Towards a Theory of Interpersonal Manipulation

Gorin, Moti

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338207.003.0004

Cited by 59 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have a case of manipulation if and only if the manipulator does not care whether his or her means of influence reveals eventually existing reasons to the manipulatee. Therefore, the proposed account, which can be seen as building on a line of thought explored also in Barnhill (2014), Gorin (2014), and Coons and Weber (2014), is quite distinct from influential but problematic, accounts of manipulation in terms of reason-undermining (e.g. Baron, 2003;Beauchamp & Childress, 2008;Blumenthal-Barby & Burroughs, 2012;Noggle, 1996).…”

Section: Synthesis: Manipulation As Careless Influencementioning

confidence: 92%

(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: Synthesis: Manipulation As Careless Influencementioning

confidence: 92%

(Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless

Klenk

2021

Review of Social Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the Hijacking reason case shows, manipulation may sometimes lead to outcomes that are norm-compliant from the manipulatees perspective as well as from an objective standpoint (cf. Gorin 2014bGorin , 2014a.…”

Section: Hijackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal Manipulation

Klenk

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that manipulation is negligent influence. Manipulation is negligent in the sense that manipulators do not chose their method of influence because for its potential to reveal reasons to their victims. Thus, manipulation is a lack of care, or negligence, exclusively understood exclusively in terms of how one influences. That makes the proposed account superior to the most influential alternative, which analyses manipulation disjunctively as violation of several distinct types of norms. The implication is a paradigm shift in understanding manipulation in terms of what manipulators intend to do toward a focus on what they fail to do or intend.

show abstract

“…Noggle (1996) defines manipulation, roughly, as an attempt to cause others' decisionmaking to fall short of important moral and social values or to violate norms that reasonably govern their decision-making. This is a deep and complex account (see, Barnhill 2014; Blumenthal-Barby 2012; Mills 2014; Wilkinson 2013), but all that we need to say for our purposes is that varied fundamental values about decision-making can be relevant to manipulation (Gorin 2014) and the most relevant value for our context is autonomy. It follows, then, that a gamification provider manipulates workers or customers if the provider, through the video game experiences, causes the players to make decisions in a way that unjustifiably undermines their autonomy.…”

Section: Consider a Relevant Example Carnegie Mellon University Compmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gamification is the use of elements and techniques from video game design in non-game contexts. Amid the rapid growth of this practice, normative questions have been under-explored. The primary goal of this article is to develop a normatively sophisticated and descriptively rich account for appropriately addressing major ethical considerations associated with gamification. The framework suggests that practitioners and designers should be precautious about, primarily, but not limited to, whether or not their use of gamification practices: (1) takes unfair advantage of workers (e.g., exploitation); (2) infringes any involved workers' or customers' autonomy (e.g., manipulation); (3) intentionally or unintentionally harms workers and other involved parties; or (4) has a negative effect on the moral character of involved parties.

show abstract

Towards a Theory of Interpersonal Manipulation

Cited by 59 publications

References 0 publications

(Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless

(Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless

Interpersonal Manipulation

More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About