Techno-social engineering (TSE) theory argues that digital platforms shape and program human behaviors. We provide empirical evidence of this theory by introducing a novel method to conduct in-network studies on Facebook. We manipulate Facebook’s birthday notification system by recruiting confederates to change their birthday to a randomly assigned date and then measure network members’ responses in terms of whether they leave a greeting or question the veracity of the date. TSE theory leads us to expect that more participants will wish happy birthday on the fake date than question its veracity. We explore variables expected to predict heterogeneity in terms of response: prior birthday wish behavior, friends in common between the confederate and participant, and tie strength. All variables are associated with an increased likelihood of responding to the stimulus; however, none of these variables predict how individuals respond. Even participants who knew the confederate’s birthday and tracked it off-line were still tricked by the stimulus. Results offer empirical evidence supporting TSE theory and provide a new method for studying human–computer interaction.
AcquistiA.GrossR. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In DanezisG.GolleP. (Eds.), International workshop on privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11957454_3
BackstromL.BakshyE.KleinbergJ. M.LentoT. M.RosennI. (2011, July). Center of attention: How Facebook users allocate attention across friends. In Fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. The AAAI Press.
4.
BazarovaN. N.TaftJ. G.ChoiY. H.CosleyD. (2013). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12456384
5.
BrooksB.HoganB.EllisonN.LampeC.VitakJ. (2014). Assessing structural correlates to social capital in Facebook ego networks. Social Networks, 38, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.01.002
6.
CarrN. (2014). The glass cage: Automation and us. W.W. Norton.
7.
CialdiniR. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Pearson.
CvijikjI. P.MichahellesF. (2011, December). Monitoring trends on Facebook. In 2011 IEEE ninth international conference on dependable, autonomic and secure computing (pp. 895–902). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2011.150
10.
De MeoP.FerraraE.FiumaraG.ProvettiA. (2014). On Facebook, most ties are weak. Communications of the ACM, 57(11). https://doi.org/10.1145/2629438
11.
DeVitoM. A. (2017). From editors to algorithms: A values-based approach to understanding story selection in the Facebook news feed. Digital Journalism, 5(6), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1178592
12.
DunbarR. I. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks?Royal Society Open Science, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150292
13.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
14.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389
15.
EllisonN. B.VitakJ.GrayR.LampeC. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12078
16.
FeezellJ. T.OrtizB. (2019). “I saw it on Facebook”: An experimental analysis of political learning through social media. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1697340
17.
FoxJ.MorelandJ. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083
18.
FreelonD. (2013). ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 10–16.
FrischmannB. M.SelingerE. (2018). Re-engineering humanity. Cambridge University Press.
22.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
23.
GreitemeyerT.MüggeD. O.BollermannI. (2014). Having responsive Facebook friends affects the satisfaction of psychological needs more than having many Facebook friends. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.900619
24.
HaenschenK. (2016). Social pressure on social media: Using Facebook status updates to increase voter turnout. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 542–563.
25.
HardwickR. M.ForrenceA. D.KrakauerJ. W.HaithA. M. (2019). Time-dependent competition between habitual and goal-directed response preparation. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1252–1262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0725-0
26.
KalpokasI. (Ed.) (2019). Personalisation, emotion, and nudging. In Algorithmic governance: Politics and law in the post-human era (pp. 49–65). Palgrave Pivot.
KramerA. D.GuilloryJ. E.HancockJ. T., (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790.
31.
MathurA.AcarG.FriedmanM.LucheriniE.MayerJ.ChettyM.NarayananA. (2019). Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359183
PasqualeF. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.
34.
SasC.DixA.HartJ.SuR. (2009). Dramaturgical capitalization of positive emotions: The answer for Facebook success? In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: Celebrating people and technology (pp. 120–129). British Computer Society.
35.
SmockA. D.EllisonN. B.LampeC.WohnD. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322–2329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
SusserD.RoesslerB.NissenbaumH. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410
38.
TeresiH.MichelsonM. R. (2015). Wired to mobilize: The effect of social networking messages on voter turnout. The Social Science Journal, 52(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.09.004
39.
ViswanathB.MisloveA.ChaM.GummadiK. P. (2009). On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on online social networks (pp. 37–42). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592665.1592675
40.
YoderC.StutzmanF. (2011). Identifying social capital in the Facebook interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 585–588). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979025
