Manipulation and Deception

Cohen, Shlomo

doi:10.1080/00048402.2017.1386692

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Of course, deception narrowly construed as intentionally causing false beliefs in one's victim may thus be a proper subset of manipulation, and so there can be manipulation without deception narrowly construed (cf. Cohen, 2018;Krstić & Saville, 2019;Susser et al, 2019b). 5 Gorin (2014, p. 79) defends a similar conclusion in reference to a 'transparency norm' that requires 'that an interactive partner not hide her intentions in interacting when these intentions are relevant to the intentions or interests of the person with whom she is interacting.'…”

Section: Thesis: Manipulation As Hidden Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

(Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless

Klenk

2021

Review of Social Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ever-increasing numbers of human interactions with intelligent software agents, online and offline, and their increasing ability to influence humans have prompted a surge in attention toward the concept of (online) manipulation. Several scholars have argued that manipulative influence is always hidden. But manipulation is sometimes overt, and when this is acknowledged the distinction between manipulation and other forms of social influence becomes problematic. Therefore, we need a better conceptualisation of manipulation that allows it to be overt and yet clearly distinct from related concepts of social influence. I argue that manipulation is careless influence, show how this account helps to alleviate the shortcomings of the hidden influence view of manipulation, and derive implications for digital ethics.

show abstract

Section: Thesis: Manipulation As Hidden Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

(Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless

Klenk

2021

Review of Social Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consumers are misled, when they are exposed to a form of communication that ‘compromises good judgement’ by way of ‘interfering’ with the process, or ‘form’ (Cohen, 2017: 4), of decision-making. Think, for instance, of advertisements that systematically exploit the psychological and emotional weaknesses of consumers (Honneth, 2014: 200–1, 214).…”

Section: (Mis-)recognition: An Expanded Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deception constitutes another form of consumption-disrespect. It ‘undermines judgement by interfering with its input (content)’ (Noggle, 1996: 43–55; Cohen, 2017: 4). Consider, for instance, companies that provide consumers with misleading or inaccurate accounts of (features of) their products.…”

Section: (Mis-)recognition: An Expanded Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the taxonomy of (mis-)recognition in the economic sphere

Schaub

Odigbo

2018

European Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article makes a contribution to debates in recognition theory by expanding the taxonomy of (mis-)recognition in the economic sphere. It argues that doing justice to the variety of ways in which recognition is engaged in economic relationships requires: (1) taking into consideration not just the recognition principle of esteem, but also (various aspects of) need and respect; (2) distinguishing a productive from a consumptive dimension with regards to each principle of recognition (need, esteem and respect); and (3) identifying the specific economic relationship at stake (e.g. between consumers and producers, or between employers and employees). In this way, we can account for the diversity of demands for recognition made in the economic sphere, explain what underpins them, and bring structure into these diverse phenomena. What is more, this expanded taxonomy is a useful tool for social pathology theorists, who should appreciate the full range of variants of misrecognition when diagnosing pathologies of misrecognition in the economic sphere.

show abstract

“…Recognising this possibility is a far cry from claiming hyperbolically that nudging is incompatible with truth-telling, but is important in itself and deserves more theoretical scrutiny. That being said, in this context too we should be alert to a possibility that until recently has not been clearly recognised, namely that manipulations can cause false beliefs yet nonetheless not amount to deception 3. Nudges that are ‘non-deceptive manipulations that cause false beliefs’ need not invalidate consent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even here there might be exceptions, but I agree there is a right light in which to evaluate these options. This, however, only shows how extreme, caricatural examples can obfuscate rather than clarify our understanding 3. (3) Ironically, insisting on there being ‘right’ appraisals opens the window for hard paternalism, in the process of opposing nudging, which is often advocated on grounds of merely soft paternalism, if at all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%