Ethics and Persuasion

Originally written October 7, 2009

Human nature is a complex issue.  Some of us believe that individuals are intrinsically good but may be led into making questionable decisions depending on the circumstances they are faced with.  Others believe that individuals will always act on self-interest, often to the detriment of others, unless they are deterred by an outside force.  While reality probably lies somewhere in the middle, it is likely that one will view the concepts of ethics and persuasion in accordance with their beliefs about human nature.

Critics of persuasion generally cite the potential negative consequences of exerting influence.  I tend to agree with Seiter & Gass (2004) that “persuasion, much like any tool, can be used for good or bad.  It all depends on the motives of the tool user…”  However, I believe that it is necessary to have more than pure motives or intentions to ensure that persuasive communication is also ethical.  We all know the popular adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  This is because history is filled with examples of people who persuaded others to destructive acts based on goals and intentions they judged to be “good” and “ethical” -Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre, David Koresh of the Waco incident, and many others.

 

For this reason it is important to define ethical frameworks we can use to evaluate persuasive communication and behavior objectively.  Although there are as many theories of ethics as there are of persuasion or communication, the topic of concern relates to the areas where both intersect.  For example, many definitions of persuasion emphasize the persuadee’s freedom or free will and consciousness (Seiter & Gass, 2004, p.15-16) and the “theory of moral rights asserts that all individuals have certain inalienable rights that are defined by society…” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009)  Some of the most commonly accepted rights are: the right of free consent; the right to privacy; the right to freedom of conscience and the right of free speech.  With that in mind, Messina (2007) proposes the following definition of ethical persuasion “an attempt through communication to influence knowledge, attitude or behavior of an audience through presentation of a view that addresses and allows the audience to make voluntary, informed, rational and reflective judgments.

 

In today’s society of rapidly evolving technologies it is easier to think of instances of persuasive attempts which do not fit the above definition and violate one or more of the rights outlined by the theory of rights.  One of the areas of business communication that has straddled the ethical line more than others is marketing.  For example, when shopping for groceries, most stores “voluntarily” offer to their customers discount cards or membership cards which consumers can use to obtain “special discounts.”  The stores will use the cards to obtain and compile information on the shopping habits of their customers and devise marketing strategies based on the results.  Granted, customers are not required to sign up for the cards in order to shop there but the difference in price is usually significant enough for most average consumers to overlook privacy concerns.  Google, one of the most popular and widely used search engines on the internet also compiles data on e-mail and search habits of users and utilizes it to specifically target marketing ads.  In addition, the co-founder of Google is now engaged to the founder of 23andme.com, a company that analyzes and stores genetic and DNA ancestry information.  He has also contributed significant amounts to money to his fiancée’s company and there is concern that a meeting of the companies’ capabilities would create serious privacy implications.

Whether or not the examples mentioned above definitely fall outside the definition of ethical persuasion is debatable.  One can argue that by consenting to the use of the discount card or to the use of search engines (a privacy notice is in the fine print somewhere), one is voluntarily waiving certain rights to privacy.  However, would the same argument be possible if professionals use techniques that are unknown to the consumer?  The use of scientific data to improve marketing initiatives continues to grow consistently.  Psychological theories of behavior have been used for many years and more recently we have “neuromarketing.”  “Indeed, improvements in neuroimaging technologies have and will continue to advance our knowledge of how people make decisions and how marketers can influence those decisions (Wilson, Gaines & Hill, 2008).”

This is just one example of how far businesses are willing to go and how sophisticated persuasive marketing attempts have become to guarantee sales and profit.  On the other hand, based on a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the moral standard should be the promotion of the best long-term interests of all those concerned, neuromarketing could be considered ethical persuasion.  In this case, at least in a direct sense, the motives or intentions of the persuader would be the main determinant.  If neuromarketing is used to help present information to persons in need of intervention such as smokers, drug users, diabetics, etc. in a way that would allow them to correct their destructive behaviors more effectively, it may fit within the definition of ethical communication.  I would especially feel that would be the case if there was no information excluded or omitted from the persuadee in favor of images/text shown to be effective by neuroimaging.  This would ensure that the decision made at the conclusion would still qualify as an “informed” one.  However, even if the motive is the sale of a product, it can be argued that neuromarketing may indirectly have a positive effect in general.  Creating new jobs related to the technology, promoting the development of new technologies in the fields of communication in general and generate sales which many argue are “good for the economy.” 

 

Ultimately, ethics, like persuasion, is not an exact science and will commonly depend on cultural, situational and other contexts as well the beliefs, values and attitudes of the competing viewpoints.  Ethical persuasion and ethical behavior in general is something that we hope those around us aspire to, but since there is always a chance that may not be the case, we can better protect ourselves from unethical communications by possessing a more complete understanding of ethics in persuasion.

References

Messina, A. (2007). Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: an ethical approach.  Journal of Communication Management, 11(1), 29.

Seiter, John E., and Gass, Robert H. (2004), Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining, Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2009). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication: Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills, Values. Boston : Pearson.

Wilson, R., Gaines, J., Hill, R., (2008). Neuromarketing and Consumer Free Will.  The journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 389-410