Summary: The language used in interfaces influences the decisions that our users will make. Manipulative copy nudges users towards making choices that are against their best interests.

Decisions are everywhere in our online lives. Every time we open a link, read an article, make a purchase, or close a window we have made a choice. Each element of an online experience can influence the decisions that people make. Visual design, interaction design, interface elements, and digital copy all have the power to change what users choose.

Digital copy in choices offered by an interface is powerful. The words that appear in interfaces can support optimal decision making or they can persuade users to take an action that is against their best interests.

Choice Architecture

In their 2008 book Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein argued that a neutral presentation of options does not exist. When you ask someone to make a choice, how you offer up the alternatives impacts the answer. (This effect is known as framing and can be a reason to be suspicious of certain opinion polls.) Knowing that you can change the way that someone will answer a question, how do you ask?

The presentation of a choice can support optimal decision making or it can lead people to be more likely to choose something that they will later regret. A “nudge” can be any element of the architecture of a choice that makes people more likely to make certain decisions.

Choice Architecture in User Experience

When we design websites, app interfaces, and other digital products we shape how people think. How we present choices impacts what people will decide to do. Many elements of user-experience design play a role in the architecture of choices online.

Elements of designs that impact choice architecture include:

Visual design: The visual styling of options in an interface can influence the actions users will take. One option may be larger than the others, placed in a spot where people are more likely to look, or given particular visual weight.

The visual styling of options in an interface can influence the actions users will take. One option may be larger than the others, placed in a spot where people are more likely to look, or given particular visual weight. Interaction design: The design of an interaction flow can steer people towards one choice. Designing the available paths of interaction in a way that prompts people to make choices without enough information leads to uninformed decision making.

The design of an interaction flow can steer people towards one choice. Designing the available paths of interaction in a way that prompts people to make choices without enough information leads to uninformed decision making. Interface elements : The interface elements used in presenting choices limit or expand the options available. Presenting a choice with a radio button forces people to choose exactly one option. Offering the same choice with a series of checkboxes allows people to select as many answers as they feel are correct.

: The interface elements used in presenting choices limit or expand the options available. Presenting a choice with a radio button forces people to choose exactly one option. Offering the same choice with a series of checkboxes allows people to select as many answers as they feel are correct. Language: the words that we use change the choices that users may make. The digital copy used in both the main content of a website and in the interface itself establishes context and crafts the choices offered.

Each element can influence the decisions that people will make online. This article concentrates on the language used on the interfaces themselves. Interface copy sets the tone of a decision by changing the wording used in the options that users have available. We’ve observed that the trend towards using manipulative, needy language has spread into many types of interface copy. When the choices available to users are presented in manipulative language, that interface copy demonstrates a dark pattern.

Dark Patterns in Choice Architecture

Scare Tactics and Loss Accentuation

People feel the pain of losses more strongly than they feel the joy of a gain. We often act irrationally out of fear of losing. That fear can be used in the presentation of choices to prompt users to act so they minimize the emotional discomfort that they feel when confronted with the possibility of a loss.

This screenshot above shows an offer to protect a trip reservation. Choosing protection is clearly the direction in which the company nudges the user. The option to choose cancellation protection is visually emphasized — it appears first, in bolded text, and with a link to the total cost of the trip that has been booked. Below that is the option to decline cancellation protection. Language in the interface draws attention to the potential for loss. The copy repeats the exact amount of money that will be lost in the event of cancellation, adding an anxious tone to a simple choice.

Concentrating copy on the potential for a loss makes people more likely to change their choice. People pay more attention to negative experiences than they do to positive ones. Fear is a powerful motivator that changes the architecture of a choice.

Creating Artificial Scarcity

Economists often say that scarcity fuels demand. We perceive rare objects and time-limited deals as more valuable. Limiting the time available to make a choice demands immediate action. Suddenly, the availability of one option is restricted and a user must react quickly rather than evaluating all possible choices.

During the process of signing up for the Blue Apron meal-kit service, a modal popup appears. It offers a limited-time deal to entice reluctant customers into making a purchase. Presenting this choice as a modal window changes the flow of interaction: suddenly something surprising hides what the user had been working on before. Urgently written copy begs the reader to Hold on! and take advantage of a deal. The only options are to Reject $50 Off or Get $50 Off.

This design introduces artificial scarcity and then frames the decision a user must make as accepting or rejecting a one-time deal. The interface copy does not explain why this deal is only available in the next thirty minutes. Creating scarcity changes the architecture of the choice: instead of choosing to try the service or opting out, the user must now choose to accept or reject a surprise discount.

Adding unnecessary time pressure to a choice and using urgent language do not support optimal decision making. Focus on creating a service that sells itself in as much time as your customers want to take.

Emotional Framing

The framing effect says that the context used to describe a question or decision impacts the answer that people will give. A needy pattern in choice architecture is adding emotional context to a decision that does not usually involve strong emotion. It may take one of the following forms:

Describing one option as being a reflection of fundamental truths about the user (e.g., by suggesting what a generous/smart/exceptionally tasteful person the chooser of that option is)

(e.g., by suggesting what a generous/smart/exceptionally tasteful person the chooser of that option is) Offering choices in emotionally charged language that presents an ordinary option in an interface as a noble decision or a horrible mistake

Many businesses choose to have customers pay for the costs associated with processing credit card payments. However, the interface shown above frames the addition of that fee as a generous act. The interface copy says I choose to add $2.20 to cover the fees to process my donation next to a checkbox that is active by default. Many websites simply note that an additional fee will be added if users choose to pay by credit card, but the language used here turns an everyday part of life online into an unusually emotional moment.

Mismatch Between the Choice Described and the Options Displayed

In interface design, the match between the system and the real world helps people learn to navigate an online system. A similar match needs to exist between the options described by digital copy and the actions available in the interface.

Trunk Club’s copy promises more flexibility than it actually delivers. The language in the main heading (Get Trunks when you want them) and in the secondary heading (We are not a subscription service – choose to get one time or recurring Trunks, which you can cancel at any time) does not match the options that users can select. First, the user can only select among three different frequency choices, and, second, all choices are subscription-based. The option for “one time” delivery does not actually appear as a choice at this stage of the signup process.

Our research for our recent ecommerce report found that users are less forgiving of inaccurate information than ever when preparing to make a purchase. A mismatch between the copy used to describe a service and the choices that a user can actually make is an easy way to lose trust.

Even Small Choices Count

In usability testing I often notice that people read choices on an interface in the first person. As they think aloud, they talk about the choices shown on a screen in terms of what they want and what they will decide to do. They say “I can do…” before reading a list of radio buttons or “I want to…” before clicking on one button in a set.

The copy that you use in choices on your interface asks people to agree with a statement. That statement is often about themselves or the actions that they wish to take. It’s important from a user-experience standpoint and from a business perspective to write interface copy that supports rather than undermines the decision-making process. Trust, expectations, and positive self-image all shape the associations that users will have with a product. An honest, direct presentation of choices creates trust and positive emotion.

Remember that customer satisfaction is more important than a few conversions here and there. People will remember that a business asked them to make a decision under pressure or with underhanded tactics. Short-term strategies like invasive advertisements, please-don’t-go popups, and manipulative choice architecture may lead to a few quick sales, but they will undermine a business’s efforts to create long-term customer loyalty.

References

Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.