Facebook has again attracted attention for deceptive practices. In this case, Facebook conducted a research study to determine whether the emotional content of the newsfeed influenced the behavior of Facebook users. The content was purposefully manipulated (an experiment) rather than naturally occurring (a correlational study).
There seem two parts to this story. First, there is the behavior of Facebook. Second, there is the behavior of university faculty members who helped design the study and then reported the results without clearing the study with the University Human Subjects Review Committee.
I am in a better position to comment on university research expectations than business practices. This was essentially a social psychology experiment. Social psychologists frequently manipulate subject mood using methods involving deception. If you inform research subjects that they are involved in a study that will involve manipulation of their mood, the outcome of the research is suspect. Deception can be employed. HOWEVER, a review committee evaluates the methodology to consider the potential impact of the manipulation and the potential benefit of the research, participants know they are participating in a research study, and after completing the study students are debriefed to help them understand the nature of the research and to suggest possible assistance participants might seek should they have negative consequences as a result of the research. While deception can be involved, participants are informed they can withdraw from research without malice. Deception during an experiment should not continue once the participants has completed the study.
Psychologists are familiarized with ethical research practices. Even students in introductory psychology courses, perhaps because they frequently serve as research participants, would be introduced to the guidelines I have described here. In my opinion, the researchers have violated ethical guidelines.
I follow this analysis with several references offering different opinions. I do not buy the argument that researchers were operating independently of their institutions and hence not bound by Human Subjects requirements. The academics list their university affiliation in the publication that results from the study.
“Because the research was conducted independently by Facebook and Professor Hancock had access only to results— and not to any data at any time—Cornell University’s Institutional Review Board concluded that he was not directly engaged in human research and that no review by the Cornell Human Research Protection Program was required,” the statement said.
