We are Facebook’s digital guinea pigs: the web as a real-life experiment

Even if you didn't study psychology, you will have heard of the 1960s Milgram experiment, in which participants were made to believe that they had consciously administered deadly electric shocks to a stranger. The study, which has even been replicated as a TV documentary, is probably the most famous psychological experiment ever, not only for highlighting the ubiquity and morbid nature of mindless obedience, but also for violating important ethical guidelines for research. But that might have just changed.

Since the recent publication of an emotional contagion experiment using Facebook, there has been unprecedented popular debate into research ethics.

Indeed, it is hard to think of any other academic study in the history of the social sciences that has generated a comparable media reaction. Although the criticisms around ethics are completely justified – participants were not (a) asked for proper consent, (b) given the option to withdraw from the study, or (c) fully debriefed afterwards – it would be foolish to conclude that the world is suddenly passionate about research ethics. Hundreds of less ethical studies are conducted on a daily basis and they very rarely end up being discussed outside academic circles. Furthermore, since this sort of experiment does not realistically pose any threats to participants' wellbeing, it would have probably passed a proper ethics committee anyway.

It is therefore important to understand the true reasons underlying the popular outcry, concern, and perhaps fear, caused by this experiment. What particular nerve of society has this research touched? Should we worry about the prospect of being inadvertently used as digital guinea pigs? And what are the moral limits to what Facebook and friends can do? There are three key points to consider:

1) Privacy concerns have reached new highs

Little over a year has passed since the Snowden saga first hit the news, and consumers' trust in the internet has been declining steadily ever since. And just as the NSA debate was starting to get a little repetitive, the Facebook experiment emerged as another powerful symptom of the same disease: public concerns about privacy, in particular the clandestine use of their digital records. Judging by the media coverage, it would be reasonable to assume that millions of people around the world are deserting Facebook, gmail and Twitter in an attempt to overcome their fears. It seems, however, that we are not yet sufficiently paranoid to do this. In other words, the perceived benefits of using these services still outweigh the potential costs, though consumers' reaction must surely be interpreted as a sign of warning by the big internet players (and the small ones, too).

2) It is hard to trust someone when they are too powerful

If you believe in God, he is probably an exception to this rule. Otherwise we tend to equate power to greed and absolute power does not just corrupt, it also makes you untrustworthy. Facebook – like the other tech giants – is now seen as overly powerful, not only for being too rich and successful, but also for the perceived amount of information it has on us. And it does have a lot. Knowing how much they know is painful; but their public disclosure of their manipulation techniques is almost a provocation. This is why this experiment has been a much bigger PR blow for the company than the publication of its diversity record.

3) People overestimate the power of psychological manipulations

This may sound odd coming from someone who spends a great deal of his time advocating for the consumer and marketing applications of psychology.

However, the truth is that deliberate interventions to manipulate people's mood, even when they are grounded in robust psychological theories and implemented with state-of-the-art methodologies, are not as powerful as people think. Sure, our mood states are clearly affected by other people's behaviour – as well as movies, music, and ads – but the combined expertise of the world's leading scientists would not be sufficient to influence the mood of 10 average individuals as much as uncontrollable, random, or unobservable factors do. And besides, if Facebook had really cracked the formula for making people happy, it would probably apply it, not because it wants to make us happy, but because it wants us to use Facebook. Instead, Facebook has managed to make most people unhappy – about Facebook – though probably by accident. Needless to say, there are worse things about using Facebook than the prospect of being emotionally manipulated: for example, distractibility, productivity loss, antisocial behvaiours, and the unleashing of our narcissistic tendencies.

To conclude, this was an unfortunate experiment and Facebook surely regrets agreeing to it – it will need to work hard to restore its reputation, if that is at all possible. As for consumers, there is no real reason to worry. Yes, online players are actively trying to influence our behaviour, but no more so than the inhabitants of the analogue world are. Ultimately, we have the power to not be persuaded of things we don't want to do, unless we don't care.

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of business psychology at University College London and vice-president of research and innovation at Hogan Assessment Systems. He is co-founder of metaprofiling.com and author of Confidence: Overcoming Low Self-Esteem, Insecurity, and Self-Doubt.

To get weekly news analysis, job alerts and event notifications direct to your inbox, sign up free for Media Network membership.

All Guardian Media Network content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'Advertisement feature'. Find out more here.

Open bundled references in tabs:

Leave a Reply