‘Sneaky’ Persuasion in Public Health Risk Communication

Journal article

This paper identifies and critiques a tendency for public health risk communication to be ‘sneakily’ persuasive. First, I describe how trends in the social and health sciences have facilitated an approach to public health risk communication which focuses on achieving behaviour change directly, rather than informing people's decisions about their health behaviour. I then consider existing discussions of the merits of informing versus persuading in public health communication, which largely endorse persuasive approaches. I suggest such accounts are unsatisfying insofar as their definitions of persuasion often fail to recognise its directional nature and the distorting effect this has on the total picture of the evidence. I re‐characterise persuasion as directional influence aimed at achieving a particular outcome in the recipient and acknowledge that persuasive influence may also be manipulative. I then contrast this with (non‐directional) information provision. I suggest that much persuasive public health risk communication is ‘sneaky’: it appears to be informative, but in fact presents a distorted picture of the evidence (in accordance with my characterisation of persuasion). I argue that such sneakily persuasive public health risk communication is unethical on the basis that it fails to adhere to the norms of cooperative communication.

Authors: Brown, R

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Wiley
• Journal: Ratio: An international journal of analytic philosophy
• Publication date: 2024-11-04
• Acceptance date: 2024-10-02
• DOI: 10.1111/rati.12428
• ISSN: 1467-9329, 0034-0006
• Language: English
• Keywords: public health communication; risk communication; manipulation; relevance theory; norms; persuasion