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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    8. 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).
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Caroline Moraes & Nina Michaelidou, 2017. "Introduction to the Special Thematic Symposium on the Ethics of Controversial Online Advertising," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 231-233, March.
    13. Peng Nie & Wanglin Ma & Alfonso Sousa-Poza, 2021. "The relationship between smartphone use and subjective well-being in rural China," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 983-1009, December.
    14. Sylvie Borau & Jean-François Bonnefon, 2019. "The Imaginary Intrasexual Competition: Advertisements Featuring Provocative Female Models Trigger Women to Engage in Indirect Aggression," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 45-63, June.
    15. Alonso Villarán, 2017. "Irrational Advertising and Moral Autonomy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 479-490, September.
    16. Arunrat Tangmunkongvorakul & Patou Masika Musumari & Kulvadee Thongpibul & Kriengkrai Srithanaviboonchai & Teeranee Techasrivichien & S Pilar Suguimoto & Masako Ono-Kihara & Masahiro Kihara, 2019. "Association of excessive smartphone use with psychological well-being among university students in Chiang Mai, Thailand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    17. Haseeb Ahmed Shabbir & Hala Maalouf & Michele Griessmair & Nazan Colmekcioglu & Pervaiz Akhtar, 2019. "Exploring Perceptions of Advertising Ethics: An Informant-Derived Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 727-744, October.
    18. Katarzyna Bachnik & Robert Nowacki, 2018. "How to Build Consumer Trust: Socially Responsible or Controversial Advertising," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    19. Marta Golin, 2022. "The effect of broadband Internet on the gender gap in mental health: Evidence from Germany," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S2), pages 6-21, October.
    20. Alexandra Palm, 2020. "Mobile phone use and subjective well-being: Implications for responsible research and innovation," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20200823, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.

    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.