceandpoliticalmobilization.Nature489(7415):295Ð298.8790|www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111Krameretal.
EditorialExpressionofConcernandCorrectionPSYCHOLOGICALANDCOGNITIVESCIENCESPNASispublishinganEditorialExpressionofConcernre-gardingthefollowingarticle:ÒExperimentalevidenceofmassive-scaleemotionalcontagionthroughsocialnetworks,ÓbyAdamD.I.Kramer,JamieE.Guillory,andJeffreyT.Hancock,whichappearedinissue24,June17,2014,ofProcNatlAcadSciUSA(111:8788Ð8790;firstpublishedJune2,2014;10.1073/pnas.1320040111).Thispaperrepresentsanimportantandemerg-ingareaofsocialscienceresearchthatneedstobeapproachedwithsensitivityandwithvigilanceregardingpersonalprivacyissues.Questionshavebeenraisedabouttheprinciplesofinformedconsentandopportunitytooptoutinconnectionwiththere-searchinthispaper.Theauthorsnotedintheirpaper,Ò[Thework]wasconsistentwithFacebookÕsDataUsePolicy,towhichallusersagreepriortocreatinganaccountonFacebook,con-stitutinginformedconsentforthisresearch.ÓWhentheauthorspreparedtheirpaperforpublicationinPNAS,theystatedthat:ÒBecausethisexperimentwasconductedbyFacebook,Inc.forinternalpurposes,theCornellUniversityIRB[InstitutionalRe-viewBoard]determinedthattheprojectdidnotfallunderCor-nellÕsHumanResearchProtectionProgram.ÓThisstatementhassincebeenconfirmedbyCornellUniversity.ObtaininginformedconsentandallowingparticipantstooptoutarebestpracticesinmostinstancesundertheUSDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesPolicyfortheProtectionofHumanResearchSubjects(theÒCommonRuleÓ).AdherencetotheCom-monRuleisPNASpolicy,butasaprivatecompanyFacebookwasundernoobligationtoconformtotheprovisionsoftheCommonRulewhenitcollectedthedatausedbytheauthors,andtheCommonRuledoesnotprecludetheiruseofthedata.Basedontheinformationprovidedbytheauthors,PNASeditorsdeemeditappropriatetopublishthepaper.ItisneverthelessamatterofconcernthatthecollectionofthedatabyFacebookmayhaveinvolvedpracticesthatwerenotfullyconsistentwiththeprin-ciplesofobtaininginformedconsentandallowingparticipantstooptout.InderM.VermaEditor-in-Chiefwww.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412469111PSYCHOLOGICALANDCOGNITIVESCIENCESCorrectionforÒExperimentalevidenceofmassive-scaleemotionalcontagionthroughsocialnetworks,ÓbyAdamD.I.Kramer,JamieE.Guillory,andJeffreyT.Hancock,whichappearedinissue24,June17,2014,ofProcNatlAcadSciUSA(111:8788Ð8790;firstpublishedJune2,2014;10.1073/pnas.1320040111).Theauthorsnotethat,ÒAtthetimeofthestudy,themiddleauthor,JamieE.Guillory,wasagraduatestudentatCornellUniversityunderthetutelageofseniorauthorJeffreyT.Hancock,alsoofCornellUniversity(GuilloryisnowapostdoctoralfellowatCenterforTobaccoControlResearchandEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,CA94143).ÓTheauthorandaf-filiationlineshavebeenupdatedtoreflecttheabovechangesandapresentaddressfootnotehasbeenadded.Theonlineversionhasbeencorrected.Thecorrectedauthorandaffiliationlinesappearbelow.AdamD.I.Kramera,1,JamieE.Guilloryb,2,andJeffreyT.Hancockb,caCoreDataScienceTeam,Facebook,Inc.,MenloPark,CA94025;andDepartmentsofbCommunicationandcInformationScience,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY148531Towhomcorrespondenceshouldbeaddressed.Email:[email protected]:CenterforTobaccoControlResearchandEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanFrancisco,CA94143.www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412583111www.pnas.orgPNAS|July22,2014|vol.111|no.29|10779CORRECTION
Cognitive Capstone Spring 2023Ethics Reading AssignmentName: _______________________________Facebook StudyKramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scaleemotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 111(24), 8788-8790.1. What can you predict about the study from reading just the title? 2. After reading the significance statement, do any of your impressions of the study change? 3a. What was the inclusion criterion for the study? Was this a truly experimental design?Why/why not? 3b. What groups were being compared in each of the two parallel studies (ie what is the IV)? 3c. How was the emotional content of posts (as either positive or negative) determined? 3d. Why do the authors say the study was consistent with FacebookÕs Data Use Policy? 3e. How were the dependent variables operationalized? 4a. What is the correlation between percentage of positive and negative words produced? Whatis the significance (p-value)?Why is the p-value significant even though the negative and positive words are ÒscarcelycorrelatedÓ?4b. Next, letÕs look at the results for when positive posts were reduced in the News Feed.What happened to the percentage of positive words in peopleÕs status updates?p-value: _______CohenÕs d: _________What happened to the percentage of negative words in peopleÕs status updates?p-value: __________CohenÕs d: ___________4c. Now look at the results for when negative posts were reduced in the News Feed.
What happened to the percentage of negative words in peopleÕs status updates?p-value: _________CohenÕs d: ___________What happened to the percentage of positive words in peopleÕs status updates?p-value: _________CohenÕs d: ___________4d. Now that you know the size of the effects, describe how well you think Figure 1 representsthe results. [Note: pay particular attention to the y-axis scaling] 5. What is the authorsÕ main conclusion? 6a. The authors state: ÒÉthe effect sizes from the manipulations are small (as small as d =0.001). These effects nonetheless matterÉÓ What reasons do they give? 6b. Do you think these results have practical significance? 7. After reading the Editorial Expression of Concern, write a response regarding the ethicalconcerns raised by this article.
ChatGPT Articleshttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/07/chatgpt-bot-excel-ai-chatbot-tech https://cognitiontoday.com/the-chatgpt-effect-how-advanced-ai-changes-us/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/why-everyones-obsessed-with-chatgpt-a-mind-blowing-ai-chatbot/ After reading these three articles, write a (max 1 page) response regarding the ethics of using AI(artificial intelligence) tools for learning and/or research purposes. Include answers to thefollowing questions in addition to any general thoughts/opinions on the topic.? What are the pros and cons of using ChatGPT (or other AI tools) to help with yourresearch?? How is this similar and different from using Sparknotes, Quizlet, or other learningtools?? Would you consider it plagiarism if you ask ChatGPT to help with ideas for your nextresearch project? What about asking it to write a full paragraph for an assignment? Ifyou edit the paragraph, does that change the answer?? What are ways to use ChatGPT ethically in research? Or is it never ethical to use a textgeneration system? 6

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.