Retorikkens brændpunkt

Fafner, Jørgen

doi:10.52610/sxjj2879

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different approaches to behavior changes in persuasive systems may differ in transparency. The rhetorical concept of "peithenanke" refers to a non-transparent approach of behavior design to persuasion involving potential manipulation (Ehninger, 1972;Fafner, 1997;Gram-Hansen, 2019). In contrast, transparent "persuasive design" adopts a more ethical approach (Gram-Hansen, 2019) and has significant potential for digital behavior design in domains such as health and sustainability (Gram-Hansen & Gram-Hansen, 2013 ;Miller, 2002;Spahn, 2011).…”

Section: Transparency Of System Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency in persuasive technology, immersive technology, and online marketing: Facilitating users’ informed decision making and practical implications

Wang

Bush-Evans²,

Arden‐Close³

et al. 2023

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Transparency Of System Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency in persuasive technology, immersive technology, and online marketing: Facilitating users’ informed decision making and practical implications

Wang

Bush-Evans²,

Arden‐Close³

et al. 2023

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…. audience using non-transparent methods, such as manipulation (Ehninger, 1972;Fafner, 1997;Gram-Hansen, 2019). Persuasion can be based on proper reasoning or on strategies to reach the primordial brain.…”

Section: Persuasion and Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It shall now be noted that persuasion can result from peithenanke , which, in rhetoric, consists of winning over the audience using non-transparent methods, such as manipulation (Ehninger, 1972 ; Fafner, 1997 ; Gram-Hansen, 2019 ).…”

Section: Persuasion and Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persuasive Technology and computational manipulation: hypernudging out of mental self-determination

Faraoni

2023

Front. Artif. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial Intelligence, unperceived, can acquire the user's data, find connections not visible by a human being, profile the users, and aim at persuading them, resulting in Persuasive Technology (PT). During the persuasive process, PT can use manipulation, finding and using routes to affect System 1, the primordial brain of individuals, in the absence of their awareness, undermining their decision-making processes. Multiple international and European bodies recognized that AI systems could use manipulation at an unprecedented degree via second-generation dark patterns such as the hypernudge and that computational manipulation constitutes a risk for autonomy and different, overlapping, fundamental rights such as privacy, informational self-determination and freedom of thought. However, there is a lack of shared ideas regarding which fundamental rights are violated by computational manipulation and which fundamental rights can protect individuals against it. The right to be let alone and the right to hold and express a thought differ from the right to create a thought, being in control of the decision-making process and free from cognitive interferences operated by computational manipulation. Therefore, this paper argues in favor of recognizing a newly emerged fundamental right, the right to mental self-determination, tailored to the unprecedented abilities of AI-driven manipulative technologies.

show abstract