The Ethics of Deception in Design Work

Introduction

Within design work, contemporary researchers argue that ethical responsibilities are integral to the role of the designer (Parsons, 2016). Moreover, the ethical obligations designers face has changed over time. (Rezai, 2020). These observations, particularly when employing a speculative design approach, which operates in an ‘ambivalent space’ (Malpas, 2013, p. 338), results in a more precarious situation to make judgements on the ethics of a design. Furthermore, the project is situated in a scenario enabled by speculative design, which includes altering the truth in a scenario with a participant.

The deception was necessary to achieve outcomes due to the nature of the brief set, but the aspect of deceiving the individual's taking part was not examined fully prior to beginning the project. This study is an opportunity to review the practice work and critically reflect on the methodology of the project. It will allow for identifying whether the deception involved was ethically responsible. It will also consider alternatives and compare these with the implications of the choices taken.

In addition to the review of the project work, this essay will explore the different uses of deception in design, considers the challenges of ethical considerations for designers, and review responsible design practices.

Differing forms of deception

To understand its outcomes, we must first understand the variations that deception can occur as. Deception is defined by Miquel-Ribe (2020, p. 84) as “changing or hiding relevant information in order to alter the decision-making process”. Nodder (2013) defines the tactic “evil design” as “design that creates purposefully designed interfaces that make users emotionally involved in doing something that benefits the designer more than them” (p.10).

Alternatively, this is described by Miquel-Ribe (2020) as “dark UX”. Miquel-Ribe's interpretation goes further, stating that when deceived, users perform unintended actions, potentially while unaware of the consequences. Miquel-Ribe also offers a more subtle version: manipulation, defined as “taking advantage of users psychological weaknesses and how it can relate to their motivation and perception” (p.84). Deception, then, does not have a single definition and a designer will need to critically examine their approach when considering what may or may not be appropriate.

A view on ethics and deception within UX design

“Should cause or motive be the priority of design ethics, and which is more likely to contribute to human well-being and happiness?” D'Anjou (2009, p. 101) queries the ethics in design in the terms of “cause” and “motive” as in his opinion, under these terms are how ethics can be divided. The former focuses on emotions, and the latter is about reasoning. This is a useful dichotomy through which to view the ethics of deception. Both emotions and reason play an equal role in a designer's decision to include deception within a project: the emotions of a participant must be considered and the reasons for the deception must be strong enough to justify deceiving the individual in the first place.

Fisher and Gamman (2018, p. 25) claims that design ethics are ‘conditioned by and entangled in’ their contexts, causing the moral decisions to be troublesome. UX design embraces the context of each experience or design; therefore, Fisher and Gamman’s proposition of an ethical dilemma being intimately involved with its placement in the world identifies with UX design. Designers in the UX field may have more complex ethics to deal with than a laboratory environment.

Chan (2020, p. 28) says that the foundational concept of ethics and design can be summed up by what Horst Rittel (in Protzen and Harris, 2010) describes as the question of “what to design and what not to design.” (p. 51). Horst’s question does not state who should be answering, but if it were to rest upon designer’s shoulders, I suggest that the results of being able to design without clients or commercial pressure would create the potential to, as Fuad-Luke (2009) suggests, designers should, “break outside the visions of business” (p. 189) and “design in the service of society” (p. 196). However, there could be a less forgiving outcome, as it could also an opportunity for judgement and criticism.

What can designers do?

On “what basis” should we be judging designers on the ethical decisions they make? D’Anjou (2009, p. 96) questions the context within which we determine whether designers are acting "authentically or in bad faith” (p. 104). This is a key question to investigate, as the application of ethics to individual situations can be subjective. Parsons (2016) defends the designer’s role in making ethical decisions, acknowledging that “there may be all sorts of ethically important aspects of the project that are simply out of the Designer’s control” (p.146). I would argue that it is the designer’s responsibility to be transparent about ethical concerns to the project team or client, regardless of whether they are able to act.

Further to this, Parsons (2016, p.131) also claims that “the development of technology has a life of its own, and once technologies are in place, they shape the nature of society and its decisions.” If our designs develop and grow after we release it into the world, can we be responsible for how they may be used? Also, how can the design process account for actions taken by individuals beyond the designers control? These questions call for a more in-depth study than this essay can provide, however it is essential to note that ethics within design can go beyond just the design process and the decisions of designers at that time.

Case study project

Within the Micro UX project, speculative design was employed to demonstrate and situate research on AI (Artificial Intelligence) and human interactions with this technology within an experience. Speculative design “encourages the user to reconsider how the present is ‘futuring’” (Malpas, 2013, p.340). This became a key part of our project outcome, using the debriefing following the experience to aid participants in bridging the gap between where the technology exists today, and may exist in the future.

Our project was designed to allow humans to mimic and ‘pass’ as an AI, whilst the participant engaging with the AI was unaware. The AI was being used to rehearse difficult conversations, calibrated to respond in a manner like the intended recipient. The intention from the design perspective was that the participant would get a better, more human-like response that aided the humans in their task, and the deception was necessary to protect the participants from embarrassment or fear of judgement.

Our testing of the design would have benefitted from Desmet's approach towards objects creating surprise and building a feeling of suspense. The setting, approach, interactions, and discovery are all key elements in the activity which will inform the participants emotional response and their overall experience (2008, p. 171).

The participant feedback we received included comments such as:

“The deception was necessary to get me started, but experience had worked well. I was more comfortable knowing there was a human in there after all.”
“I did not realise there was an AI at all - I could hear someone typing, so I was not convinced that this experience did not involve a human. But I would never use this product if I knew the truth, the deception was necessary”
“I had assumed there was a trick in the experiment, so I knew I was being deceived, I just didn’t know how.”

Furthermore, Desmet (2008) claims that the method of discovery can be impactful (p. 171). This was one element of the design we had not yet figured out for the in-person setting, opting for a conversational reveal in the debrief. Desmet's proposition would have helped further extend the emotional impact we could have on an audience.

Conclusion

The intention at the beginning of this essay was to understand deceptive practices within design work and review their consequences. We have found that deception cannot be employed in a singular technique, and does not have a unanimous outcome, which whilst ambiguous, allows for deception to be reviewed its context to determine whether it is justified.

The role of emotions, and the ethical considerations of these were unexpected at the beginning of this study, however they play a big part in whether deception can be considered acceptable, and regardless of circumstance, designers should be conscious of how participants feel or may feel, and advocate for change in any potentially unethical experience.

Within the Micro UX project, the deception used within the film was played out in a humorous, light-hearted way, and I would claim was not a true deception, however within the real-life testing, the feedback received showed that there was some unease with the deception we had employed. If the project were to continue, I would suggest what Nodder and Norman suggest: using an emotional connection as a convincing agent to attain consent to being deceived, with a fuller explanation of what was or was not going to happen, in terms of privacy and interactions.

In summary, design practices do need to be ethically considered, although as Chan (2020) questions, “how reliable it is even for responsible people, as morally inconsistent agents, to design ethics?” (p.38). This essay has uncovered that deception can be employed successfully for the participant and the researcher, however with technology growing outside our control (Parsons, 2016) and societies opinions on design responsibility changing (Rezai, 2020), I maintain there is a need for the conversation on how to include deception in practice, and how to design ethically to be continually be revisited.

References

Chan, J. (2020) Ethics in Design and Communication: Critical Perspectives. 1st edn. Edited by A. DeRosa and L. Scherling. London: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

d'Anjou, P. (2009) 'Beyond duty and virtue in design ethics', Design issues, 26(1), pp. 95-105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.95.

Desmet, P.M.A., Erp, J.v. and Karlsson, M. (2008) Design & emotion moves. 1st edn. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Fisher, T. and Gamman, L. (2019) Tricky Design: The Ethics of Things. 1st edn. London: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Fuad-Luke, A. (2009) Design Activism. 1st Edition edn. London: Routledge.

Malpass, M. (2013) 'Between Wit and Reason: Defining Associative, Speculative, and Critical Design in Practice', Design and culture, 5(3), pp. 333-356. doi: 10.2752/175470813X13705953612200.

Micquel-Ribe, M. (2020) Ethics in Design and Communication: Critical Perspectives. 1st edn. Edited by A. DeRosa and L. Scherling. London: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Nodder, C. (2013) Evil by design. 1st edn. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

Parsons, G. (2016) The philosophy of design. 1sh edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Protzen, J.P. and Harris, D.J., 2010. The universe of design: Horst Rittel's theories of design and planning. Routledge.

Rezai, M. (2020) Ethics in Design and Communication: Critical Perspectives. 1st edn. Edited by A. DeRosa and L. Scherling. London: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.