Picture
taken by Jonathan Acuña at Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France (2019)
Social Media
Ethics:
The
importance of consent forms in research studies
By
Prof. Jonathan Acuña-Solano, M. Ed.
|
|
Head
of Curriculum Development
Academic
Department
Centro
Cultural Costarricense-Norteamericano
|
Senior Language Professor
School of English
Faculty
of Social Sciences
Universidad
Latina de Costa Rica
|
Friday, July 17, 2020
Post
346
|
|
Back in 2012 a group of Facebook
researchers carried out a “Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment” that was highly
criticized because it sparked an ethical turmoil among those who oppose this
type of psychological tests without people’s consent. As pointed out by Meyer
(2014), this particular “study is different because, while other studies have
observed Facebook user data, this one set out to manipulate it.” Verma (2014),
in his editorial at PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences),
points out that this type of social research carried out by Facebook research
team “needs to be approached with sensitivity and with vigilance regarding
personal privacy issues.” The doubt arises; was this research proceeding then ethically approached by Facebook research
workers?
The fact that something seems to be
unethical does not necessarily mean that it is illegal. Nearly 700,000 Facebook
users participated in the experiment without them knowing they were doing so.
But how did this happen? Based on Meyer (2014), “The experiment is almost
nearly legal” because in the company’s terms of service, any user cede “the use
of their data for ‘data analysis, testing, [and] research.’” Using this legal
maneuver we can assume that the experiment was legal because none of those
700,000 users can claim that they were manipulated by the fine print in the
terms for service when you sign up for a Facebook account. On the other hand,
as Verma (2014) puts forward, “the principles of informed consent and
opportunity to opt out in connection with the research” in the Facebook paper
were not respected. But because this research was “conducted by Facebook, Inc.
for internal purposes”, “as a private company Facebook was under no obligation
to conform to the provisions of the Common Rule when it collected the data used
by the authors” (Verma 2014); consequently, the question about the legality of
the paper cannot be disputed.
But
was the study morally correct even though it was legal? One may tend to believe
that “emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion,
leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness” (Meyer,
2014). And if one is able to trigger a healthy, positive, downright state of
mind through emotional contagion, one
can believe that one can help foster and contribute with people’s healthy peace
of mind. Yet, is this so-called good deed
ethical? Are people expecting from a social media service to use their good deed algorithms to identify who
needs some emotional coaching to provoke more and more positive statuses and to
contribute with users’ mental health? I guess we are far from getting the moral
answer we deserve to get from social media companies such as Facebook; the lack
of a consent form to ignite positive thoughts among media users without them
knowing is something that was not clearly foreseen in this project. “The
collection of the data by Facebook may have involved,” says Verma (2014),
“practices that were not fully consistent with the principles of obtaining
informed consent and allowing participants to opt out.” To conclude, it can be
stated that this particular study was not morally correct when it did not allow
participants to know they were being random participants in a study and when
they were not informed that they could opt out if they felt they did not want
to take part in a research project on social media and emotional contagion
because their privacy was at stake.
As quoted out by Dr. Pope (n.d) on his
website, alluding to the American Psychological Association: Ethical Principles
of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,
“When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy,
counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or
other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the
individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to
that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent
is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this
Ethics Code.” In conclusion, based on this ethics
code referred by Dr. Pope, the Facebook research project was not morally
conducted by the research team. The terms
of use should not be used as a legal maneuver to avoid complying with the
APA’s Code of Ethics just because they are not obliged by the law to use a
consent form.
References
Meyer, R. (2014). Everything we know
about Facebook’s secret mood manipulation experiment: It was probably legal.
But was it ethical? The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/
Pope, K. (n.d). Informed Consent in
Psychotherapy & Counseling: Forms, Standards & Guidelines, &
References. Kspope.com https://kspope.com/consent/#:~:text=Excerpt%3A%20%223.10%20Informed%20Consent%20(,using%20language%20that%20is%20reasonably
Verma, I.M. (2014). Editorial Expression of Concern regarding the
ethics behind the collection of data for the paper Kramer, A.D.I., Guillory,
J.E. and Hancock, J.T (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional
contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science USA, (111:8788-8790) http://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10779.1.full
No comments:
Post a Comment