How to Distinguish Influence from Manipulation

Calling someone a manipulator is a criticism of their character. Saying you’ve been manipulated is a complaint about mistreatment. At best, manipulation is cunning; at worst, it’s downright immoral. But why is that? What’s wrong with manipulation? People constantly influence each other in many ways, so what exactly sets manipulation apart from other forms of influence, and what makes it unethical?

We are constantly exposed to attempts at manipulation—here are just a few examples. Gaslighting makes you doubt your own judgment and rely instead on the manipulator’s advice. Guilt-tripping makes you feel excessively guilty for not doing what the manipulator wants. Charm offensives and pressure tactics make you care so much about the manipulator’s approval that you’re willing to do anything they ask.

Advertising is manipulative too, encouraging us to form false beliefs—like convincing us that fried chicken is healthy food, or creating false associations such as linking Marlboro cigarettes with rugged masculinity. Phishing and other scams manipulate victims through deceptive tactics (from outright lies to faked phone numbers or URLs) and by playing on emotions like greed, fear, or sympathy. There’s also more direct manipulation, perhaps best exemplified by Iago in Othello, who manipulates Othello into doubting Desdemona’s fidelity, preys on his insecurities to spark jealousy, and drives him to a rage that ultimately leads to tragedy. All these examples of manipulation share a sense of immorality. So, what do they have in common?

Is Manipulation Wrong Because It Causes Harm?

Maybe manipulation is wrong because it harms the person being manipulated? It’s true that manipulation often causes harm. Manipulative cigarette ads can lead to illness and death, manipulative phishing and scams can result in identity theft and financial loss, manipulative social tactics can sustain abusive or unhealthy relationships, and political manipulation can divide society and weaken democracy. But manipulation isn’t always harmful.

Suppose Amy has just left an abusive but loyal partner, and in a moment of weakness, she’s tempted to go back. Now imagine Amy’s friends use the same tactics Iago used on Othello: they manipulate her into (falsely) believing her ex was not only abusive but also unfaithful. If this manipulation keeps Amy from returning, she might actually be better off than if her friends hadn’t intervened. Still, many would find this episode morally questionable. Intuitively, it seems her friends should have used non-manipulative means to help Amy avoid reuniting with her ex. Even if manipulation helps rather than harms the person, something about it still feels morally wrong.

So, harm alone can’t be the reason we label manipulation as wrong.

Is Manipulation Wrong Because of Its Methods?

Perhaps manipulation is wrong because it uses methods that are inherently immoral ways of treating others? This idea may appeal to those inspired by Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, which says morality requires us to treat each other as rational beings, not just as objects. Maybe the only proper way to influence others is through rational persuasion, and any other form of influence is morally unacceptable. But this theory also falls short, as it condemns many forms of influence that are morally harmless.

For example, much of Iago’s manipulation involves appealing to Othello’s emotions. But emotional appeals aren’t always manipulative. Moral persuasion often appeals to sympathy or asks us to imagine how we’d feel if others treated us the way we treat them. Similarly, trying to make someone fear something genuinely dangerous, feel guilty for something truly wrong, or feel a reasonable level of confidence in their abilities doesn’t seem manipulative. Even suggesting someone question their own judgment isn’t manipulative if there’s a good reason (like intoxication or strong emotions).

Not every form of non-rational influence is manipulative.

What Really Makes Influence Manipulative?

It turns out that whether influence is manipulative depends on how it’s used. Iago’s actions are manipulative and wrong because he aims to make Othello think and feel things that are untrue. Iago knows Othello has no reason to be jealous, but he makes him jealous anyway. This is the emotional equivalent of lying, which Iago also does by arranging things (like the dropped handkerchief) to make Othello form false beliefs.

Manipulative gaslighting happens when the manipulator deceives someone into distrusting what would otherwise be sound judgment. Conversely, if you advise an angry friend to avoid jumping to conclusions and wait until they’ve calmed down—knowing their judgment is temporarily impaired—you’re not being manipulative. When a scammer tries to make you feel sympathy for a nonexistent Nigerian prince, that’s manipulative because they know it’s a mistake to feel sympathy for someone who doesn’t exist. But a sincere appeal to help real people suffering undeserved hardship is moral persuasion, not manipulation.

If a partner tries to make you feel guilty for suspecting their infidelity—when you have good reason to suspect it—they’re being manipulative, because they’re trying to induce an inappropriate feeling of guilt. But if a friend makes you feel guilty for abandoning them in a time of real need, that doesn’t seem manipulative.

What makes influence manipulative—and what makes it wrong—is exactly this: the manipulator tries to get someone to adopt a belief, emotion, or mental state that the manipulator themselves considers inappropriate. In this way, manipulation is like lying.

In both cases, the goal is to make someone else make a mistake. A liar tries to get you to believe something false. A manipulator might do that too, but they can also try to make you feel an inappropriate (or excessively strong/weak) emotion, place too much importance on the wrong things (like someone else’s approval), or doubt something (like your own judgment or your partner’s loyalty) without good reason. The difference between manipulation and non-manipulative influence depends on whether one person is trying to make another make a mistake in what they think, feel, doubt, or pay attention to.

As a species, humans influence each other in many ways beyond pure rational persuasion. Sometimes these influences improve someone’s decision-making by helping them believe, doubt, feel, or focus on the right things; sometimes they make things worse by leading them to believe, doubt, feel, or focus on the wrong things. But manipulation involves deliberately using such influences to hinder someone from making the right decision—that’s the essence of its immorality.

This understanding of manipulation helps us recognize it. When identifying manipulation, what matters isn’t the type of influence used, but whether that influence is used to put someone in a better or worse position. In other words, if we want to spot manipulation, we should look not at the form of influence, but at the intention of the person using it.