Compare and contrast behavioral, social-cognitive, and cognitive theories of development. Using ethological theory, explain why insecurely attached babies will probably have more relationship problems in life compared to securely attached children. Compare and contrast Piaget’s first three stages of cognitive development. Use Baumrind’s theory to show how parenting styles and discipline intersect. Compare and contrast […]
Best Practice Standards: Does Accreditation Matter? [WLO: 1] [CLO: 2] An increasing number of nonprofit organizations are seeking accreditation from an outside source to demonstrate best practices to their stakeholders. For this discussion forum, you will discuss the importance of accreditation. Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, Read Chapter 6 of the textbook. […]
APA style The assignment should include,your thoughts/beliefs and experiences with: Christian faith, life commitment, and service Social and political action Poor, oppressed and at-risk populations Discrimination, racism, prejudice (both overt and covert) Cultural competence and diversity training Lifestyles and values that are different from oneself
Enhancing Team and Work Group Collaboration Working together in groups requires cooperating and collaborating with others. Explain the types of teams that an organization may use to perform cooperative work. Discuss the process that can change a group of individual performers into a team.
Resistance often occurs in response to change. What do you believe are the most effective ways to overcome resistance? Include personal experience and scholarly research with to support your response.
Please submit your responses as a Word document (.docx file). Take the Inventory (https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-BFFM/) and record your score. Construct a 4-5-page (not including title page and reference section, no abstract needed) paper detailing the function of this tool. Then discuss using the Big 5 Personality Assessment as a job performance predictor. Investigate its merits and […]
See attached documents Self and Emotion Name of Student PSY 2743: Social Psychology Date Professor Justin Teeman Oklahoma City Community College Self and Emotion To begin you will give a brief summary of each of the two videos posted. I recommend using a separate paragraph for each video summary and discussion. You need to highlight […]
Please be done for 11:15?? Select and watch one of the following videos presented about some of the most current issues in neuroscience. In this forum, discuss several interesting things that you learned from the video you watched. Be sure to respond to at least one other student, with an fact-based answer. Nadine Burke Harris: […]
Please label part one and two and both of their separate parts PART 1 Post 1: Are mind and body two separate things (dualism)? Or two parts of one thing (monism)? If the body dies, does the mind die also? Is the soul something separate from body and mind? Why do scientists study the mind […]
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 […]