Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
Sociology
SEE IMAGE (Case Study) Questions: Who is morally accountable for any harm caused by the study? Within a large organization like Facebook, how should responsibility for preventing unethical data conduct be distributed, and why might that be a challenge to figure out?

SEE IMAGE (Case Study) Questions: Who is morally accountable for any harm caused by the study? Within a large organization like Facebook, how should responsibility for preventing unethical data conduct be distributed, and why might that be a challenge to figure out?

Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
10th Edition
ISBN:9780134641287
Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Chapter1: Introducing Social Psychology
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1RQ1
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question

SEE IMAGE (Case Study)

Questions:

  1. Who is morally accountable for any harm caused by the study? Within a large organization like Facebook, how should responsibility for preventing unethical data conduct be distributed, and why might that be a challenge to figure out?
Case Study: In 2014 it was learned that Facebook had been experimenting on its own users' emotional manipulability, by altering the news feeds of almost 700,000 users to see whether Facebook engineers placing more positive or negative content in those feeds could create effects of positive or negative 'emotional contagion' that would spread between users. Facebook's published study which concluded that such emotional contagion could be induced via social networks on a "massive scale," was highly controversial, since the affected users were unaware that they were the subjects of a scientific experiment, or that their news feed was being used to manipulate their emotions and moods. Facebook's Data Use Policy, which users must agree to before creating an account, did not include the phrase "constituting informed consent for research" until four months after the study concluded. However, the company argued that their activities were still covered by the earlier data policy wording, even without the explicit reference to 'research.' Facebook also argued that the purpose of the study was consistent with the user agreement, namely, to give Facebook knowledge it needs to provide users with a positive experience on the platform. Critics objected on several grounds, claiming that: • Facebook violated long-held standards for ethical scientific research in the U.S. and Europe, which require specific and explicit informed consent from human research subjects involved in medical or psychological studies; • That such informed consent should not in any case be implied by agreements to a generic Data Use Policy that few users are known to carefully read or understand; • That Facebook abused users' trust by using their online data-sharing activities for an undisclosed and unexpected purpose; • That the researchers seemingly ignored the specific harms to people that can come from emotional manipulation. For example, thousands of the 689,000 study subjects almost certainly suffer from clinical depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder, but were not excluded from the study by those higher risk factors. The study lacked key mechanisms of research ethics that are commonly used to minimize the potential emotional harms of such a study, for example, a mechanism for debriefing unwitting subjects after the study concludes, or a mechanism to exclude participants under the age of 18 (another population especially vulnerable to emotional volatility).
Transcribed Image Text:Case Study: In 2014 it was learned that Facebook had been experimenting on its own users' emotional manipulability, by altering the news feeds of almost 700,000 users to see whether Facebook engineers placing more positive or negative content in those feeds could create effects of positive or negative 'emotional contagion' that would spread between users. Facebook's published study which concluded that such emotional contagion could be induced via social networks on a "massive scale," was highly controversial, since the affected users were unaware that they were the subjects of a scientific experiment, or that their news feed was being used to manipulate their emotions and moods. Facebook's Data Use Policy, which users must agree to before creating an account, did not include the phrase "constituting informed consent for research" until four months after the study concluded. However, the company argued that their activities were still covered by the earlier data policy wording, even without the explicit reference to 'research.' Facebook also argued that the purpose of the study was consistent with the user agreement, namely, to give Facebook knowledge it needs to provide users with a positive experience on the platform. Critics objected on several grounds, claiming that: • Facebook violated long-held standards for ethical scientific research in the U.S. and Europe, which require specific and explicit informed consent from human research subjects involved in medical or psychological studies; • That such informed consent should not in any case be implied by agreements to a generic Data Use Policy that few users are known to carefully read or understand; • That Facebook abused users' trust by using their online data-sharing activities for an undisclosed and unexpected purpose; • That the researchers seemingly ignored the specific harms to people that can come from emotional manipulation. For example, thousands of the 689,000 study subjects almost certainly suffer from clinical depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder, but were not excluded from the study by those higher risk factors. The study lacked key mechanisms of research ethics that are commonly used to minimize the potential emotional harms of such a study, for example, a mechanism for debriefing unwitting subjects after the study concludes, or a mechanism to exclude participants under the age of 18 (another population especially vulnerable to emotional volatility).
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Recommended textbooks for you
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134641287
Author:
Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:
Pearson College Div
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780393639407
Author:
Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum
Publisher:
W. W. Norton & Company
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis…
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis…
Sociology
ISBN:
9781305503076
Author:
Earl R. Babbie
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien…
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien…
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134477596
Author:
Saferstein, Richard
Publisher:
PEARSON
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134205571
Author:
James M. Henslin
Publisher:
PEARSON
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134206325
Author:
John J. Macionis
Publisher:
PEARSON
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS