ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Decisions are influenced by the environment in which the choices are presented. In fact, no choice is made in a vacuum, as there is no neutral way to present choices. Presenting choices in certain ways, even unintentionally, can "nudge" people to change their behavior in predictable ways. "Nudging" is a concept from behavioral economics that describes how even minor changes to decision environments (e.g., setting defaults) can influence decision outcomes-typically without the decision-maker noticing this influence. The more decisions people make using digital devices, the more the software engineer becomes a choice architect who knowingly or unknowingly influences people's decisions. Thus, we extend the nudging concept to the digital environment, defining "digital nudging" as the use of user-interface design elements to guide people's behavior in digital choice environments, and present a digital nudge design process to help online choice architects take nudging principles into consideration when designing digital choice environments like Web sites and apps.
Content may be subject to copyright.
LIFE IS FULL of choices, often in digital environments.
People interact with e-government applications; trade
financial products online; buy products in Web shops;
book hotel rooms on mobile booking apps; and make
decisions based on content presented in organizational
information systems. All such choices are influenced by
the choice environment, as reflected
in this comment: “What is chosen of-
ten depends upon how the choice is
presented.”16 Why? People have cogni-
tive limitations, so their rationality is
bounded,27 and heuristics and biases
drive their decision making.34 Design-
ers of choice environments, or “choice
architects,”32 can thus use these heu-
ristics and biases to manipulate the
choice environment to subtly guide us-
ers’ behavior by gently “nudging” them
toward certain choices.
These observations are more than
theory. We are being nudged every
day of our lives. Supermarkets posi-
tion items with the highest markups
at eye level to nudge customers into
making unplanned purchases. Like-
wise, supermarkets limit the number
of units customers are allowed to buy,
Designers can create designs that nudge
users toward the most desirable option.
Guiding Online
User Choices
Interface Design
key insights
˽ Heuristics and biases influence offline
and online behavior.
˽ User-interface design influences choices,
even unintentionally.
˽ Thorough design and testing can help
achieve a designer’s intended behavioral
contributed articles
thereby influencing their buying de-
cisions; customers subconsciously
anchor their decisions on the maxi-
mum number and adjust downward
from there, resulting in purchases of
greater quantities.36 This effect has
been demonstrated in the context
of everyday items; for example, in-
troducing a quantity limit of 12 cans
of soup helped double the average
quantity purchased from 3.3 to seven
cans.36 Nudges are not, however, used
only by marketers trying to sell more
products or services; for example,
when asking people to consent to be-
ing an organ donor, simply changing
defaults can influence people’s choic-
es. Setting the default to “dissent,”
whereby donors have to opt out, rath-
er than “consent” whereby donors
have to opt in, can nearly double the
percentage of organ donors.15 These
examples show that largely impercep-
tible nudges are effective in a variety
of offline contexts.
As in offline environments, online
environments offer no neutral way to
present choices. Any user interface,
from organizational website to mobile
app, can thus be viewed as a digital
choice environment.37 Digital choice
environments nudge people by delib-
erately presenting choices or organiz-
ing workflows, making digital nudg-
ing—“the use of user-interface design
elements to guide people’s behavior
in digital choice environments”37—a
powerful tool in any choice architect’s
toolbox. Choosing the most effective
nudge involves trade-offs, however,
because predicting the consequences
of implementing certain nudges is not
always possible.
Existing guidelines for implement-
ing nudges have been developed pri-
marily for offline environments, and
digital nudging has only recently
begun to attract programmer inter-
est; see, for example, Gregor and
Lee-Archer10 and Weinmann et al.37
In addition, guidelines that are effec-
tive offline may not always be directly
transferred to a digital context; for ex-
ample, online users are more willing
to disclose information but are also
more cautious about accepting de-
fault options.2 To this end, this article
shows how designers can consider the
effects of nudges when designing digi-
tal choice environments.
Figure 1. The decoy effect in reward-based crowdfunding; screenshot shows the decoy
Figure 2. The decoy effect in reward-based crowdfunding; adding a decoy option can make
another option more attractive.
Reward 1
Reward 2
Reward 2
Reward Menu 1
Reward Menu 2
Reward 1: e-book ($10)
Reward 2: e-book and hardcover ($20)
Reward 1: e-book ($10)
Decoy: hardcover ($10)
Reward 2: e-book and hardcover ($20)
Figure 3. The scarcity effect in reward-based crowdfunding; limiting either reward changes
pledging behavior of potential backers.
Reward 1
Reward 2
Reward Menu 1
Reward Menu 2
Reward 1: screen credit ($10) only five left
Reward 2: DVD/Blu-ray ($50)
Reward 1: screen credit ($10)
Reward 2: DVD/Blu-ray ($50) only five left
Reward 1
Reward 2
contributed articles
an e-book in return for a $10 pledge or
both an e-book and a hardcover book
for a $20 pledge, most backers chose
to pledge $10. However, when a third
option—a decoy nudge—was included
that offered only the hardcover book in
return for a $20 pledge (see Figure 1),
most backers chose to pledge $20 to
receive both the e-book and the hard-
cover book. Including the decoy option
thus led many backers to move from
the $10 pledge to the $20 pledge (see
Figure 2).
Scarcity effect. People tend to per-
ceive scarce items as more attractive
or desirable.9 In the context of crowd-
funding (N = 166), the researchers
showed that limiting the availability
of rewards—a “scarcity nudge”—can
lead them to choose a particular re-
Guiding Choices
As in offline contexts, online decision
making is almost always influenced by
heuristics and biases; consequently,
the concept of digital nudging applies
not only to online consumers’ decision
making but also to various other con-
texts, from e-health systems to social
media apps to organizational infor-
mation systems. Whereas such factors
as presenting reviews or highlighting
markdowns are well known for hav-
ing a strong effect on user behavior
in general, digital nudges influence
decisions at the point and moment of
decision making.a,22 In particular, digi-
tal nudging works by either modifying
what is presented—the content of a
choice6,35—or how it is presented—the
visualization of a choice—as in, say,
changing the design of the user inter-
face.16 For example, the mobile pay-
ment app Square presents a “tipping”
option by default, so customers must
select “no tipping” if they prefer not
to give a tip; this modification is likely
an attempt to nudge people into giving
tips, motivating them to tip even where
tipping is uncommon.3
To illustrate the effects of digital
nudges, we briefly explore the results of
a series of experiments in the context
of reward-based crowdfunding.28,33,38
In reward-based crowdfunding, proj-
ect creators collect small amounts of
money from a large number of people,
or “backers.” Backers pledge money
for projects and receive non-financial
a Digital nudging, with its focus on the design
of digital choice environments, can be viewed
as a subset of persuasive computing/technol-
ogy, which is generally defined as technology
designed to change attitudes or behaviors and
includes aspects of human-computer interac-
tion beyond interface design.8,26
rewards in return (such as an e-book).1
To test how digital nudges influence
backers’ pledges, researchers at the
University of Liechtenstein modified
the content and/or visualization of a
choice environment to nudge back-
ers toward a particular option through
three particular heuristics and biases,
known as the “decoy effect,”33 “scarcity
effect,”38 and “middle-option bias.”28
Decoy effect. The decoy effect in-
creases an option’s attractiveness by
presenting the option alongside an
unattractive option no one would rea-
sonably choose—the decoy.13 In a study
conducted in the context of crowdfund-
ing (N = 96), the researchers showed
how decoys can nudge users to select
certain rewards;33 when backers were
presented with a choice of receiving
Figure 4. The middle-option bias in reward-based crowdfunding; even when the investment scale is increased, backers tended to select the
middle option.
Reward Menu 1
(Inexpensive Scale)
Reward Menu 2
(Moderate Scale)
Reward Menu 3
(Expensive Scale)
Figure 5. Designing digital nudges follows a cycle; based on Datta and Mullainathan5 and Ly et al.19
contributed articles
$15, $20, $25. The researchers told the
participants that their pledge would
be doubled as a reward if the project
would be successful. However, irrespec-
tive of the scale, most backers tended to
choose the middle option, and by shift-
ing the scales, the researchers could
nudge the participants toward selecting
rewards associated with higher pledge
amounts (see Figure 4).
These examples show that designers
can create digital nudges on the basis
of psychological principles of human
decision making to influence people’s
online behavior. Unintended effects
may arise, however, if designers of digi-
tal choice environments are unaware
of the principles. For example, in the
context of crowdfunding, presenting
decoys or limiting the availability of
rewards without considering their ef-
fect can unintentionally lead backers
to select lower-price rewards; that is,
as virtually all user-interface design
decisions influence user behavior,20,30
designers must understand the effects
of their designs so they can choose
whether to nudge users or reduce the
effects of nudges.
Designing a Digital Nudge
While a number of researchers have
suggested guidelines for selecting
and implementing nudges in offline
contexts,5,6,16,19,21,31 information sys-
tems present unique opportunities
for harnessing the power of nudging.
For example, Web technologies allow
real-time tracking and analysis of user
behavior, as well as personalization
of the user interface, and both can help
test and optimize the effectiveness of
digital nudges; moreover, mobile apps
can provide a wealth of information
about the context (such as location and
movement) in which a choice is made.
Given these advantages, information
systems allow rapid content modifi-
cation and visualization to achieve the
desired nudging effect.
Drawing on guidelines for imple-
menting nudges in offline contexts,
we now highlight how designers can
create digital nudges by exploiting
the inherent advantages of informa-
tion systems. Just as developing an
information system follows a cycle, as
in, say, the systems development life
cycle—planning, analysis, design, and
implementation—so does designing
choices to nudge users (see Figure 5)—
define the goal, understand the users,
design the nudge, and test the nudge.
We discuss each step in turn, focusing
on the decisions designers must make.
Step 1: Define the goal. Designers
must first understand an organiza-
tion’s overall goals and keep them in
mind when designing particular choice
situations. For instance, the goal of an e-
commerce platform is to increase sales,
the goal of a governmental taxing au-
thority’s platform is to make filing taxes
easier and encourage citizens to be hon-
est, and the goal of project creators on
crowdfunding platforms is to increase
pledges and overall donation amounts.
These goals determine how choices are
to be designed, particularly the type
of choice to be made. For example,
subscribing to a newsletter is a binary
choice—yes/no, agree/disagree—select-
ing between items is a discrete choice,
and donating monetary amounts is a
continuous choice, though it could also
be presented as a discrete choice. The
type of choice determines the nudge to
be used (see the table here). The choice
architect, however, must consider not
only the goals but also the ethical im-
ward.38 For a fictitious movie project,
backers were offered a choice between
two rewards: pledge $10 to be listed in
the screen credits or pledge $50 to re-
ceive the movie on a DVD/Blu-ray disc
(see Figure 3). When the availability of
the low-price reward was limited, 69%
of the backers chose that reward, as in
Figure 3, left side, whereas when the
availability of the high-price reward
was limited, 70% chose that reward,
as in Figure 3, right side. Merely pre-
senting information about the limited
availability of either reward, even the
higher-price one, thus caused more
backers to choose that reward.
Middle-option bias. People present-
ed with three or more options (ordered
sequentially, as by price) tend to select
the middle option.4 Testing the effect of
the middle-option bias in the context of
crowdfunding (N = 282), the research-
ers showed that backers can be nudged
into choosing the reward presented in
the middle.28 They tested it by varying
the pledges of the offered rewards by,
in particular, shifting the scales such
that Condition 1: $5, $10, $15; Condi-
tion 2: $10, $15, $20, and Condition 3:
Applying the digital nudging design cycle (selected examples).
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Type of choice
to be influenced
Heuristic/Bias Example design elements and
user-interface patterns and possible
nudges and mechanisms
Binary (yes/no) Status quo bias (defaults) Radio buttons (with default choice)
Discrete choice
(such as two products)
Status quo bias (defaults) Use of defaults in
Radio buttons
Check boxes
Dropdown menus
Decoy effect Presentation of decoy option(s) in
Radio buttons
Check boxes
Dropdown menus
Primacy and recency effect Positioning of presentation
of desired option(s)
Earlier (primacy)
Later (recency)
Middle-option bias Addition of higher- and lower-price
alternatives around preferred option
Ordering of alternatives
Modification of the option scale
Continuous Anchoring and adjustment Variation of slider endpoints
Use of default slider position
Predefined values in text boxes for quantities
Status quo bias (defaults) Use of default slider position
Any type of choice Norms Display of popularity (social norms)
Display of honesty codes (moral norms)
Scarcity effect (loss aversion) Use of default slider position
contributed articles
the heuristics and biases at play;
see the table for examples. For ex-
ample, a commonly used nudge in
binary choices is to preselect the
desired option to exploit the status
quo bias. When attempting to nudge
people in discrete choices, choice
architects can choose from a variety
of nudges to nudge people toward a
desired option. For example, in the
context of crowdfunding, with the
goal of increasing pledge amounts,
choice architects could present the
desired reward option as the default
option; add (unattractive) choices as
decoys; present the desired option
first or last to leverage primacy and
recency effects; or arrange the op-
tions so as to present the preferred
reward as the middle option. When
attempting to nudge people in con-
tinuous choices (such as when solic-
iting monetary donations), choice
architects could pre-populate input
fields (text boxes) with a particular
value so as to exploit the “anchor-
ing and adjustment” effect. Like-
wise, when using a slider to elicit
numerical responses, the position of
the slider and the slider endpoints
serve as implicit anchors. Present-
ing others’ choices next to rewards
to leverage people’s tendency to con-
form to norms or presenting limited
availability of rewards to exploit the
plications of deliberately nudging peo-
ple into making particular choices, as
nudging people toward decisions that
are detrimental to them or their wellbe-
ing is unethical and might thus back-
fire, leading to long-term negative ef-
fects for the organization providing the
choice.30 In short, overall organizational
goals and ethical considerations drive
the design of choice situations, a high-
level step that influences all subsequent
design decisions.
Step 2: Understand the users. Peo-
ple’s decision making is susceptible to
heuristics and biases. Heuristics, com-
monly defined as “rules of thumb,”14
can facilitate human decision making
by reducing the amount of informa-
tion to be processed when addressing
simple, recurrent problems. Converse-
ly, heuristics can influence decisions
negatively by introducing cognitive
biases—systematic errors—when one
faces complex judgments or decisions
that should require more extensive
deliberation.7 Researchers have stud-
ied a wide range of psychological ef-
fects that subconsciously influence
people’s behavior and decision mak-
ing.b In addition to the middle-option
bias, decoy effect, and scarcity effect
described earlier, common heuristics
like the “anchoring-and-adjustment”
heuristic, or people being influenced
by an externally provided value, even
if unrelated; the “availability” heuris-
tic, or people being influenced by the
vividness of events that are more easily
remembered; and the “representative-
ness” heuristic, or people relying on
stereotypes when encountering and
assessing novel situations,34 influence
how alternatives are evaluated and
what options are ultimately selected.
Other heuristics and biases that can
have a strong effect on choices in-
clude the “status quo bias,” or people
tending to favor the status quo so they
are less inclined to change default
options;18 the “primacy and recency
effect,” or people recalling options
presented first or last more vividly,
so those options have a stronger in-
fluence on choice;24 and “appeals to
b See Stanovich20 for a taxonomy of rational think-
ing errors and biases; see also Wikipedia for an
extensive list of cognitive biases that influence
people’s online and offline behavior (https://
norms,” or people tending to be influ-
enced by the behavior of others.23 Un-
derstanding these heuristics and bi-
ases and the potential effects of digital
nudges can thus help designers guide
people’s online choices and avoid the
trap of inadvertently nudging them
into decisions that might not align
with the organization’s overall goals.
Step 3: Design the nudge. Once
the goals are defined (see Step 1: De-
fine the goal) and the heuristics and
biases are understood (see Step 2:
Understand the users), the designer
can select the appropriate nudging
mechanism(s) to guide users’ deci-
sions in the designer’s intended di-
rection. Common nudging frame-
works a designer could use to select
appropriate nudges include the Be-
havior Change Technique Taxono-
my,21 NUDGE,31 MINDSPACE,6 and
Tools of a Choice Architecture.16
Selecting an appropriate nudge and
how to implement it through avail-
able design elements, or user-inter-
face patterns, is determined by both
the type of choice to be made—bi-
nary, discrete, or continuousc—and
c In most cases, the type of decision is an exter-
nality, and many decisions allow for only one
type; for example, consenting to something
(whether organ donation or signing up for a
newsletter) would normally always be a binary
Define goals:
What is the use scenario?
What are the overall organizational goals?
What specific goals are to be achieved in this situation?
What are the ethical implications of nudging people into making a certain decision?
Understand the decision process:
What are the users’ goals?
What are the users’ decision-making processes?
What heuristics might influence users’ choices?
Design the nudge:
What types of nudges could counter the influence of biases?
What types of nudges could increase the influence of biases?
What nudges could inadvertently influence users’ choices?
How can the design of the user interface be modified to include the preferred nudges?
How can we analyze users’ behavior to adapt the choice environment dynamically?
Test the nudge:
How effective are the various nudges?
Does the effectiveness differ across users?
Do the nudges fit the context and the goals?
Do we have a thorough understanding of the users’ decision-making process?
Questions Designers
Need to Address
contributed articles
architects have various nudge imple-
mentations at their disposal, thor-
ough testing is thus imperative for
finding the nudge that works best for
a given context and users.
Especially in light of the increasing
focus on integrating user-interface
design and agile methodologies, us-
ing discount usability techniques
(such as heuristic evaluation, as in-
troduced by Nielsen25) is often rec-
ommended to support rapid develop-
ment cycles (see, for example, Jurca et
al.17). Likewise, agile methodologies
include the quick collection of feed-
back from real users. However, such
feedback from conscious evaluations
should be integrated with caution be-
cause the effects of nudges are based
on subconscious influences on be-
havior, and experimental evaluations
can provide more reliable results. If
a particular nudge does not produce
the desired effect, a first step for
system designers is to evaluate the
nudge implementation to determine
whether the nudge is, say, too obvious
or not obvious enough (see Step 3: De-
sign the nudge). In some instances,
though, reexamining the heuristics
or biases that influence the decision-
making process (see Step 2: Under-
stand the users) or even returning to
Step 1: Define the goal and redefining
the goals may be necessary (see the
sidebar, “Questions Designers Need
to Address”).
Understanding digital nudges is im-
portant for the overall field of com-
puting because user-interface de-
signers create most of today’s choice
environments. With increasing
numbers of people making choices
through digital devices, user-inter-
face designers become choice ar-
chitects who knowingly or unknow-
ingly influence people’s decisions.
However, user-interface design often
focuses primarily on usability and
aesthetics, neglecting the potential
behavioral effects of alternative de-
signs. Extending the body of knowl-
edge of the computing profession
through insights into digital nudging
will help choice architects leverage
the effects of digital nudges to sup-
port organizational goals. Choice ar-
chitects can use the digital nudging
scarcity effect can be used to nudge
people in binary, discrete, or continu-
ous choices.
As the same heuristic can be ad-
dressed through multiple nudges,
in most situations, designers have
a variety of “nudge implementa-
tions” at their disposal. Unlike in
offline environments, implement-
ing nudges in digital environments
can be done at relatively low cost, as
system designers can easily modify
a system’s user interface (such as
by setting defaults, displaying/hid-
ing design elements, or providing
information on others’ pledges).
Likewise, digital environments en-
able dynamic adjustment of the op-
tions presented on the basis of cer-
tain attributes or characteristics of
the individual user (such as when
a crowdfunding platform presents
particular rewards depending on
the backers’ income, gender, or
age). Notwithstanding the choice
of nudges, designers should follow
commonly accepted design guide-
lines for the respective platforms
(such as Apple’s Human Interface
Guidelines and Microsoft’s Univer-
sal Windows Platform design guide-
lines) to ensure consistency and us-
Step 4: Test the nudge. Digital en-
vironments allow alternative designs
to be generated easily, so their effects
can be tested quickly, especially when
designing websites. The effective-
ness of digital nudges can be tested
through online experiments (such as
A/B testing and split testing). Testing
is particularly important, as the effec-
tiveness of a nudge is likely to depend
on both the context and goal of the
choice environment and the target au-
diences. For example, a digital nudge
that works well in one context (such as
a hotel-booking site like https://www. may not work as well
in a different context (such as a car-
hailing service like https://www.uber.
com); such differences may be due to
different target users, the unique na-
ture of the decision processes, or even
different layouts or color schemes on
the webpages; a hotel may use colors
and shapes that evoke calmness and
cleanliness, whereas a car-hailing ser-
vice may use colors and shapes that
evoke speed and efficiency. As choice
Big-data analytics
can be used to
analyze behavioral
patterns observed
in real time
to infer users’
cognitive styles,
or even
emotional states.
contributed articles
1. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A.
Individual crowdfunding practices. Venture Capital 15,
4 (May 2013), 313–333.
2. Benartzi, S. and Lehrer, J. The Smarter Screen:
Surprising Ways to Influence and Improve Online
Behavior. Penguin Books, New York, 2015.
3. Carr, A. How Square Register’s UI Guilts You Into
Leaving Tips. Fast Company, New York, 2013; http://
4. Christenfeld, N. Choices from identical options.
Psychological Science 6, 1 (Jan. 1995), 50–55.
5. Datta, S. and Mullainathan, S. Behavioral design:
A new approach to development policy. Review of
Income and Wealth 60, 1 (Feb. 2014), 7–35.
6. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D.,
Metcalfe, R., and Vlaev, I. Influencing behaviour: The
Mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology 33, 1
(Feb. 2012), 264–277.
7. Evans, J.S.B.T. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning,
judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of
Psychology 59, 1 (Jan. 2008), 255–278.
8. Fogg, B.J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers
to Change What We Think and Do. Elsevier, Oxford,
U.K., 2003.
9. Fromkin, H.L. and Snyder, C.R. The search for
uniqueness and valuation of scarcity. Chapter 3 in
Social Exchange, K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, and R.H.
Willis, Eds. Springer U.S., Boston, MA, 1980, 57–75.
10. Gregor, S. and Lee-Archer, B. The digital nudge in the
Social Security Administration. International Social
Security Review 69, 3-4 (July-Dec. 2016), 63–83.
11. Hauser, J.R., Urban, G.L., Liberali, G., and Braun, M.
Website morphing. Marketing Science 28, 2 (Mar.
2009), 202–223.
12. Hibbeln, M., Jenkins, J.L., Schneider, C., Valacich, J.S.,
and Weinmann, M. How is your user feeling? Inferring
emotion through human-computer interaction devices.
MIS Quarterly 41, 1 (Mar. 2017), 1–21.
13. Huber, J., Payne, J.W., and Puto, C. Adding
asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of
regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of
Consumer Research 9, 1 (June 1982), 90.
14. Hutchinson, J.M.C. and Gigerenzer, G. Simple
heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists
and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioural
Processes 69, 2 (May 2005), 97–124.
15. Johnson, E.J. and Goldstein, D.G. Do defaults save
lives? Science 302, 5649 (Nov. 2003), 1338–1339.
16. Johnson, E.J., Shu, S.B., Dellaert, B.G.C. et al. Beyond
nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing
Letters 23, 2 (June 2012), 487–504.
17. Jurca, G., Hellmann, T.D., and Maurer, F. Integrating
agile and user-centered design: A systematic mapping
and review of evaluation and validation studies of
agile-UX. In Proceedings of the 2014 Agile Conference
(Kissimmee, FL, July 28–Aug. 1). IEEE Computer
Society, Piscataway, NJ, 2014.
18. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H.
Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion,
and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives 5, 1 (Winter 1991), 193–206.
19. Ly, K., Mazar, N., Zhao, M., and Soman, D. A Practitioner’s
Guide to Nudging. Rotman School of Management
Working Paper No. 2609347, May 2013, 1–28;
20. Mandel, N. and Johnson, E.J. When webpages
influence choice: Effects of visual primes on experts
and novices. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 2
(Sept. 2002), 235–245.
21. Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M. et al. The
behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93
hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an
international consensus for the reporting of behavior
change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine
46, 1 (Aug. 2013), 81–95.
22. Miesler, L., Scherrer, C., Seiler, R., and Bearth, A.
Informational nudges as an effective approach in
raising awareness among young adults about the risk
of future disability. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16,
1 (Jan./Feb. 2017), 15–22.
23. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., and Taylor, S.J. Social influence
bias: A randomized experiment. Science 341, 6146
(Aug. 2013), 647–651.
24. Murdock, B.B. The serial position effect of free recall.
Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 2 (Nov. 1962),
25. Nielsen, J. Usability engineering at a discount. In
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction on Designing and Using
Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge-Based
Systems (Boston, MA). Elsevier, New York, 1989, 394–401.
26. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and Harjumaa, M. Persuasive
systems design: Key issues, process model, and
system features. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems 24, Article 28 (Mar. 2009),
27. Simon, H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69, 1
(Feb. 1955), 99–118.
28. Simons, A., Weinmann, M., Tietz, M., and Brocke,
vom, J. Which reward should I choose? Preliminary
evidence for the middle-option bias in reward-
based crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (Hilton
Waikoloa Village, HI, Jan. 4–7). University of Hawaii,
Manoa, HI, 2017, 4344–4353.
29. Stanovich, K.E. Rationality and the Reflective Mind.
Oxford University Press, New York, 2011.
30. Sunstein, C.R. Nudging and choice architecture: Ethical
considerations. Yale Journal on Regulation 32, 2
(2015), 413–450.
31. Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving
Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT, and London, U.K., 2008.
32. Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. Choice
Architecture. SSRN Electronic Journal (2010), 1–18;
33. Tietz, M., Simons, A., Weinmann, M., and Brocke, vom,
J. The decoy effect in reward-based crowdfunding:
Preliminary results from an online experiment. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Information Systems (Dublin, Ireland, Dec. 11–14).
Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA,
2016, 1–11.
34. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 4157
(Sept. 1974), 1124–1131.
35. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions
and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 4481 (Jan.
1981), 453–458.
36. Wansink, B., Kent, R.J., and Hoch, S. An anchoring and
adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research 35, 1 (Feb. 1998), 71–81.
37. Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., and Brocke, vom, J.
Digital nudging. Business & Information Systems
Engineering 58, 6 (Dec. 2016), 433–436.
38. Weinmann, M., Simons, A., Tietz, M., and Brocke,
vom, J. Get it before it’s gone? How limited
rewards influence backers’ choices in reward-based
crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Systems (Seoul, South
Korea, Dec. 10–13). Association for Information
Systems, Atlanta, GA, 2017, 1–10.
Christoph Schneider (
is an assistant professor in the Department of Information
Systems at City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong
Kong SAR.
Markus Weinmann ( is an
assistant professor in the Department of Information
Systems at the University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz,
Jan vom Brocke ( is a professor of
information systems, the Hilti Chair of Business Process
Management, Director of the Institute of Information
Systems, and Vice President for Research and Innovation
at the University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
Copyright held by the authors.
design cycle we have described here
to deliberately develop such choice
One final note of caution is that the
design of nudges should not follow a
“one-size-fits-all” approach, as their
effectiveness often depends on a de-
cision maker’s personal characteris-
tics.16 In digital environments, charac-
teristics of users and their environment
can be inferred from a large amount of
data, allowing nudges to be tailored.
System designers might design the
choice environment to be adaptive on
the basis of, say, users’ past decisions
or demographic characteristics. Like-
wise, big-data analytics can be used to
analyze behavioral patterns observed
in real time to infer users’ personali-
ties, cognitive styles, or even emotional
states.12 For example, Bayesian updat-
ing can be used to infer cognitive styles
from readily available clickstream data
and automatically match customers’
cognitive styles to the characteristics
of the website (such as through “mor-
phing”11). Designers of digital choice
environments can attempt to “morph”
digital nudges on the basis of not only
the organizational goals but also users’
personal characteristics.
Any designer of a digital choice
environment must be aware of its
effects on users’ choices. In partic-
ular, when developing a choice envi-
ronment, designers should carefully
define the goals, understand the
users, design the nudges, and test
those nudges. Following the digital-
nudging design cycle we have laid
out here can help choice architects
achieve their organizational goals
by understanding both the users
and the potential nudging effects so
intended effects can be maximized
and/or unintended effects minimized.
This work was partially supported
by research grants from the Univer-
sity of Liechtenstein (Project No. wi-
2-14), City University of Hong Kong
(Project No. 7004563), and City Uni-
versity of Hong Kong’s Digital Inno-
vation Laboratory in the Department
of Information Systems. We wish to
thank Joseph S. Valacich for valuable
comments on earlier versions, as well
as the anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments.
Watch the authors discuss
their work in this exclusive
Communications video.
... Certain steps have to be taken into account in designing choices in offline and digital environments. Schneider et al. (2018) describe the four steps in designing nudges as defining the goal, understanding the user, designing the nudge, and testing the nudge. To achieve satisfaction with the individuals being nudged, all of the steps have to be carefully considered in the engineering process of the choice architecture (Schneider et al. 2018). ...
... Schneider et al. (2018) describe the four steps in designing nudges as defining the goal, understanding the user, designing the nudge, and testing the nudge. To achieve satisfaction with the individuals being nudged, all of the steps have to be carefully considered in the engineering process of the choice architecture (Schneider et al. 2018). ...
... In those digital choice environments, digital nudging "refers to designing elements of userinterfaces in a way that influences users' behavior in digital choice environments" (Djurica and Figl 2017). Since these choice environments have a user interface, it allows nudges to alter individuals' decision-making (Schneider et al. 2018). In "capturing the use of modern social science to steer people's behavior" lies the foundation for the use of nudge theory with technology (Wilkinson 2013). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Nudging describes influencing human behavior to improve individuals’ decision-making in various aspects of life such as health, social behavior, consumption, and savings through small interventions in the offline as well as increasingly in the digital world. In the aspect of individual financial decisions such as investments and retirement savings, financial providers use nudges to motivate investors to reach their goals without restricting their freedom of choice. However, a comprehensive overview of scientific literature examining the implementation of nudges on private financial investors is missing. In this study, we conduct a systematic literature review to give an overview of studies examining the implementation and the effects and underline the role of digital nudges. With this review, we contribute to the understanding of Nudge Theory and derive future research directions.
... However, most of us are individuals that face time constraints, lack of resources, and limited cognitive capacity which often results in simplifications on which we base our decisions (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). Making decisions based on routine, or without truly reflecting on them is in the literature referred to as 'cognitive bias' (Schneider, Weinmann, & Vom Brocke, 2018;Markus Weinmann et al., 2016). Cognitive biases outline the opposite of clear judgment, which is enacted through a reflection process (Stryja & Satzger, 2019). ...
... Regarding the digital sphere, re-designing a website, to present the more sustainable path, without eliminating the less sustainable path, is an example of nudging implemented through digital design elements, and an example of digital nudging as a design strategy. While numerous researchers have suggested guidelines for designing nudges in offline contexts, the digital environments constitute unique opportunities for exploiting and exploring the power of nudging (Schneider et al., 2018). According to Schneider et al. (2018), digital nudging should make it easier for consumers to choose within a digital artifact and that decision should be a beneficial decision from the perspective of the individual, society, or even the climate. ...
... While numerous researchers have suggested guidelines for designing nudges in offline contexts, the digital environments constitute unique opportunities for exploiting and exploring the power of nudging (Schneider et al., 2018). According to Schneider et al. (2018), digital nudging should make it easier for consumers to choose within a digital artifact and that decision should be a beneficial decision from the perspective of the individual, society, or even the climate. However, digital nudges are still underresearched and for instance, nudging through wearable devices, such as wrist-warn smartwatches, has not yet been understood fully and the same applies to digital nudges as design elements in digital artifacts. ...
Conference Paper
We make an abundance of choices daily and an increasing proportion of those choices are in an online context. Digital nudges refer to the use of design elements that guide the decision-making process towards a predefined goal. An important consideration when designing digital nudges is the ethical implications. In this study, we examine how future designers perceive ethics and the use of digital nudges as design elements in interaction design. We conducted a case study with 72 design students at two Nordic universities with a focus on the future designers' perception of ethics and the use of digital nudges as design elements. We show that ethics and reflection on responsibility are highly important aspects of choice architecture design and future designers understand ethics as crucial for design work, yet few reflect on whether a specific design or a nudge is ethical or not. Moreover, when it comes to nudging as a design element, both positive and ambivalent attitudes are common. Our main contribution consists of an in-depth understanding of future designers' perspectives on nudging, and we forward four fundamental questions which have implications for teaching the ethics of choice architecture to future designers.
... Schneider C et al. conducted an analogy analysis of text images, color matching, layout, etc. from the perspective of visual design through literature research, questionnaire survey, case analysis, and other methods and obtained the visual characteristics of different types of shopping websites. At the same time, the influence of user experience on the visual interface of shopping website is explored, and five design application strategies are proposed [9]. Bennett et al. believe that with the gradual increase of users' personalized needs, user interface design will continue to innovate and provide users with more novel, unique, and diversified customized experiences [10]. ...
Full-text available
The interface design of commercial websites is used in this paper to demonstrate the application of big data clustering and visual communication technologies. This paper presents the new requirements of user integration, emotion, and personalization by analyzing the broad influence of big data clustering technology and visual communication on the design concept and design method of commercial website interface design. Then, focusing on the information of visual graphic elements in web interface design and discussing how structures, images, words, emotions, and other elements can convey information more effectively through graphic means, the information in the web interface is creatively divided into two types: implicit and explicit. The database for the interface interaction system is built as part of this paper, which also uses fuzzy clustering to organize the data from the interface retrieval database and the hierarchical structure design method of process constraints to carry out interface information interaction and big data fusion processing. According to experiments, this algorithm’s accuracy can reach 95.75%, which is about 11% higher than that of other approaches. This study can offer a workable design strategy for a business website’s user interface.
... These two research fields combined, introduced as persuasive design, might enable scholars to address a common and fundamental challenge in the field of evidence-based health care by dealing with the lack of sufficiently motivated patients who cannot be motivated in sufficient numbers in on-site face-to-face settings (Van Ballegooijen et al. 2014;Wangberg et al. 2008). Notably, in the field of information systems, a similar approach is pursued that is called digital nudging (Schneider et al. 2018). This confirms the stakeholder attention for proper and appealing user interfaces, which have been neglected by many digitalization efforts. ...
The aim of this chapter is to introduce and describe how digital technologies, in particular smartphones, can be used in research in two areas, namely (i) to conduct personality assessment and (ii) to assess and promote physical activity. This area of research is very timely, because it demonstrates how the ubiquitously available smartphone technology—next to its known advantages in day-to-day life—can provide insights into many variables, relevant for psycho-social research, beyond what is possible within the classic spectrum of self-report inventories and laboratory experiments. The present chapter gives a brief overview on first empirical studies and discusses both opportunities and challenges in this rapidly developing research area. Please note that the personality part of this chapter in the second edition has been slightly updated.
... This manuscript reports on the clinical design and evaluation of a digital nudge (Schneider et al., 2018;Weinmann et al., 2016) as a complementary mechanism for TDM. The nudge was developed and assessed by employees at Credit Suisse and, as of this writing, has been in use for more than a year, giving us sufficient time to track its impact. ...
Full-text available
Technical debt (TD) is a technical compromise wherein the ability to maintain information technology (IT) applications over the long term is sacrificed for short-term goals. TD occurs when software development teams undergo constant pressure to release applications swiftly, on a tight schedule. The accumulation of TD, which often leads to a significant cost surplus, presents a ubiquitous challenge in technology-driven organisations. To keep TD levels under control, many organisations implement top-down mechanisms that impose enterprise-wide principles on software development teams. This clinical research presents a complementary but distinct approach to managing TD. A digital nudge was introduced at Credit Suisse, a global financial services company, to help raise awareness and understanding, and stimulate actions related to TD decision-making in software development teams. This paper reports on the nudge’s clinical design, implementation, impact, and evaluation. As the nudge was effective in reducing TD in IT applications after one year of use, we demonstrate that digital nudges are viable means for guiding collective decisions in complex decision environments like that of TD management. Our findings have several implications for research and practice.
... The selection of an appropriate nudge and the method of implementation through the available design elements of social media should be determined by perceived ease of use, social benefits or trust and safety concerns. As Schneider, Weinmann, and vom Brocke [68] indicated, when attempting to nudge social media users with regard to discrete choices, choice architects can choose from a variety of nudges, such as virtual medals, to nudge users toward a desired option. ...
Full-text available
Digital nudging is attracting increasing attention to online decision-making processes and digital choice environments. Thus, understanding how digital nudging affects the acceptance of social media is essential for successful market segmentation. Using a modified technology acceptance model and 270 participants, this paper examines how digital nudging as a mediator influences the acceptance of social media among Chinese customers. By means of a structural equation model based on the partial least squares technique, this study aims to develop an intriguing model based on the TAM. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use influence the acceptance of social media less, as previously expected. All objective factors, i.e., social benefits, trust and ubiquitous connectivity, had a positive effect when nudging was used as a mediator. The models and the accompanying commentary will add to the debate over the scope of factors that affect the adoption of social marketing in terms of digital nudging. The results of the survey in this study should be interpreted as speculative and should not be relied upon as an accurate depiction of behavior in the surveyed communities.
... Mele et al. (2021),Schneider et al. (2018) andVillanova et al. (2021). ...
Full-text available
Choice architecture describes the environment in which choices are presented to decision-makers. In recent years, public and private actors have looked at choice architecture with great interest as they seek to influence human behaviour. These actors are typically called choice architects. Increasingly, however, this role of architecting choice is not performed by a human choice architect, but an algorithm or artificial intelligence, powered by a stream of Big Data and infused with an objective it has been programmed to maximise. We call this entity the autonomous choice architect. In this paper, we present an account of why artificial intelligence can fulfil the role of a choice architect and why this creates problems of transparency, responsibility and accountability for nudges. We argue that choice architects, be them autonomous computational systems or human-beings, at a most basic level select, from a range of designs, the design which is most likely to maximise a predetermined objective. We then proceed to argue that, given the growing demand for targeted, personalised choice architecture and for faster, dynamic reconfigurations of choice architecture, as well as the ever-expanding pool of data from which feedback can be drawn, the role of the human choice architect is increasingly obscured behind algorithmic, artificially intelligent systems. We provide a discussion of the implications of autonomous choice architects, focusing on the importance of the humans who programme these systems, ultimately arguing that despite technological advances, the responsibility of choice architecture and influence remains firmly one human beings must bear.
Recent information privacy research has started to spark a debate about privacy infringements that happen not on an individual, but on a multi-party level. Here, a person’s own information privacy is affected by the decisions of others – a phenomenon referred to as interdependent privacy. Building on the 3R Interdependent Privacy Protection Framework, we explore the underlying mechanisms of how and why interdependent privacy violations happen and how they can be remedied. Drawing on an online vignette experiment (N = 330), we investigate the efficacy of an interdependent privacy salience nudge and reveal that it can decrease the likelihood that users disclose others’ personal information by 62%. Furthermore, we develop a novel measurement instrument and empirically validate that users’ decision to disclose others’ personal information to an online platform is formed via a serial mediation mechanism through users’ realization of the data transfer, recognition of others’ ownership, and respect for others’ rights. We discuss important implications for both theory and practice.
Cervical cancer consumes many lives around the world. Many of these lives could be saved if more women were screened for cervical cancer. This study explored the potential of digital nudging through short electronic messages as a means of increasing women’s participation in cervical screening programs. A questionnaire-based study was designed to explore Norwegian women’s perceptions towards five different types of nudges, with a total of 280 respondents. The results show that women were generally positive towards text message nudging. The type of nudge had a significant effect on the respondents’ perceptions. Messages that invited to an explicit appointment was perceived most positively, and incentives nudges were perceived least positively. About 87% of the participants expressed that it was desirable to receive such invitations via text messages although younger participants were more positive towards digital text messages than older participants. The results may be useful in designing more effective campaigns for increased participation in cervical cancer screening programmes.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Crowdfunding websites, such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo, allow project creators to offer rewards in limited numbers, but research has paid little attention to how these rewards influence backers’ choices and, therefore, funding success. This research-in-progress presents preliminary results from an ongoing research project that explores the usefulness of limited rewards. Grounded in scarcity research, we conducted an online experiment with 166 participants in a simple, controlled environment. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis suggests that backers prefer limited rewards over unlimited rewards under certain conditions, even if they have to pledge more for them. Therefore, our results also suggest that if used in the right way, limited rewards may increase the chances of reaching funding targets. Our future research will explore the usefulness of limited rewards in more realistic settings.
Full-text available
The concept of nudge theory, from the fields of behavioural science, political theory and behavioural economics, has sparked government initiatives yielding significant public value. A nudge is a method for predictably altering behaviour without restricting consumer choice options or significantly changing incentives. Nudges work by leveraging default human behaviour such as the tendency to take the path of least resistance when exercising choice. Government agencies have run many successful trials with simple textual nudges designed to positively influence behaviours such as tax compliance, voter registration and student attrition. This article develops the concept of the digital nudge in social security administration. The digital nudge leverages predictive analytics technology within a digital government framework to support a social investment policy approach. Based on a literature review of nudges within a digital government context, the article identifies examples of innovation within social security administration where nudges are contributing to better social outcomes. At the same time, concerns regarding ethics and privacy are identified as nudges are applied at the individual rather than the population level. The use of data and personal information to drive the nudge process has to be managed in such a way that individual rights are protected. This requirement has to be reconciled with the broader interests of society in achieving affordable outcomes, the parameters of which are determined through the political process.
Full-text available
People’s decisions are influenced by the decision environment. In fact, no choice is made in a vacuum, as there is no neutral way to present choices. Presenting choices in certain ways—even if this happens unintendedly— can thus “nudge” people and change their behavior in predictable ways. “Nudging” is a concept from behavioral economics that describes how relatively minor changes to decision environments (e.g., setting defaults) influence decision outcomes—which often remain unnoticed by the decision maker. We extend the nudging concept to the digital environment. We define “digital nudging” as the use of user interface design elements to guide people’s choices or influence users’ inputs in online decision environments. We propose a digital-nudging process and identify opportunities for future research.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Rewards are one of the key mechanisms in crowdfunding, but we know little about how they influence fundraising success. This research-in-progress takes a behavioral-science perspective on crowdfunding and explores how to design reward menus to increase the chances of reaching funding targets. We show that backers’ preferences can be influenced with the help of “decoys”—asymmetrically dominated rewards that draw backers’ attention to more profitable rewards. We conducted an online experiment with forty participants to pre-test the effect of decoy rewards on crowdfunding success for three scenarios. Across all scenarios, the decoys increased the donations by approximately 11 percent. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis confirmed the significance of the decoy effect. We are currently developing a mock crowdfunding website that will provide a more realistic environment in which to test alternative decoy-placement strategies in other crowdfunding scenarios with more participants and more rewards.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Crowdfunding has become an important research area, but we know little about how rewards influence fundraising success. This research-in-progress studies reward-based crowdfunding through a behavioral-economics lens. We draw on dual-process theory and provide preliminary evidence for the middle-option bias in crowdfunding. Two empirical studies in a simple, controlled environment confirm the significance of the middle-option bias, both for varying numbers of donation options and for varying price ranges. Since our findings suggest that the positioning of rewards in a menu of rewards can influence support behavior and how much money project creators collect, they can inform the design of crowdfunding projects. Our future research will develop a mock crowdfunding website to study the middle-option bias in a more realistic environment.
How do consumers decide how many units to buy? Whereas prior research on individual consumers’ purchases has focused primarily on purchase incidence and brand choice, the authors focus on the psychological process behind the purchase quantity decision. The authors propose that a simple anchoring and adjustment model describes how consumers make purchase quantity decisions and suggests how point-of-purchase promotions can increase sales. Two field experiments and two lab studies show that anchor-based promotions—presented as multiple-unit prices, purchase quantity limits, and suggestive selling—can increase purchase quantities. The final study shows that consumers who retrieve internal anchors can counter these anchor-based promotions effectively. Firms might receive net benefits from anchor-based promotions depending on whether increases in unit sales reflect increased category consumption, brand switching, variety switching, store switching, or stockpiling.
The goal of this report is to add to and complement other nudging resources by:1. Providing an organizational framework that identifies dimensions along which nudging approaches could be categorized.2. Presenting a number of short case studies.3. Giving the practitioner (the choice architect) some process guidelines on how to develop a nudge (or a program that comprises of multiple nudges).
As many consumers have neither sufficient time nor the cognitive and motivational resources to deal with complex insurance decisions, the mere provision of information might not be enough to influence consumer perception and choice. The way such information is presented might also affect any decision made. This paper focuses on the risk of becoming unable to continue in a profession as a result of illness or an accident. In collaboration with an insurance company, we examined the effectiveness of ‘informational nudging’ (i.e. providing information which acts as a nudge) in sensitizing young adults to the potential risk of disability. In a pre-study, an online survey (n = 1003) was conducted to assess the main barriers preventing young Swiss adults from participating in private provision. Based on the results of the pre-study, we developed four ‘informational nudges’ and tested their effects on risk awareness and insurance choices among young adults using an online experiment (n = 240). We found that by presenting information on a company website in such a way that heuristics such as availability or loss aversion were exploited, enhanced risk awareness and a corresponding increase in insurance preferences were observed to some degree. However, the informational nudges did not motivate the participants to investigate the issues any further. Indeed, the results suggested that informational nudging could be an effective tool in raising participant awareness, but that future research is needed to understand better the interplay between automatic and deliberate processes activated by the informational nudges. Copyright
The widespread pressure toward conformity in opinion and behavior in current society has captured the attention of many social scientists. Several recent attempts to integrate diverse perspectives and findings on conformity use social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961, 1974; Nord, 1969b; Secord & Backman, 1964). While integrative, the social exchange view of conformity neglects some important motives, values, and costs. For instance, our research identifies a need for distinctiveness or “uniqueness,” that is, a need to see oneself as different from one’s peers, as a prevalent determinant of behavior. Thus, the outcomes of pressures to conform may depend upon the degree and nature of competing pressures for uniqueness. Alternatively, the act of conformity may arouse or augment pressure toward the foregone alternative of establishing or maintaining the self-perception of uniqueness. The present chapter develops the latter thesis by reviewing the theory and research on uniqueness and discussing implications for the social exchange view of conformity.