A new science for better manipulating our behaviour on the internet: captology
In the 1970s, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky showed that we all have two modes of reasoning that can contradict each other. The first, which they call system 1, is fast and intuitive. It has the advantage of making decisions very quickly, but also of giving us the impression that we are deciding on the basis of what is obvious. The second of these systems, called system 2, is on the contrary slow and relies on rationality. In everyday life, we constantly tend to operate using system 1. But this system, precisely because of its speed, imposes a generally unconscious shortcut in the processing of information, which distorts it. We do not decide according to the reality of the problem we are facing, but according to what we believe we understand of it and what seems likely to work given what worked on previous occasions. The result is what is known as a “cognitive bias”. Around 200 are now distinguished! For example, there is much talk at the moment of the tendency to minimise the most significant risks and magnify minor ones, since it leads some people to refuse the vaccine believing they are avoiding a risk, whereas the risk of falling ill is far greater, but minimised, by not being vaccinated. Among the most common biases, let us also mention “confirmation bias”, which consists in preferring what goes in the direction of our beliefs; and “framing bias”, which consists in making up our minds according to the way a choice is presented to us.
But what makes these biases so important today is the way neuroscience is incorporating them into its field of study, with the intention of being able to act on them, that is to say on us! A new discipline is responsible for this: “captology”. Its goal is to get us to stay ever longer on the digital content offered to us, notably in video games and on social networks, so that we spend ever more there and give ever more personal information, which is known to be a considerable source of revenue for these companies.
The good news is that legislators are starting to take an interest. In California, several of these “dark patterns” – my preferred translation being “user traps” – have been banned. Another measure would be to inform us better about them. Indeed, our mental functioning in relation to these biases can be altered by other messages, so that our decisions are less emotional and more considered. Only those who have the capacity to understand what is at stake in manipulation on the internet can estimate the risks, step back and protect themselves. But for most users, it is not possible to carry out this assessment alone. The main question is then to compel digital service providers to give users the information that lets them act in an informed way.
Serge Tisseron is a psychiatrist, a doctor of psychology qualified to supervise research, a member of the Académie des technologies and an associate researcher at Université de Paris (CRPMS).
