And Lead Us (Not) into Persuasion...? Persuasive Technology and the Ethics of Communication

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 633-650

  Spahn, Andreas ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Critical theory; Discourse ethics; Ethics; Habermas; Persuasion; Persuasive technology; Speech act theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; TECHNOLOGY;

COMMUNICATION; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84870751499     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9278-y     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Apel, K.-O. (1984). Das Problem einer philosophischen Theorie der Rationalitätstypen. In H. Schnädelbach (Ed.), Rationalität (pp. 15-31). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
4. Baker, S., & Martinson, D. L. (2001). The TARES test: Five principles for ethical persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(2), 148-175.
5. Bang, M., & Jonsson, L. (2007). Design of a social web service and ambient interface for energy conservation and social feedback in a neighboorhood. In: M. Tscheligi et al. (Eds.) AMI09. Salzburg: ICT& S Center.
6. Barker, S. (2004). Renewing meaning: A speech-act theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Berdichevsky, D., & Neuenschwander, E. (1999). Toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Communications of the ACM, 42, 51-58.
8. Christensen, A.-K., & Hasle, P. (2007). Classical rhetoric and a limit of persuasion. In Y. de Kort, W. IJsselstein, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & B. J. Fogg (Eds.), Persuasive technology. Second international conference on persuasive technology (pp. 307-310). Palo Alto, CA: Revised Selected Papers.
9. Davis, J. (2010). Generating directions for persuasive technology design with the inspiration card workshop. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), Persuasive technology, PERSUASIVE 2010 (pp. 262-273). Berlin: Springer.
10. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. The Morgan Kaufmann series in interactive technologies. Amsterdam, Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
11. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.
12. Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien. In H. Fahrenbach (Ed.) Wirklichkeit und Reflexion (pp. 211-265). Pfullingen: Neske.
13. Habermas, J. (1984-1987). Theory of communicative action, 2 Vol., Boston: Beacon Press. (translation of Habermas, J.: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 Vol., Frankfrut a. M.: Suhrkamp 1981).
14. Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application. Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
15. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behaviour. American Journal of Psychology, 13, 1944.
16. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17. IJsselsteijn, W. (2006). Persuasive technology: First international conference on persuasive technology for human well-being, PERSUASIVE 2006, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, May 18-19, 2006: Proceedings. Berlin, New York: Springer.
18. Johannesen, R. L. (1992). Perspectives in ethics in persuasion. In C. U. Larson Persuasion, reception and responsibility (pp. 28-53). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2006.
19. Kim, T., Hong, H., & Magerko, B. (2010). Design for persuasion: Toward ambient eco-visualization for awareness. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), Persuasive technology 2010 (pp. 106-116). Berlin: Springer.
20. Kuhlmann, W. (2007). Beiträge zur Diskursethik. Studien zur Transzendentalpragmatik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
21. Marsh, Ch. W. (2001). Public relation ethics: Contrasting models from the Rhetorics of Plato, Aristotles and Isocrates. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(2), 78-98.
22. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mauton, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425.
23. McCarthy, Th. A. (1996). The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Nickel, P. J. (2011a). P. Trust in technological systems. In M. J. de Vries, S. O. Hansson, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.) Norms and the artificial: moral and non-moral norms in technology. Springer, forthcoming.
25. Nickel, P. J. (2011b). Ethics in e-trust and e-trustworthiness: The case of direct computer-patient interfaces. Ethics of Information Technology, forthcoming.
26. Niemi, J. I. (2008). The foundations of Jürgen Habermas' discourse ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 42(2), 255-268.
27. Obermair, Ch., Reitberger, W., Meschtscherjakov, A., Lankes, M., & Tscheligli, M. (2008). perFrames: Persuasive picture frames for proper posture. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, et al. (Eds.), Persuasive technology, lecture notes in computer science (pp. 128-139). Berlin: Springer.
28. Peterson, M. & Spahn, A. (2011). Can technological artifacts be moral agents, Science and Engineering Ethics, forthcoming.
29. Searl, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Searl, J. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344-369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
31. Spahn, A. (2010). Persuasive technology and the inherent normativity of communication. In P. Hasle, et al. (Eds.), Persuasive 2010 (pp. 21-24). Oulu: University Press.
32. van Eemeren, F. H. (1982). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.
33. 11991).
34. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
35. Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values-special issue on Ethics and Engineering Design, 31/3, 361-380.
36. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: A postphenomenological analysis. Human Studies, 31, 11-26.
37. Wayetz, A., Epley, N., & Cacciopo, J. T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthromorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 58-62.
38. Werner, M. H. (2002). Diskursethik. In M. Düwell, et al. (Eds.), Handbuch ethik (pp. 140-151). Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.