
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion in social networks (2014) - kevmo
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full
======
StefanKarpinski
An important point about this result: the significance is high because they
had a huge population to test on, but the effect size is very small. The
effect size is 0.001 which means that if one of your friends posts something
negative (or positive), you have a 1/1000 chance of also posting something
negative (or positive) as a result that you wouldn't otherwise have posted.

~~~
b_tterc_p
Anyone want to do a power calculation for an effect size of 0.001 and a sample
size of 700,000?

Eyeballing it, I’m not convinced that’s enough.

------
eiaoa
This needs "(2014)" added to the title.

This appears to be a repost of the famous Facebook study that manipulated
people's news feeds:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-
we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/)

~~~
pie_hacker
I agree. Although perhaps more infamous than famous.

------
TomJoeJohn
I thought it was common sense

~~~
trustmath
Evidence is better than common sense.

