Architecture of Choice and Cognitive Biases in Digital Interfaces: A Review of Empirical Evidence on Impacts on Consumer Behavior

Citation: Volodymyr Rebets, "Architecture of Choice and Cognitive Biases in Digital Interfaces: A Review of Empirical Evidence on Impacts on Consumer Behavior", Universal Library of Business and Economics, Volume 01, Issue 02.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Online shopping has changed everything, but we still don’t fully understand what goes on in our heads when we click “buy”. This article examines choice architecture - when designers intentionally build a decision environment to push you in the right direction. We look at three mechanisms that keep cropping up in research: framing (how to present information is as important as the information itself), scarcity (constraints create urgency), and social proof (when in doubt, look at what others are doing). We looked at research from 2020 to 2023 to understand how interface design leverages these cognitive biases to drive sales. The picture is complex. The choice architecture works - the interventions show moderate effectiveness with Cohen’s d around 0.43 - but the ethics are muddled. Framing effects vary across cultures unpredictably. Scarcity tactics face diminishing returns as people get used to constant ''urgent piles''. Social proof mechanisms risk creating echo chambers where everyone sees distorted versions of popularity. We suggest distinguishing legitimate nudges from manipulative dark patterns based on transparency and preserving autonomy, not just outcomes. Practical recommendations include rotating scarcity campaigns every three months so consumers don't get used to it, adding ''why this recommendation?'' to recommendation systems, limiting the depth of discounts to maintain trust in the brand. The main contribution: an effective architecture of choice does not require harming the well-being of consumers - but only if designers accept principled constraints that the market does not naturally reward.

Keywords: Choice Architecture, Cognitive Biases, Digital Interfaces, Behavioral Economics, UX Ethics.

https://doi.org/10.70315/uloap.ulbec.2024.0102015