Higher Facebook Posts Predicts Slightly Higher Pride for Population

Higher Facebook Posts Predicts Slightly Higher Pride for Population

Contents

Variables

A
Facebook Posts 909
A
Pride 999

Categories

A
Social Interactions 78
A
Emotions 2028

Actions

A
Join Study
A
Your Data

Tags

Medium Confidence
Very Weak Effect Size
Positive Relationship
Population Study
cause image gauge image effect image
Participants reported a 13.6% average increase in Pride following above average Facebook Posts.

Abstract

Pride was generally 11% higher than average after a total of 9.5 event of Facebook Posts over the previous 7 days.

Aggregated data from 26 study participants suggests with a MEDIUM degree of confidence (p=0.213, 95% CI -0.601 to 0.922) that Facebook Posts has a weakly positive predictive relationship (R=0.161) with Pride.

The highest quartile of Pride measurements were observed following an average 13.9 event Facebook Posts per day.

The lowest quartile of Pride measurements were observed following an average 10.3 event of Facebook Posts per day.

After an onset delay of 0 seconds, Pride is typically 7% lower than average over the 7 days following around 10.3 event of Facebook Posts Facebook Posts.

Keywords: Facebook Posts, Pride, N-of-1 trials, real-world evidence, causal inference, observational study

Moderate Confidence: Based on 26 participants. More data would increase certainty.

Results

Primary Findings

Analysis of 473 paired observations from 26 participants revealed a minimal improvement in Pride following above-average Facebook Posts exposure.

+3.8%
Change from Baseline
Minimal effect on Pride
0.15
Predictor Impact Score
Weak evidence for causal relationship

Supporting Statistics

Medium
Confidence
0.161
Correlation (r)
p = 0.077
Significance
z = 0.66
Effect Magnitude
φ = 1.00
Temporality

What This Means

When participants had above-average Facebook Posts:

  • Pride increased by 3.8% on average
  • Temporal analysis supports Facebook Posts as the predictor (not the outcome)

Interpreting the Predictor Impact Score

The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) integrates multiple Bradford Hill causal criteria into a single metric. Use this guide to interpret the score:

PIS Range Interpretation Recommended Action
≥ 0.5 Strong evidence High priority for RCT validation
0.3 - 0.5 Moderate evidence Consider for experimental investigation
0.1 - 0.3 Weak evidence Monitor for additional data
< 0.1 Insufficient evidence Low priority; may be noise

Note: PIS is a prioritization heuristic, not proof of causation. High scores indicate relationships worth investigating, not confirmed causal effects. With only 26 participants, these scores are preliminary and will become more reliable as additional data is collected.

Optimal Daily Values (Precision Dosing)

Based on the observed relationship, we can estimate the predictor values associated with the best and worst outcomes. These values enable personalized dosing recommendations.

⚠️ Preliminary Data: With 26 participants and 473 observations, these optimal values are preliminary estimates. As more data is collected, precision will improve significantly.

9.5 event
Value Predicting Higher Pride
Average Facebook Posts when Pride exceeded its mean
12.2 event
Value Predicting Lower Pride
Average Facebook Posts when Pride was below its mean

What This Suggests

Pride tended to be highest when Facebook Posts was around 9.5 event.

Important: These values reflect correlations, not guaranteed causal effects. Individual responses may vary. Use as a starting point for personal experimentation, not as a definitive prescription. Consult healthcare providers before making treatment decisions.

Population Correlation

Facebook Posts Distribution

Pride Distribution

Statistical Summary

Relationship Statistics

Property Value
Cause Variable Name Facebook Posts
Effect Variable Name Pride
Sinn Predictive Coefficient 0.14857909522116
Confidence Level MEDIUM
Confidence Interval 0.76121254358659
Forward Pearson Predictive Coefficient 0.1605
Critical T Value 1.6510384615385
Total Facebook Posts Over Previous 7 days Before ABOVE Average Pride 13.9 event
Total Facebook Posts Over Previous 7 days Before BELOW Average Pride 10.3 event
Duration of Action 7 days
Effect Size weakly positive
Number of Paired Measurements 473
Optimal Pearson Product 0.2339017277293
P Value 0.21282526630815
Statistical Significance 0.077
Strength of Relationship 0.76121254358659
Study Type population
Analysis Performed At 2026-01-04
Number of Participants 26

Facebook Posts Info

Property Value
Variable Name Facebook Posts
Aggregation Method SUM
Analysis Performed At 2020-10-11
Duration of Action 7 days
Filling Value 0
Kurtosis 88.919441322101
Mean 0.51559340691057 event
Median 0.14634146341463 event
Minimum Allowed Value 0 event
Number of Aggregate Predictors 710
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 199
Number of Measurements 260487
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 247402
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 1.0624567782965
Unit Event
User Variables 249
Variable Category Social Interactions
Variable ID 1884
Variance 2.4337113928859

Pride Info

Property Value
Variable Name Pride
Aggregation Method MEAN
Analysis Performed At 2021-01-25
Duration of Action 24 hours
Kurtosis 2.1323643437355
Maximum Allowed Value 5 out of 5
Mean 2.2469480289622 out of 5
Median 2.2071096540628 out of 5
Minimum Allowed Value 1 out of 5
Number of Aggregate Predictors 895
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 104
Number of Measurements 21462
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 21462
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 0.50383781711499
Unit 1 to 5 Rating
User Variables 1270
UPC 0
Variable Category Emotions
Variable ID 1411
Variance 0.56713188699026

Introduction

Background

Facebook Posts (Social Interactions) and Pride (Emotions) are both important factors in understanding human health and well-being. This study investigates the relationship between these two variables using real-world observational data.

Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the gold standard for causal inference, are often impractical, expensive, or unethical for studying many health relationships. Aggregated N-of-1 observational studies offer a complementary approach that leverages within-subject comparisons across large populations to identify meaningful patterns.

Research Question

Do Facebook Posts affect Pride?

Additionally, we seek to determine:

  1. What is the direction and magnitude of any effect?
  2. How confident can we be in this relationship based on the available data?
  3. What are the optimal levels of Facebook Posts for maximizing Pride?

Study Objective

The objective of this study is to determine the nature of the relationship (if any) between Facebook Posts and Pride. Additionally, we attempt to determine the Facebook Posts values most likely to produce optimal Pride values.

Study Overview

This is a population-level observational study using aggregated N-of-1 methodology. By aggregating individual N-of-1 experiments, we can identify population-level patterns while accounting for the substantial individual variation that exists in most health relationships. Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline, enabling intuitive interpretation and comparison across different measures.

Full Methodology: Framework for Real-World Evidence-Based Pharmacovigilance: Aggregated N-of-1 Trials for Quantifying Treatment Effects

Discussion

Interpretation of Findings

Participants experienced a 3.8% improvement in Pride following above-average Facebook Posts exposure. The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) of 0.15 indicates weak evidence for a causal relationship.

Statistical Significance

Using a two-tailed t-test with alpha = 0.05, it was determined that the change in Pride is not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval. This suggests that the Facebook Posts value may not have a significant influence on the Pride value, or that more data is needed to detect an effect.

After treatment, a 13.6% increase (0.065 out of 5) from the mean baseline 2.34 out of 5 was observed. The relative standard deviation at baseline was 35.8692%. The observed change was 0.657575 times the standard deviation.

A common rule of thumb considers a change greater than twice the baseline standard deviation on two separate pre-post experiments may be considered significant. This occurrence would have only a 5% likelihood of resulting from random fluctuation (a p-value < 0.05).

T-Test Details
Observed t-value: 1.402
Critical t-value: 1.651

Since t = 1.40 < 1.65, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Biological Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between predictor and outcome is critical for interpreting observational findings. This is where human judgment excels beyond statistical analysis.

Community feedback on the biological plausibility of this relationship is still being collected. Consider the known mechanisms by which Facebook Posts might influence Pride.

Bradford Hill Criteria Assessment

The Bradford Hill criteria provide a framework for assessing causality in observational studies. Our methodology operationalizes six of the nine criteria through the Predictor Impact Score (PIS):

Criterion How Addressed Metric
Strength Effect size magnitude Percent change from baseline (Δ%), z-score
Consistency Cross-participant replication Number of users (N), number of pairs (n)
Temporality Predictor precedes outcome Temporality factor (φ), onset delay (δ > 0)
Biological Gradient Dose-response relationship Gradient coefficient (φgradient)
Plausibility Biological mechanism assessment Community votes on mechanism plausibility
Specificity Category appropriateness Interest factor (finterest)

Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

The PIS integrates multiple Bradford Hill criteria into a composite metric quantifying how reliably a predictor affects an outcome. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence:

Population-Level PIS:

$$\text{PIS}_{\text{agg}} = |r_{\text{forward}}| \cdot w \cdot \phi_{\text{users}} \cdot \phi_{\text{pairs}} \cdot \phi_{\text{change}} \cdot \phi_{\text{gradient}}$$

Where φ-factors are saturation functions approaching 1 as evidence accumulates:

  • φusers = 1 - e-N/10 (user saturation)
  • φpairs = 1 - e-n/nsig (pair saturation)
  • φchange = 1 - e-Δspread/Δsig (effect spread saturation)
  • w = weighted average of plausibility votes

Temporality Assessment

We assess evidence for correct causal direction using the temporality factor:

$$\phi_{\text{temporal}} = \frac{|r_{\text{forward}}|}{|r_{\text{forward}}| + |r_{\text{reverse}}|}$$

Values approaching 1 indicate the predictor precedes the outcome (supporting causation); values near 0.5 suggest ambiguous directionality; values near 0 suggest reverse causation or confounding by indication.

Limitations

As with any observational study, correlation does not prove causation. Key limitations include:

  • Unmeasured confounders: Variables not tracked may influence results
  • Self-selection bias: Health trackers may differ from the general population
  • Measurement error: Self-reported data may contain recall bias
  • Confounding by indication: Sicker individuals may use more treatments

However, within-subject comparison and temporal precedence analysis partially mitigate these limitations. If the relationship is merely coincidental, as participants independently modify their Facebook Posts values, the observed strength will decline over time. Spurious correlations naturally dissipate as more data is collected.

Future Directions

Future research should examine:

  • Subgroup analyses to identify individual differences in response
  • Potential confounders and mediators of the observed relationship
  • Optimal dosing and timing for Facebook Posts
  • Confirmation through prospective or randomized designs
  • Biological mechanisms underlying the observed effects

Conclusion

📊 Preliminary Findings: With 26 participants, these results are based on limited data. Effect sizes and confidence will improve as more participants contribute data. Consider these findings directional rather than definitive.

Above-average Facebook Posts was associated with a 3.8% improvement in Pride—a minimal effect. The Predictor Impact Score of 0.15 indicates this relationship is warranting continued monitoring.

Bottom Line: Based on a PIS of 0.15 and a 3.8% effect size, this relationship shows weak evidence. Additional observational data is recommended before investing in experimental validation. Note: These conclusions may strengthen or change direction as more data is collected.

These findings contribute to our understanding of how Facebook Posts may influence Pride in real-world conditions. While preliminary, these results may inform future research directions. As more participants contribute data, the reliability and precision of these findings will improve substantially.

Help End Unnecessary Suffering

Current clinical trials are 82x more expensive than necessary and take 17 years to bring treatments to market. Pragmatic trials integrated into standard healthcare could reduce costs from $41,000 to $500 per participant and compress timelines to just 2 years. Learn how redirecting just 1% of global military spending could accelerate cures for the 2 billion people suffering from treatable diseases.

Make Suffering Optional

Methods

Study Design

This study is based on data donated by 26 participants. Thus, the study design is equivalent to the aggregation of 26 separate n=1 observational natural experiments.

This within-subject design is powerful because it controls for all stable individual characteristics (genetics, baseline health status, socioeconomic factors) that might otherwise confound the relationship between variables.

Data Analysis

Temporal Assumptions

The analysis incorporates temporal assumptions about the relationship between variables:

  • Onset Delay: It was assumed that 0 seconds would pass before a change in Facebook Posts would produce an observable change in Pride.
  • Duration of Action: It was assumed that Facebook Posts could produce an observable change in Pride for as much as 7 days after the stimulus event.

Statistical Methods

For each participant, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between Facebook Posts values and subsequent Pride values. Individual correlations were then aggregated using Fisher's z-transformation to produce a population-level estimate:

Individual Correlation:

$$r_i = \frac{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)}{\sqrt{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)^2 \sum(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)^2}}$$

Fisher's Z-Transformation:

$$z_i = \frac{1}{2} \ln\left(\frac{1 + r_i}{1 - r_i}\right)$$

Aggregated Correlation:

$$\bar{r} = \tanh(\bar{z}) \quad \text{where} \quad \bar{z} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} z_i$$

Effect Size Calculation

Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline. For each participant, we compare the outcome following above-average predictor values to the overall baseline outcome:

$$\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}} = \frac{\bar{O}_{\text{follow-up}} - \bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}}{\bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}} \times 100$$

Effect Magnitude (Z-Score)

To assess effect magnitude relative to natural variability, we calculate the z-score:

$$z = \frac{|\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}}|}{\text{RSD}_{\text{baseline}}}$$

where RSDbaseline is the relative standard deviation of outcome during baseline period

A z-score > 2 indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05), meaning the observed change exceeds typical baseline fluctuation and is unlikely due to random variation.

Statistical Significance

Correlation significance is assessed using a two-tailed t-test:

$$t = \frac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-r^2}}$$

We reject the null hypothesis (ρ = 0) at α = 0.05 when |t| exceeds the critical value, providing statistical evidence that the observed relationship is not due to chance.

Data Sources

Facebook Posts data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Pride data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Data Quality

Data quality measures were applied to ensure reliable results:

  • Minimum Data Requirement: Only participants with sufficient paired observations were included in the analysis.
  • Outlier Handling: Extreme values were winsorized to reduce the influence of measurement errors.
  • Missing Data: Days with missing values were handled using appropriate filling strategies based on the variable type.
  • Test User Exclusion: Test accounts and invalid users were excluded from all analyses.

Principal Investigator

Program & Methods

Mike P. Sinn
Sinn, M. P.

Designed and implemented data collection, aggregation, causal inference pipeline, and automated study generation framework. Developed the Predictor Impact Score methodology operationalizing Bradford Hill criteria for ranking causal relationships in observational data. When he tells people this at parties, they usually say they have to go check on their car.

Individual study outputs are automated, reproducible, and open to external audit. (Which I would seriously recommend.)

Contact

Cite This Study

APA Format
Sinn, M. P. (2026). Causal Analysis: Does Facebook Posts Affect Pride?. The Journal of Citizen Science. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-1884-effect-1411-population-study
BibTeX 
@misc{sinn_cause_1884_effect_1411_population_study_2026,
  author = {Sinn, Mike P.},
  title = {Causal Analysis: Does Facebook Posts Affect Pride?},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {The Journal of Citizen Science},
  url = {https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-1884-effect-1411-population-study},
  note = {Accessed: January 6, 2026}
}
Chicago/Turabian
Sinn, Mike P. "Causal Analysis: Does Facebook Posts Affect Pride?." The Journal of Citizen Science. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-1884-effect-1411-population-study.
Harvard
Sinn, M.P., 2026. Causal Analysis: Does Facebook Posts Affect Pride?. [Aggregated N-of-1 Study] The Journal of Citizen Science. Available at: https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-1884-effect-1411-population-study [Accessed January 6, 2026].

Study Type: Aggregated N-of-1 Observational Mega-Study
Evidence Level: Level II (Real-World Evidence)
Methodology: Bradford Hill Criteria with Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

References

This framework was originally developed in 2013 based on the Bradford Hill criteria. Subsequent literature has independently validated similar approaches to causal inference from observational data:

  1. Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295-300. [Bradford Hill criteria]
  2. Lillie, E.O., et al. (2011). The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personalized Medicine, 8(2), 161-173. [N-of-1 methodology]
  3. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference . Cambridge University Press. [Causal inference]
  4. Hernán, M.A., & Robins, J.M. (2020). Causal Inference: What If . Chapman & Hall/CRC. [Free textbook]
  5. FDA (2018). Framework for FDA's Real-World Evidence Program . U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Regulatory context]
  6. Duan, N., et al. (2013). Single-patient (n-of-1) trials: a pragmatic clinical decision methodology . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), S21-S28.
  7. Platt, R., et al. (2018). The FDA Sentinel Initiative—an evolving national resource . New England Journal of Medicine, 379(22), 2091-2093.

This information is for research and educational purposes only, not medical advice. Consult a healthcare provider before making health decisions. Terms of Service

LinkedIn Reddit