Monday, April 14, 2008

Winning Content Persuades, Not Manipulates

On persuasive content ...

"When you think of persuasion, what comes to mind? Tricks such as the name repetition and personality mirroring touted by Dunder Mifflin sales representatives? Devious emotional pleas like those Bart Simpson wields on his dad? The constantly shifting rhetoric of unctuous politicians? Deceptively “free” software that actually is spyware?

Such funny and frightening examples are not really persuasion at all. They are forms of manipulation, and they give persuasion a bad name. As I discussed in my previous column, elements of persuasion are important to creating winning content. To help safeguard content from becoming manipulation, we need to understand its distinction from persuasion. As a step toward that understanding, this article

* provides basic definitions of persuasion and manipulation
* explores the key differences between them
* describes some consequences for UX content

Persuasion and Manipulation—Loosely Defined

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines persuade as “to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action.” Most academic definitions I have encountered are fairly similar. As this definition states, the means of persuasion are “argument, entreaty, or expostulation,” which implies the persuader is not using other techniques such as force to “move” the user. It hints at a fairly equal relationship between the persuader and the user.

The same dictionary defines manipulate as “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage” or “to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose.” This definition implies the motives of the manipulator are selfish, the techniques may be dishonest, and the manipulator may have some degree of control or power over the user.
A Note About Persuasive Technology

When dealing with content, we usually are dealing with some form of argument, so the typical definition of persuasion largely applies. However, it is important to acknowledge B.J. Fogg’s significant expansion of the definition for the digital age. In Persuasive Technology, Fogg defines persuasion more broadly as “the attempt to change attitudes or behaviors or both.” Notice this definition does not specify the technique for the attempt, so technology rather than argument can be the means. Consequently, according to this broader definition, the concept of persuasion loses some of its egalitarian implications, Therefore, Fogg outlines ethics for persuasive technology to compensate.
Digging into the Differences

These definitions highlight some key differences between persuasion and manipulation. Let’s examine them more closely.

Motivation

Dave Lakhani, author of Persuasion: The Art of Getting What You Want and the blog How to Persuade, identifies intent as the primary distinction between persuasion and manipulation. He explains in a recent blog post entitled “The Semantics of Persuasion” that manipulation is “inwardly focused on what you can get another person to do for you regardless of the outcome for them.” Persuasion involves concern for your own interests and the user’s interests. In other words, a persuasive situation is win-win, while a manipulative situation is potentially win-lose. For example, if your company has a useful product or service to sell, by persuading a user to buy it, your company makes money and the user benefits from the product or service. Convincing users to buy products and services that a company knows don’t work or don’t live up to their promises enters the realm of manipulation. Other examples of manipulation include convincing users to do something at their own peril—such as taking on a payment they can’t afford or a long service contract they can’t break. If whatever a company convinces users to do benefits only the company, not the users, the company is probably manipulating users.

,,, User Control

Related to choice, I see user control as a dissimilarity between persuasion and manipulation. In a persuasive situation, a user can accept more or less of the persuasion, as desired. For instance, a user shopping for a product can choose to view the basic information or to delve into more details such as comparisons to other products or customer testimonials. At any time, the user can stop exploring the details. In a more manipulative situation, the user does not have as much control. Disruptive popup windows or layer ads the user doesn’t choose to view border on manipulation. Also, any technique that tries to trap the user into viewing or listening to certain content—such as disabling the Back button or automatically playing a video—can be manipulation.

Additionally, in a persuasive situation, a user has all of the information he or she needs to provide the appropriate response to an attempt to persuade. As shown in Figure 1, the Club Pogo signup form provides all the information a user needs to decide whether to become a member—benefits, price, terms, links to more details, and so on. However, in a more manipulative situation, a Web site might withhold, hide, or misrepresent essential information, so the user is not truly in control. Not informing users that their credit cards will be charged when a free trial expires would be an example of manipulation. Simply put, a persuasive situation lets users make an informed decision. A manipulative one does not."    (Continued via UXmatters. Colleen Jones)    [Usability Resources]

Club Pogo Signup - Usability, User Interface Design

Club Pogo Signup

1 Comments:

Anonymous BJ Fogg said...

Colleen,

Thanks for referencing work from my book in your article. I appreciate your knowing and understanding how I've redefined persuasion.

You're right that I see persuasion as a good thing and a bad thing. Most people do think of persuasion negatively but when there is a good idea or product, we have a responsibility to try to get people to adopt it - for example, a drug that helps cancer patients or a solution to global climate change. There are times like these where we are ethically bound to persuade others. If it improves peoples' lives then we need to use the tools available today to persuade them to adopt it. When we fail to do good things in the world, that is bad.

BJ Fogg
Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab

5:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

<< Home
.