Emotional Contagions in Social Networks

These results highlight several features of emotional contagion. First, because News Feed content is not “directed” toward anyone, contagion could not be just the result of some specific interaction with a happy or sad partner. Although prior research examined whether an emotion can be contracted via a direct interaction (1, 7), we show that simply failing to “overhear” a friend’s emotional expression via Facebook is enough to buffer one from its effects. Second, although nonverbal behavior is well established as one medium for contagion, these data suggest that contagion does not require nonverbal behavior (7, 8): Textual content alone appears to be a sufficient channel. This is not a simple case of mimicry, either; the cross-emotional encouragement effect (e.g., reducing negative posts led to an increase in positive posts) cannot be explained by mimicry alone, although mimicry may well have been part of the emotion-consistent effect. Further, we note the similarity of effect sizes when positivity and negativity were reduced. This absence of negativity bias suggests that our results cannot be attributed solely to the content of the post: If a person is sharing good news or bad news (thus explaining his/her emotional state), friends’ response to the news (independent of the sharer’s emotional state) should be stronger when bad news is shown rather than good (or as commonly noted, “if it bleeds, it leads;” ref. 12) if the results were being driven by reactions to news. In contrast, a response to a friend’s emotion expression (rather than news) should be proportional to exposure. A post hoc test comparing effect sizes (comparing correlation coefficients using Fisher’s method) showed no difference despite our large sample size (z = −0.36, P = 0.72).

We also observed a withdrawal effect: People who were exposed to fewer emotional posts (of either valence) in their News Feed were less expressive overall on the following days, addressing the question about how emotional expression affects social engagement online. This observation, and the fact that people were more emotionally positive in response to positive emotion updates from their friends, stands in contrast to theories that suggest viewing positive posts by friends on Facebook may somehow affect us negatively, for example, via social comparison (6, 13). In fact, this is the result when people are exposed to less positive content, rather than more. This effect also showed no negativity bias in post hoc tests (z = −0.09, P = 0.93).


Folksonomies: memetics social media emotions

/health and fitness/disorders/mental disorder/panic and anxiety (0.881791)
/family and parenting/children (0.796739)
/technology and computing/internet technology/social network (0.787464)

Emotional Contagions (0.714007 (:0.000000)), News Feed content (0.683578 (:0.000000)), negative posts (0.646598 (:0.000000)), good news (0.630144 (:0.000000)), positive posts (0.624089 (:0.000000)), friend’s emotional expression (0.618563 (:0.000000)), effects (0.599499 (:0.000000)), emotional state (0.597274 (:0.000000)), results (0.588443 (:0.000000)), direct interaction (0.584471 (:0.000000)), Social Networks (0.579304 (:0.000000)), features of emotional contagion (0.579182 (:0.000000)), simple case of mimicry (0.577541 (:0.000000)), friends’ response (0.566443 (:0.000000)), emotion (0.566190 (:0.000000)), observation (0.562356 (:0.000000)), cross-emotional encouragement effect (0.559919 (:0.000000)), contagion (0.558467 (:0.000000)), news (0.557898 (:0.000000)), response (0.556920 (:0.000000)), mimicry (0.555705 (:0.000000)), nonverbal behavior (0.555365 (:0.000000)), People (0.554536 (:0.000000)), negativity (0.550017 (:0.000000)), prior research (0.547931 (:0.000000)), fact (0.546769 (:0.000000)), friends (0.541883 (:0.000000)), contrast (0.541374 (:0.000000)), similarity of effect sizes (0.540015 (:0.000000)), result of some specific interaction (0.536567 (:0.000000)), positive emotion updates (0.535655 (:0.000000)), absence of negativity bias (0.535533 (:0.000000)), social engagement (0.534367 (:0.000000)), bad news (0.533627 (:0.000000)), data (0.530792 (:0.000000)), post hoc test (0.530587 (:0.000000)), effect (0.528781 (:0.000000)), part of the emotion-consistent effect (0.528484 (:0.000000)), valence (0.527843 (:0.000000)), medium (0.527558 (:0.000000)), theories (0.525303 (:0.000000)), person (0.522771 (:0.000000)), Facebook (0.522074 (:0.000000)), days (0.520388 (:0.000000)), difference (0.518240 (:0.000000)), question (0.517351 (:0.000000)), positivity (0.515717 (:0.000000)), example (0.511153 (:0.000000)), reactions (0.510656 (:0.000000))

Facebook:Company (0.680130 (:0.000000)), partner:JobTitle (0.441490 (:0.000000))

Emotion (0.961985): dbpedia_resource
Affect display (0.913845): dbpedia_resource
Psychology (0.862274): dbpedia_resource
Empathy (0.660963): dbpedia_resource
Affect (0.618806): dbpedia_resource
Affective science (0.589845): dbpedia_resource
Emotional expression (0.589403): dbpedia_resource
Emotional labor (0.583003): dbpedia_resource

 Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
Periodicals>Journal Article:  Kramer, Hancock, Guillory (March 25, 2014), Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks, Retrieved on 2018-11-27
  • Source Material [www.pnas.org]
  • Folksonomies: social media