From Ethics to Values in the Design of Mobile PINC Janet Davis Dept. of Computer Science Grinnell College Grinnell, IA 50112, USA davisjan@cs.grinnell.edu ABSTRACT experiences, and social cues to influence behaviors and Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is a promising method for attitudes [10]. There is attention to mobile devices within addressing ethical issues and opportunities in the design of the persuasive technology community: In a collection of mobile technologies to promote behavior change. After twenty essays on mobile persuasion, Fogg writes about the positioning the work with respect to the PINC strategies unique suitability of mobile devices for persuasion: they are (Persuasion, Influence, Nudge, and Coercion), I introduce intimate (“we marry them”); they are omnipresent; and they the VSD method and analyze the role of values inherent to have remarkable capabilities [8]. Ethics have been a PINC strategies as well as values implicated by the means recurring concern (e.g., [3,6,15,17,20]). and ends of behavior change. Finally, I consider value tensions and differences in individual values. The PINC framing suggests new approaches to behavior change. Cialdini's theory of influence gives six specific Author Keywords strategies that are used by people to influence each other; Ethics, values, Value Sensitive Design, PINC, persuasive some work in persuasive technology has drawn on these technology, mobile phones strategies (e.g., [10,15]). Nudge comes from the concept of choice architecture: that our environment structures the ACM Classification Keywords choices available to us, and moreover, that there is an H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): inevitably a default option; designers can carefully select Miscellaneous. K.4.2. Computers and society: Social issues. that default to gently nudge to the desired behavior. To the best of my knowledge, this idea has not been studied General Terms explicitly in the domain of persuasive technology, although Human Factors. default options can be considered suggestions from the computer [10, p.126]. Finally, coercion ensures a particular INTRODUCTION behavior through threats and force [2]. In his framing of the Values underly persuasion. Implicit in persuasion is the field of persuasive technology, Fogg explicitly excluded judgment that one behavior or outcome is better than coercion as distinct from persuasion [10, p.15] and always another. But better for what? And for whom? unethical [10, p.226] and . Thus, there has been little study of coercion in the persuasive technology community. Here, I respond to the call for contributions about ethical issues to the workshop “PINC: Persuasion, Influence, VALUE SENSITIVE DESIGN Nudge, and Coercion through mobile devices” [7]. My Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is a theoretical and approach to ethics is from the perspective of human values methodological framework intended to help designers —particularly moral values such as fairness, autonomy, account for human values in a principled and privacy, and human welfare. After discussing my comprehensive way throughout the design process [12]. understanding of and relationship to PINC, I introduce the VSD emphasizes values of moral import and thus speaks to Value Sensitive Design theory and methodology [12]. I ethical concerns in technology design. Key VSD features then show how ethical goals, principles, and problems of include its comprehensive attention to stakeholders and its PINC can be framed in terms of values and value tensions. tripartite methodology [12]. PINC AND PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGY VSD demands attention to both direct and indirect I approach PINC from the persuasive technology stakeholders: not only those who use the technology but community. Persuasive technology concerns the use of those who are affected by its use. VSD also suggests technologically generated or mediated information, particular attention to vulnerable stakeholders. In the case of mobile persuasion, this may include teens [5,16], U.S. Copyright © 2011 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Latinos and blacks [24], and Africans [25] who rely heavily Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume on their mobile phones for communication and Web access, is published and copyrighted by the editors of PINC2011. and may not have broadband Internet access as an alternative. Such groups should be neither neglected nor abused in the design of mobile PINC technologies. VSD's methodology incorporates technical, empirical, and conceptual investigations. Technical investigations concern Anderson notes, “few believe that [coercion] is always how system features support or undermine particular unjustified, since it seems that no society could function values. Empirical investigations address stakeholder without some authorized uses” [2]. Law gives governments conceptions of values and the human response to the a limited authority to use coercion. Deploying computers artifact. For example, an empirical study might present for law enforcement has potential benefits and costs, as participants with scenarios designed to push the boundaries computers lack the contextual awareness and judgment of a of certain values in the design of persuasive technology, human being. While this might be seen as an opportunity to similar to Page and Kray's recent study of ethical responses use computers for fair enforcement, unclouded by human to persuasive technologies [20]. Finally, conceptual biases, it can be surprisingly difficult to produce computer investigations explore the values at hand and the tensions systems that are free of bias. Designers can encode between them. The remainder of this paper comprises such unconscious biases in the system, unintended biases can a conceptual investigation. emerge in use, and new biases can arise as a system is used in new contexts [13]. Further, although humans often blame Elsewhere, I have argued that VSD is well-suited to address computers for bad outcomes, computers lack moral ethical concerns in persuasive technology [6]. The VSD accountability [10,14]. We should ask, who is held methodology draws attention to stakeholder values and accountable if a computer's act of coercion is unjust? Thus, value tensions throughout the design process, so that coercion by computer systems engages the further values of barriers can be addressed early [6]. Here, I extend the brief accountability and freedom from bias. value analysis in that earlier work by considering coercion in addition to persuasion, as well as mobile technology. Coercive tactics such as threats may be acceptable when users have freely chosen the system in support of their own VALUE ANALYSIS goals. Indeed, Page and Kray report that study participants I consider three classes of values related to mobile PINC found coercive “shock tactics” to be acceptable if it was the technologies: values necessarily implicated by the PINC person's own choice to use the system [20]. This returns us approach, values implicated by particular methods of to our earlier definition of autonomy: “people's ability to promoting behavior change, and values implicated by the decide, plan, and act in ways that they believe will help desired ends. I also consider value tensions and how them to achieve their goals” [12]. differences in values may nonetheless lead to the same behavior. I will draw particularly upon my earlier analysis However, users need information to assess the suitability of [6] and Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander's ethical the system to their goals. Berdichevsky and Neuenschander principles for persuasive technology [3]. state two ethical principles related to disclosure: VI) The creators of a persuasive technology should The values of PINC disclose their motivations, methods, and intended The PINC endeavor is intimately tied to the value of outcomes, except when such disclosure would autonomy [6]. Autonomy “refers to people's ability to significantly undermine an otherwise ethical goal. decide, plan, and act in ways that they believe will help them to achieve their goals” [12]. PINC technology thwarts VII)Persuasive technologies must not misinform in order autonomy when it is used to get people to do things that are to achieve their persuasive end. [3] against their own goals (e.g., to waste money on useless One step beyond this is the value of informed consent [6]: products). But PINC can also uphold autonomy, when it is that people should not only be informed, but should have an deployed in support of an individual's goals (e.g., to explicit opportunity to offer or withhold consent. Friedman, become more active). Indeed, Oinas-Kukkonen has Howe, and Felten identified six components of informed proposed the development of theory and methodology for consent [11]: consent comprises voluntariness, competence, behavior change support systems as an important direction agreement, and minimal distraction, while for consent to be for the Persuasive Technology community [18]. informed requires not only disclosure, as Berdichevsky and How do the PINC approaches stand with respect to Neuenschander exhort, but also comprehension. PINC autonomy? As Fogg notes, persuasion implies voluntary technologies that are undermined by informed consent—for change [10, p.15]. Influence, too, suggests voluntariness; example, Kaptein and Eckles's persuasion profiling [15]— indeed, Cialdini shows how to recognize and circumvent deserve heightened scrutiny regardless of the acceptability influence attempts [4]. Central to the nudge is is the idea of of their ends. As Michalski [17] and Kaptein and Eckles libertarian paternalism [22]: though the designers choose a [15] point out, the problem is that the natural incentives typically “best” option for the default, individuals always may be against even disclosure, let alone informed consent. have the freedom to choose other options according to their own goals and knowledge. Finally, the force of coercion The values of means inherently diminishes the autonomy of the coerced [2]. Once we have decided attempt to change another's behavior, we have a number of means available for doing When might coercion by computers be justified? As so. While, for example, the nudge approach implies a particular mechanism for influencing choices, persuasion to the ends of persuasion: encompasses a number of means [10,19]. I) The intended outcome of any persuasive technology Many persuasive strategies, such as self-monitoring, should never be one that would be deemed unethical personalization, tailoring, and social comparison [19], rely if the persuasion were undertaken without the on information about the user's context and activities. technology or if the outcome occurred independently Indeed, two of Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander's of persuasion principles point to privacy as a value of particular concern: II) The motivations behind the creation of a persuasive IV) The creators of a persuasive technology must ensure technology should never be such that they would be that it regards the privacy of users with at least as deemed unethical if they led to more traditional much respect as they regard their own privacy. persuasion. V) Persuasive technologies relaying personal VIII) The Golden Rule of Persuasion: The creators of a information about a user to a third party must be persuasive technology should never seek to persuade closely scrutinized for privacy concerns. [3] a person or persons of something they themselves would not consent to be persuaded to do. [3] Mobile phones can capture an unprecedented amount of information about the user, such as location coordinates, All three principles focus on unacceptable ends for calls, and text messages, accentuating the need for attention persuasion. They provide no guidance as to what ends to privacy [17]. But channels such as audio, photographs, would be desirable. Attention to values can lead to desirable and proximity also capture information about others nearby ends for behavior change. Indeed, much persuasive —indirect stakeholders [5]. In their empirical study of teen technology has explicitly targeted health or environmental safety scenarios, Czeskis and colleagues learned that teens sustainability. Although these are laudable goals, perhaps were more reluctant to indirectly share information about we should also be designing persuasive technology that their context and activities with friends' parent than to share helps us to overcome our racial biases (freedom from bias), such information with their own parents [5]. Thus, in a control our anger (calmness), and learn to help and rely on mobile context, it is important to consider the privacy of our neighbors (trust). Further, it is important to understand companions and bystanders—not only the user. the values of those we are designing for. Although privacy is important to many PINC strategies, we Value tensions should go beyond privacy to account for values such as The most obvious value tensions in PINC technology pit identity, courtesy, and calmness [12] when they are desired behavior changes and the values they implicate implicated by the means used to affect behavior. For against the intention to change behavior and methods for example, consider the value of identity, “people's doing so. That is, ends can be in tension with means. We understanding of who they are over time” [12]. The see promoting health, environmental sustainability, and so persuasive strategy of social learning, providing “means to on, versus preserving autonomy, privacy, and so on. observe other[s] who are performing their target behaviors and to see the outcomes of their behavior” [19], should be However, these are not the only types of tensions. First, the more effective when observers share an identity with the act of persuasion inherently privileges the values of the observed. Further, if we are “married” to our cell phones, persuader over those of the persuaded. By asking you to we will be more attached to applications that reflect our change your behavior, I am saying that my values are more identities. As another example, courtesy and calmness are important than your values (or at least, the values you seem implicated by technologies that use the suggestion strategy. to be acting on). In the best case, as in behavior change Although suggestions must be given at the right time and support systems, the persuader and the persuaded agree on a place to affect behavior [10], suggestions should be polite value such as health or environmental sustainability; the and allow the user to remain peaceful and composed— persuader provides information or support to help the unless there is an overriding reason to otherwise. persuaded act in accordance with this shared value. Second, people may agree on values but disagree on The values of ends (target values) priorities. We might agree that environmental sustainability As noted in the introduction, values underly persuasion. In is worthwhile—but I might rate the comfort or excitement persuading someone to act in one way and not another, we of driving as more important. Indeed, Rokeach compared are asserting that the desired behavior will result in a better individuals' value systems solely on the basis of differences outcome. Better for what? Better for our health, for our in their rankings of a set of predefined values [21]. family's safety, for national security, for the environment, and so on. Implicit in every act of persuasion is a value the Same behavior, different values persuader wants to support, a target value. Finally, people may agree on a desired behavior, but have Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander address three principles different reasons for valuing that behavior. For example, five people might choose to drive below the speed limit, each for their own reasons: to obey the law; to protect D. Eckles (eds.), Mobile Persuasion, Stanford Captology Media safety; to practice thrift; to reduce dependence on foreign (2007), 5-11. oil and protect national security; or to reduce the need for 9.Fogg, B.J. Increasing persuasion through mobility. In B.J. Fogg oil drilling and contribute to environmental sustainability. and D. Eckles (eds.), Mobile Persuasion, Stanford Captology Media (2007), 155-163. As Fogg points out, the mobile phone is an intimate device [8]. If it does not share our goals, but rather has goals of its 10.Fogg, B.J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to own, we feel betrayed [9]. The same would seem to hold Change What We Think and Do, Morgan Kaufmann (2003). for values. Suppose that my highest value is the safety of 11.Friedman, B., Howe, D., and Felten, E. Informed Consent in my children. If I adopt a mobile application to help me the Mozilla Browser: Implementing Value-Sensitive Design. In avoid speeding, and it shows me pictures of polar bears, I Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on will be upset. Because it challenges my values, I see the System Sciences (2002). application as a threat to my autonomy, and I experience 12.Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H. Jr., and Borning, A. Value Sensitive psychological reactance [1]—leading me to drive even Design and information systems: Three case studies. In P. Zhang faster. Instead, I should be reminded of my value of safety. and D. Galletta (eds.), Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations. M. E. Sharpe I see two approaches to addressing individual users' values. (2006), 348-372. First, designers' value commitments should be made clear 13.Friedman, B., and Nissenbaum, H. Bias in computer systems. through branding and the informed consent process, so that ACM TOIS 14, 3(1996), 330-347. users can make informed choices. Second, interfaces such as Todd, Rogers, and Payne's informative grocery shopping 14.Johnson, DG., and Mulvey, J.M. Accountability and computer decision systems. CACM 38, 12 (1995), 58-64. cart [23] should be tailorable. They should uphold user autonomy by allowing users to choose which information 15.Kaptein, M. and Eckles, D. Selecting effective means to any among value-laden options (e.g., sustainability, end. In Proc. PERSUASIVE 2010, LNCS 6137 (2010), 82-93. healthfulness, and cost) to display most prominently. A 16.Levine, D. Using technology to promote sexual health. In B.J. danger is that undisclosed, involuntary tailoring may cross Fogg and D. Eckles (eds.), Mobile Persuasion, Stanford from persuasion to manipulation [15,17]. Captology Media (2007), 15-18. 17.Michalski, J. Ethical dangers of mobile persuasion. In B.J. CONCLUSION Fogg and D. Eckles (eds.), Mobile Persuasion, Stanford Attention to values may contribute not only to Captology Media (2007), 137-142.. understanding ethical issues of mobile PINC technology— 18.Oinas-Kukkonen, H. Behavior change support systems: A bringing attention to concerns beyond privacy and research model and agenda. In Proc. PERSUASIVE 2008, LNCS disclosure—but also to increasing their scope and 5033 (2008), 164-176. effectiveness—their power to do good in the world. Further work should clarify role of these values through empirical 19.Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and Harjumaa, M. A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In and technical investigations of PINC technology. Proc. PERSUASIVE 2008, LNCS 6137 (2010), 4-14. REFERENCES 20.Page, R.E. and Kray, C. Ethics and persuasive technology: An 1.Aleahmad, T., et al. Fishing for sustainability: The effects of exploratory study in the context of healthy living. In Proc. First indirect and direct persuasion. In Ext. Abstracts CHI 2008, ACM Int. Workshop on Nudge and Influence through Mobile Devices, Press (2008). CEUR Workshop Proceedings 690 (2010), 19-22. 2.Anderson, S. Coercion. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of 21.Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press (1973). Philosophy (2006), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion 22.Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions 3.Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E. Toward an ethics of about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press persuasive technology. CACM 42, 5 (May 1999), 51-58. (2008). 4.Cialdini, R.B. Influence: The Science of Persuasion, Collins, 23.Todd, P.M., Rogers, Y., and Payne, S.J. Nudging the cart in revised ed. (1998). the supermarket; How much is enough information for food shoppers? In Proc. First Int. Workshop on Nudge and Influence 5.Czeskis, A., et al. Parenting from the pocket: Value tensions and through Mobile Devices, CEUR Workshop Proceedings 690 technical direction for secure and private parent-teen mobile (2010), 23-26. safety. In Proc. SOUPS 2010, ACM Press (2010). 24.Washington, J. The new digital divide. Des Moines Register 6.Davis, J. Ethical design methods for persuasive technology. In (January 9, 2011), 1AA, 5AA. Proc. PERSUASIVE 2009, ACM Press (2009). 25.Wray, R. Africa sees massive growth in mobile web usage, 7.Eslambolchilar, P., Wilson, M.L., Oakley, I. PINC: Persuasion, guardian.co.uk (December 2,2 2009), influence, nudge, and coercion through mobile devices. To http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/22/mobilephon appear, Ext. Abstracts CHI 2011, ACM Press (2011). es-internet. 8.Fogg, B.J. The future of persuasion is mobile. In B.J. Fogg and