2024
Kamphorst, Bart; Anderson, Joel
E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization Journal Article
In: AI and Ethics, pp. 1-10, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Coercion, E-coaching systems, Ethics, Inequality, social justice, Stigmatisation
@article{nokey,
title = {E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization},
author = {Bart Kamphorst and Joel Anderson},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/ecoaching_systems_and_social_justice_ethical_conc-wageningen_university_and_research_650099/},
doi = {10.1007/s43681-024-00424-7},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-02-19},
urldate = {2024-02-19},
journal = {AI and Ethics},
pages = {1-10},
abstract = {Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.},
keywords = {Coercion, E-coaching systems, Ethics, Inequality, social justice, Stigmatisation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.