IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v175y2022i4d10.1007_s10551-020-04590-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Autonomy and Manipulation: Refining the Argument Against Persuasive Advertising

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Aylsworth

    (Florida International University)

Abstract

Critics of persuasive advertising argue that it undermines the autonomy of consumers by manipulating their desires in morally problematic ways. My aim is this paper is to refine that argument by employing a conception of autonomy that is not at odds with certain forms of manipulation. I argue that the charge of manipulation is not sufficient for condemning persuasive advertising. On my view, manipulation of an agent’s desires through advertising is justifiable in cases where the agent accepts (or would accept) the process through which the desires were developed. I show how the standard manipulation objection proves too much as it would also condemn cases of that kind. I argue that this distinction is especially important when we consider the implications of “new media.” In addition to increasing vulnerability to manipulation, new media have considerable impacts on well-being. By siding with the traditional autonomy argument, we would be compelled to take an implausible stand against all forms of manipulation through advertising, but I suggest that only a proper subset of those cases are morally problematic. This conclusion opens up a space for persuasive advertising that is permissible while nevertheless condemning cases that violate consumers’ autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Aylsworth, 2022. "Autonomy and Manipulation: Refining the Argument Against Persuasive Advertising," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 689-699, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:175:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-020-04590-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04590-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-020-04590-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-020-04590-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shlomo Sher, 2011. "A Framework for Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 97-118, August.
    2. Thomas Anker & Klemens Kappel & Peter Sandøe, 2010. "The Liberating Power of Commercial Marketing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 519-530, June.
    3. Rotondi, Valentina & Stanca, Luca & Tomasuolo, Miriam, 2017. "Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 17-26.
    4. M. Hyman, 2009. "Responsible Ads: A Workable Ideal," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 199-210, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael R. Hyman & Alena Kostyk & David Trafimow, 2023. "True Consumer Autonomy: A Formalization and Implications," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 841-863, March.
    2. Tuğba Koç & Aykut Hamit Turan, 2021. "The Relationships Among Social Media Intensity, Smartphone Addiction, and Subjective Wellbeing of Turkish College Students," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 1999-2021, October.
    3. Fulvio Castellacci & Henrik Schwabe, 2020. "Internet, unmet aspirations and the U-shape of life," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Steven J. Bosworth & Dennis J. Snower, 2024. "Technological advance, social fragmentation and welfare," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(2), pages 197-232, March.
    5. Fazio, Andrea & Reggiani, Tommaso & Scervini, Francesco, 2023. "Social media charity campaigns and pro-social behaviour. Evidence from the Ice Bucket Challenge," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Joanna Hernik & Dana-Nicoleta Lascu, 2012. "An Analysis Of Social Campaigns Aimed At Reducing Alcohol Consumption: The Case Of Poland," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 117-136, December.
    7. Andrea L. Micheaux & Dominique Crié & Annabel Martin-Salerno & Daphné Salerno, 2018. "The importance of being Earnest in social media: juxtaposing Oscar Wilde’s script with an empirical case study to examine digital deceit from the blogger’s perspective," Post-Print hal-01828584, HAL.
    8. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    9. Leonardo Chiesi & Paolo Costa, 2022. "Small Green Spaces in Dense Cities: An Exploratory Study of Perception and Use in Florence, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Henkens, Bieke & Verleye, Katrien & Larivière, Bart, 2021. "The smarter, the better?! Customer well-being, engagement, and perceptions in smart service systems," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 425-447.
    11. Olivanti, Francesco & Gastaldi, Luca, 2024. "Evaluating digital skills policies: Assessing the potential impact of outreach programs in Italy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8).
    12. Benjamin Boeuf & Jessica Darveau, 2019. "An Ethical Perspective on Necro-Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Brand Equity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1077-1099, April.
    13. Debra S. Dwyer & Rachel Kreier & Maria X. Sanmartin, 2020. "Technology Use: Too Much of a Good Thing?," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 48(4), pages 475-489, December.
    14. Guang-Xin Xie & Robert Madrigal & David Boush, 2015. "Disentangling the Effects of Perceived Deception and Anticipated Harm on Consumer Responses to Deceptive Advertising," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 281-293, June.
    15. Zhihao Jia & Yan Gao & Liangyu Zhao & Suyue Han, 2022. "Longitudinal Relationship between Cognitive Function and Health-Related Quality of Life among Middle-Aged and Older Patients with Diabetes in China: Digital Usage Behavior Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-13, September.
    16. Thompson, Alex & Stringfellow, Lindsay & Maclean, Mairi & Nazzal, Amal, 2021. "Ethical considerations and challenges for using digital ethnography to research vulnerable populations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 676-683.
    17. Dianne Hofenk & Marcel Birgelen & Josée Bloemer & Janjaap Semeijn, 2019. "How and When Retailers’ Sustainability Efforts Translate into Positive Consumer Responses: The Interplay Between Personal and Social Factors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 473-492, May.
    18. Castellacci, Fulvio & Tveito, Vegard, 2018. "Internet use and well-being: A survey and a theoretical framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 308-325.
    19. Lin Tang & Xiaofeng Luo & Yanzhong Huang & Sanxia Du & Aqian Yan, 2023. "Can smartphone use increase farmers’ willingness to participate in the centralized treatment of rural domestic sewage? Evidence from rural China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 3379-3403, April.
    20. Marco Meyer & Chun Wei Choo, 2024. "Harming by Deceit: Epistemic Malevolence and Organizational Wrongdoing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(3), pages 439-452, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:175:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-020-04590-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.