Toward an ethics of persuasive technology - Ask yourself whether your technology persuades users to do something you wouldn't want to be persuaded to do yourself.
Toward an ethics of persuasive technology - Ask yourself whether your technology persuades users to do something you wouldn't want to be persuaded to do yourself.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1145/301353.301410
复制
发表时间：
1999-05-01
影响因子：
22.7
通讯作者：
Neunschwander, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berdichevsky, D;Neunschwander, E
丹尼尔·伯迪切夫斯基和埃里克·诺恩斯万德从股票经纪人那里得到的方式是鼓励他们的客户购买股票，为他们赚取奖金佣金[6]？他们做的，虽然在意想不到的方式。这就是为什么我们对说服性技术的伦理学的探索寻求开始建立第一套原则性的指导方针，用于它们的设计和实现（见图1）。这样做需要我们将一些与说服伦理学和技术伦理学（尤其是计算机）的早期工作相关的问题（和答案）应用到这个新领域。到目前为止，还没有人专门研究这些领域的融合。关于伦理学的文章经常夹杂着行话;从这方面来说，伦理学很像计算机科学。但我们避免使用专门术语，除非它们有意义地丰富了我们的讨论，即使这样，我们也会在上下文中定义它们。我们认为说服是一种改变态度或行为的有意识的努力，技术是抽象思想的直接应用。被动的技术媒介，如扩音器和广告牌，有助于说服，而不会改变他们的互动模式，以回应被说服方的特点或行动。然而，主动说服技术在某种程度上是受被说服方控制的，或者至少是对被说服方做出反应的。或者应该是。控制的外观可能足以创造一个有说服力的体验，但如果这种外观没有现实的支持，设计师就会违反我们的准确性原则。在主动说服技术和被动技术媒体之间，我们称之为“结构说服技术”，比如拼车车道。虽然它们是非媒体的被动技术的有趣例子，但我们这里的重点是主动说服技术。我们把伦理学称为一个理性的、一致的体系，通常在特定的行动或政策的背景下确定正确和错误。创造一种有说服力的技术就是这样一种行动。无可否认，伦理学家的数量几乎和伦理学体系的数量一样多，在严格的义务论伦理学中，某些行为标准永远不会被打破，即使遵守这些标准可能会让人悲伤，或者打破一两次（比如说一个白色谎言）可能会给人带来幸福。基于行为的功利主义者采取了一种非常不同的方法，他们通过衡量一个特定标准的后果来评估任何行为的道德，通常是人类的幸福或福祉。这种方法可以被认为是“赞成和反对”的道德。一个舒适的中间立场是基于规则的功利主义，我们规定的道德规则，只有当总是遵循他们的结果更引人注目的利益。
DANIEL BERDICHEVSKY AND ERIK NEUENSCHWANDER way from stockbrokers who encourage their clients to buy the stocks that earn them bonus commissions [6]? They do, though in unexpected ways. That’s why our exploration of the ethics of persuasive technologies seeks to begin establishing a first set of principled guidelines for their design and implementation (see Figure 1). Doing so requires us to apply to this new domain a number of questions (and answers) associated with earlier work in the ethics of persuasion and in the ethics of technology—especially computers. Until now, no one has looked specifically at the convergence of these fields. Articles about ethics are often peppered with jargon; in this way, ethics is a lot like computer science. But we avoid specialized terms except where they meaningfully enrich our discussion—and even then, we define them in context. We view persuasion as an intentional effort to change attitudes or behavior and technology as the directed application of abstract ideas. Passive technological media, such as megaphones and billboards, facilitate persuasion without altering their pattern of interaction in response to the characteristics or actions of the persuaded party. Active persuasive technologies, however, are to some degree under the control of or at least responsive to the persuaded party. Or should be. The appearance of control may suffice for creating a persuasive experience, but if this appearance is not backed up by reality, the designer runs afoul of our accuracy principle. Between active persuasive technologies and passive technological media are what we term “structural persuasive technologies,” such as carpool lanes. While they are interesting examples of passive technologies that are not media, our focus here is on active persuasive technologies. We refer to ethics as a rational, consistent system for determining right and wrong, usually in the context of specific actions or policies. The creation of a persuasive technology is such an action. Admittedly, there are almost as many possible systems of ethics as there are ethicists.In strict deontological ethics, certain standards of conduct can never be broken, even when obeying them might cause someone grief or when breaking them once or twice (as in telling a white lie) might bring a person happiness. Taking a very different approach, act-based utilitarians evaluate the ethics of any action by gauging its consequences with respect to a particular criterion—usually human happiness or well-being. This approach can be thought of as “pro and con” ethics. A comfortable middle ground is rule-based utilitarianism, in which we stipulate ethical rules only if always following them results in more compelling benefits.