Flavia Russo is a behavioural analyst at Canvas8. After gaining her MSc in international development from KCL, she worked as a translator and researcher in the non-profit and political risk sectors. There, she gained experience conducting qualitative and ethnographic research, from which her passion for analysing cultural and behavioural trends develops. When not working, Flavia loves spending time with her many cats and dogs, travelling to exotic locations, or playing tennis.


People are drawn to honesty and integrity in the post-truth era

Radical Transparency 

People are refusing to accept purpose-washing

Assertive Audiences

We are living in a post-pandemic world where the impending threat of a climate catastrophe is competing with panicked warnings of AI taking over our lives. In this seemingly apocalyptic landscape, manipulation is rife as people are bombarded with all kinds of information, fake news, and algorithmically tailored marketing. So, as emerging technologies enable unprecedented persuasion, examining the ethics around manipulation is crucial.

Enter Laura Dodsworth, a taboo-busting author and photographer. “I'm interested in what makes people tick, and approach everything with an almost pathological commitment to truth,” she says. Having taken intimate portraits for 

, Dodsworth has turned her lens to the burgeoning manipulation industry. 

Free Your Mind: The New World of Manipulation and How to Resist It

, co-authored with behavioural scientist Patrik Fagan, features psychological tricks to help people reclaim autonomy as Dodsworth elucidates uncomfortable realities.

Canvas8 sat down with Laura to shed light on the topics of taboos and manipulation, contributing to the urgent debate on influence versus ethics in an increasingly engineered society.

’ and have explored a trajectory of fear, which you say stems from an interest in taboos. Can you talk about your process in approaching and addressing taboos?

 but in different ways. My book photographing and interviewing women about their breasts seemed daring at the time. With that project – part of the Bare Reality series – I wanted to counter the objectification of women's bodies as we were so used to seeing in the media, like Page Three in British tabloids. I photographed diverse women of all sizes and backgrounds and let them share their stories, subjectifying them instead. After exploring women's experiences so intensely, I became curious about men's perspectives and I began that journey of revealing other vulnerabilities with another intimate disruption of taboos. Then I tackled the ultimate bodily taboo – womanhood.

Each project built on the last to rupture different societal taboos, but always with the aim of bringing nuance and humanity to topics so often kept hidden from mainstream discourse. With that series of works, I ultimately sought to disrupt simplifications and give voice to complex experiences with photography that uplifted untold stories.

Can you talk about how your work with gender, the body, and feminism evolved into explorations of fear and manipulation?

My next two books explored different taboos. In the first one, 

, I was interested in exploring how governments weaponised public fear during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that people were obliged by the restrictions. Questioning the draconian lockdown rules felt quite controversial at the time as policymakers dictated these harsh restrictions while seemingly sitting comfortably in their privileged positions. In the second book, 

, we aimed to further explore and expose how manipulation tactics are used by the authorities to encourage compliance from the population. I think the thing that draws together all of my work is shining a light on those dark corners often considered taboo.

Did you apply a feminist lens to your works around fear and manipulation, and was this useful to gain further insight and understanding about these topics?

I think there is one sense in which I did apply a feminist lens – literally with my camera, to photograph and document life under lockdown. Those leading the lockdown mandates had overlooked or ignored how such rules, like strictly enforcing social distancing, would severely and disproportionately impact disadvantaged groups in society, especially marginalised women living in different accommodations. Something that I found quite provocative as a photographer was this idea about the distance that we could get to – two metres and no further.

I wanted to explore and shed light on this, so I started a project called ‘Two Metres’ where I think the anger is quite visible. I put a tape measure out and measured a precise distance of two metres between me and my subject, and I photographed them from that distance. I then interviewed subjects to understand the impacts of lockdown on them. I interviewed one woman who was living in a single room with her child during lockdown. I found that was such a powerful experience – so concerning and moving – that I found more women like that. For them, social distancing was impossible, especially in accommodations where multiple families and individuals were sharing the same living space. I interviewed one woman whose young son was terrified to even step on the floor because of rats in a run-down property, so not only did he spend lockdown confined to one room, he spent it on his bed. A lot of the women I interviewed and photographed spoke English only as a second language, which often made it harder for them to make sense of the alarmist language used frequently by politicians, public health officials, and the media throughout the pandemic. They were vulnerable both economically and linguistically, so the constant warnings made them believe that if they dared take their child to a playground, they could die.

So, while my pandemic-related book tackled controversial political taboos, the act of photographing these forgotten and marginalised women specifically revealed an important feminist angle. Through this work, I aimed to convey how lockdowns and alarmist language confined and harmed the already-disadvantaged in ways overlooked by privileged policymakers. The living situations of the women I interviewed and photographed compounded the burden of lockdowns, which were crafted without considering their situations and needs.

Let’s talk more about your latest book, 

. What inspired you to investigate the topic of manipulation? Was there a particular experience or moment that made you realise this was an important issue to explore now?

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, I was unaware of how deeply embedded behavioural science and nudging are within governments. Being locked down opened my eyes to the tactics used by authorities and, essentially, the pandemic awakened me to the extent of governmental nudging and control, inspiring my latest book exposing these methods. The experience fundamentally changed my world view. I now notice attempts at persuasion everywhere, though not all are nefarious. While I don't live in a state of constant anxiety about manipulation, I'm newly attuned to its prevalence.

But unlike the paternalistic behavioural science view that people are irrational and unable to make good choices, I believe in human wisdom and I trust people. I have faith that people can self-determine when informed. Therefore, I think the solution is equipping individuals with the knowledge and tools to understand how they're persuaded, empowering them to make their own decisions. Knowledge is power – it enables crowds to wisely self-govern.

In the book, you uncover manipulation tactics used everywhere from advertising to politics to social media. Which of these areas stood out to you as being the most alarming or concerning when it comes to covert influence? In your opinion, are people more aware of these sorts of tactics now than they have been in the past? Does it make a difference to how they respond? Are people attempting to fight against it or are they so stuck in a permacrisis that they're just letting it wash over them?

I see growing polarisation in how people view manipulation – some are increasingly concerned while others welcome it. For example, when I discuss government behavioural science tactics used during COVID-19, some are horrified at the manipulation while others think it appropriately guided the general public. But I think the greatest danger is the pervasive climate of fear, fuelled by dramatic headlines and social media algorithms that tap into emotions. I notice a lot of ‘trigger stacking’ as fears build on each other, and people have become hyper-vigilant as a result. For instance, a recent article played on multiple anxieties – parasites, infectious diseases, climate change – to stoke alarm.

While some types of manipulation are more alarming than others, a few stand out. For example, social media algorithms that silently shape content are deeply dangerous and need health warnings, in my opinion. Also concerning is governments’ expanding censorship infrastructure, from university propaganda projects to truth arbiters. The issue is that, often, no one is fact-checking the fact-checkers. With no oversight, they could threaten free speech, so I think the public needs to know with clarity what is going on, where, and why. Additionally, online choice architecture by brands disturbs me. From skewed forms to claims of scarcity, these techniques distort consumer behaviour. While regulators are finally scrutinising corporate manipulation, they ignore governments' own behavioural science teams who nudge the public into submission.

You discuss ‘nudging’ and other subtle forms of social influence. Where do you think the line should be drawn between helpful persuasion and harmful manipulation? How can brands play a role in addressing these?

In certain sectors, some types of nudging, like encouraging healthy behaviours, seem beneficial. But I'm concerned these ‘easy win’ nudges lend credibility to more questionable uses. For example, changing organ donation to an opt-out system increases donor sign-ups. However, this doesn't address systemic barriers like a lack of doctors and transportation, which limit actual donations. Another example is mask-wearing. Nudging increased mask-wearing despite gaps in evidence that it prevents viral spread. This ignores downsides like impaired communication, causing issues for children and people with hearing difficulties or autism.

In politics, nudging shifts responsibility on to individuals, not governments. It replaces bottom-up democracy with top-down control, altering people's will to suit leaders. COVID-19 messaging told people that deaths were their fault for not following rules, glossing over the state's failure to prepare. Likewise, campaigns against harassment individualise systemic social problems.

Nudging has little democratic oversight, yet organisations like the UK's Nudge Unit shape policy, often to justify inaction. These technocratic politics harm democracy. So, I'm concerned about the line between ‘helpful’ persuasion and manipulation. Cass Sunstein proposed covertly infiltrating communities to disrupt conspiracy theories, but this could undermine trust rather than enhance it. There is the risk that even well-intentioned nudging enables unaccountable, unethical manipulation. We need transparency, consent, and deliberation to determine appropriate uses, otherwise nudging may do more harm than good.

Governments have argued things like nudging can serve public health, but you believe 

. Where do you think the line should be drawn between helpful approaches and overreach? Can you also talk a little about privacy concerns when it comes to informed consent, also considering AI and automation – are people likely to be welcoming of this?

The public has never consented to the use of nudging and behavioural science in advertising or government messaging. There's no transparency into how much is spent on psychological techniques to influence people. We are not shown how well campaigns work. We know there's a reproducibility issue in behavioural science, so there is no informed consent. Voters can't hold leaders accountable. During COVID, heavy nudging was used to increase vaccinations. There were lots of different incentives, coercions, and cajoling. Some things were very innocuous, like providing free taxis to people to send to vaccination centres. But, obviously, incentives and messaging all affected informed consent. This raises medical ethics issues that we should consider before applying such techniques more broadly.

With regards to algorithms and AI, it is concerning that there’s a lack of awareness about how algorithms personalise our online experiences. There's no neutrality – our digital world is customised to shape our behaviour. What is also interesting is how language has changed when talking about AI. Twenty years ago, we were effectively told that computers were so stupid that the world would end because of the Y2K bug. However, now we're being told they're so sentient that the world could end. But when people who know what they're doing try to make you frightened, you have to question why. I thought it was interesting how in all of the articles and open letters co-authored by big tech leaders, they didn't talk about how AI could be sedimented with nudging. So, to me, the real risk is combining AI's predictive power with nudging at a mass scale as it would enable unprecedented persuasion customised to each person. Yet proposed regulations do little to address this consent and manipulation danger. The public is distracted with sci-fi AI scenarios while the actual risk is supercharged behavioural science. We need an open debate on balancing influence and autonomy in the age of fast-developing new tech.

Your book aims to help readers recognise and resist manipulation. In your view, what are some of the most important strategies or mindsets for maintaining independent thinking?

I think the very first starting point is to realise that your brain is a battleground. By accepting the battle with your brain and building self-awareness, you can resist propaganda's pull. But it takes lifelong vigilance – manipulation is relentless. Arm yourself with knowledge. I would caution people to be aware of martial language, which is supposed to make you frightened and encourage compliance. As an individual, you have to accept you are at war and that there are multiple attempts to get your attention and change your behaviour, whether it's buying brand A over brand B, voting for the next political party, or giving money to charity. Just recognise it goes on all day, every day. Awareness is the first step in preventing manipulation.

We open the book by interviewing people who have been trained on how to resist torture and also how to deliver enhanced interrogation techniques. One of the first things you need to do is to decide that you are mentally resilient and stand your ground. Inoculate yourself by learning to spot nudge techniques and propaganda tactics until you can't unsee them. Listen to your instincts over rationalisations. Understand how your senses are targeted. Limit screen time – TV, phones, and ads employ psychological tricks. In the book, we also interviewed magicians – if you don't want to get tricked, don't go to the show. Remain sceptical of paternalistic governments and corporations claiming to know what's best. Watch for charged symbols playing on the unconscious.

Tap into people’s changing relationship with the truth

I believe the most important strategy is truth. There's much discussion lately about rebuilding trust in institutions, media, and leaders. But trust can't be engineered – it's the result of telling the truth consistently over time. Rather than trying to manipulate trust, we need to focus on being accurate, open, and ethical in all we communicate. Speaking truths people can rely on is the only path to renewed public confidence. No technique or messaging can fast-track trust – it must be earned through integrity and authenticity.

As a consumer, what is key is to know yourself – your emotional triggers and biases make you vulnerable to manipulation tactics. Scams succeed by provoking hope as well as fear. Everyone is susceptible to it. Sure, part of the problem with any kind of manipulation is the message, but part of the problem is the individual. It is the work of a lifetime, but if individuals truly understand their own biases and frailties, they are much better equipped to resist propaganda. If you understand what your triggers are, you can become more resistant to the messaging.

Communicate with clarity and transparency

In a context where we are continuously bombarded by information, messaging, and images, honesty is key. The public needs to be told exactly what is going on and why. People can see through misleading statements. The reason trust is so low now is because of the scarcity of honesty. If we want to restore faith in our systems, the key is a commitment to transparency and truth-telling, even when it's inconvenient. Gaining public trust requires transparency rather than obfuscation.

65% of people in the UK and US agree that transparency and honesty are important factors when making decisions about a brand

Globally, businesses hold a 54 percentage point lead over governments in terms of perceived competence and are 30 points ahead on ethics

79% of people believe it’s ethical for marketers to use manipulation tactics to sell their products

Even if it’s well-intentioned, nudging can be unethical as people’s decisions are manipulated without informed consent

As more people learn how brands, governments, and tech platforms use nudges to affect their behaviours, transparency is becoming increasingly important to establish trust

AI has the potential to supercharge nudge tactics by tailoring persuasive messaging at a mass scale –

something that proposed regulations have yet to address

Laura Dodsworth is an author, journalist, and photographer who explores powerful human stories with integrity and tackles controversial topics head-on. From intimacy to mass psychology, Dodsworth elucidates uncomfortable realities with punchy frankness. She aims to spur debate on integrating truth and autonomy in society. A

 bestselling author, Laura’s latest book, 

, explores manipulation and seeks to equip readers to face an increasingly engineered world.

United Kingdom

Global

Social networking

Communications

In the context of the polycrisis and AI fears, overwhelming amounts of information have made it hard to discern what’s true, straining a shared sense of reality across society. Canvas8 spoke to Laura Dodsworth about the growing manipulation industry and how people can resist psychological tricks.