
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


You may have heard that Facebook manipulated the content of user's New Feeds during January of 2012 so that some users saw more positive posts than others, which other Facebook users saw more negative posts. How did this affect these users? Did those who say negative posts become more negative and vice versa? The answer is that the research indicates that some of them - though a very, very few of them - did subsequently write posts that were similar to the ones that saw on their News Feed. How big of an effect is this? Is it unethical? Does agreeing to Facebook's Terms of Use constitute "informed consent". I examine these questions in this episode of The Psych Files.
By Michael Britt4.2
288288 ratings
You may have heard that Facebook manipulated the content of user's New Feeds during January of 2012 so that some users saw more positive posts than others, which other Facebook users saw more negative posts. How did this affect these users? Did those who say negative posts become more negative and vice versa? The answer is that the research indicates that some of them - though a very, very few of them - did subsequently write posts that were similar to the ones that saw on their News Feed. How big of an effect is this? Is it unethical? Does agreeing to Facebook's Terms of Use constitute "informed consent". I examine these questions in this episode of The Psych Files.

22,036 Listeners

63,739 Listeners

43,647 Listeners

11,351 Listeners

1,081 Listeners

1,219 Listeners

1,858 Listeners

517 Listeners

814 Listeners

1,138 Listeners

945 Listeners

3,902 Listeners

2,876 Listeners

118 Listeners

1,546 Listeners

1,375 Listeners

1,388 Listeners

603 Listeners

331 Listeners

8,276 Listeners

334 Listeners

402 Listeners

808 Listeners

725 Listeners

20,370 Listeners