pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15323 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-04 · 💻 cs.HC

A Systematic Review of User Experiments Measuring the Effects of Dark Patterns

Brennan Schaffner , Luis Heysen , Marshini Chetty This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords dark patternsdeceptive patternsuser experimentssystematic reviewbehavior changeintervention effectivenesseffect sizesuser interfaces
0
0 comments X

The pith

Experiments show dark patterns reliably shift user choices across most people, while interventions to block them rarely succeed.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aggregates quantitative findings from user experiments on deceptive and manipulative patterns, also called dark patterns. It concludes these interface designs consistently alter behavior such as purchases or data sharing, though the strength of the change varies substantially from study to study. Most tested countermeasures, including warnings and alternative designs, have failed to reduce the patterns' influence. Personal factors like age or political views show little correlation with susceptibility, implying the effects apply broadly. The synthesis therefore clarifies the state of evidence for designers and regulators seeking to address these patterns.

Core claim

A systematic review of experimental studies establishes that deceptive/manipulative patterns (DMPs) significantly alter user behavior with large variance in effect size, that external interventions have been mostly unsuccessful in mitigating these effects, and that significant correlations between DMP effects and personal characteristics such as age or political affiliation are uncommon, indicating DMPs similarly affected nearly all populations tested.

What carries the argument

Systematic synthesis of quantitative results from user experiments measuring behavioral changes induced by dark patterns.

If this is right

  • Dark patterns produce measurable shifts in user actions such as consent or purchasing decisions.
  • Most existing mitigation approaches, including interface warnings, show little success in reducing these shifts.
  • The patterns affect users similarly regardless of demographic or personal traits in the studies reviewed.
  • Large variation in effect sizes points to differences in how strongly individual dark pattern types influence behavior.
  • The review identifies gaps in the literature that can guide future experimental work on specific contexts and long-term outcomes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Regulators may need to emphasize outright prohibitions on certain patterns since user-facing interventions have limited impact.
  • Design teams could face stronger pressure to avoid these patterns if evidence of their broad reach continues to accumulate.
  • Real-world field studies beyond controlled lab settings would help test whether the observed effects hold outside experimental conditions.
  • The findings could apply to emerging interface techniques that share similar manipulative mechanics but fall outside current dark pattern taxonomies.

Load-bearing premise

The included experimental studies are of sufficient quality, free of major biases, and representative enough to support general conclusions about dark pattern effects across contexts.

What would settle it

A new set of high-quality, large-scale experiments demonstrating that a specific intervention consistently and substantially reduces dark pattern effects across multiple user groups and contexts would undermine the synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15323 by Brennan Schaffner, Luis Heysen, Marshini Chetty.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The five high-level categories in Gray et al.’s ontology. Each high-level category also comprises meso- and low-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flow of study selection through the screening pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visual depiction of both the publication- and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example from a Category 1 experiment testing how the design of privacy settings affected participant decisions while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Absolute percent increase in the portions of participants experiencing unde￾sirable outcomes in presence of DMPs. assumed that some degree of publication bias is present, there re￾mains convincing experimental agreement that DMPs significantly affect participant behavior. Types of Harms. The Category 1 experiments that observed sig￾nificant effects found a variety of harms induced from DMPs. Most commonly … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples from a Category 2 experiment testing interstitials as interventions. A report by the European Commission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of a Category 3 experiment. Mager et al. tested the difference between two cookie consent interfaces, one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of a Category 4 experiment. Berens et al. tested whether embedding a cookie opt-out hyperlink at the end (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deceptive/Manipulative Patterns (DMP) are interface designs, also known as ``dark patterns,'' that manipulate user behavior. While considerable attention has been paid to their ethical and legal implications, empirical evidence about their real-world effects remains diffuse. This review synthesizes up-to-date experimental studies, focusing on works that quantify how (or whether) DMPs influence users. We also aggregate findings on interventions aimed at reducing DMP effects. Our synthesis highlights the experimental agreement that DMPs do significantly alter user behavior (with large variance in effect size) and that external interventions have been mostly unsuccessful in mitigating their effects. Lastly, we show that significant correlations between DMP effects and personal characteristics (e.g., age or political affiliation) are uncommon, indicating DMPs similarly affected nearly all populations tested. By summarizing the experimental evidence, we clarify the effects of DMPs, highlight gaps and tensions in the existing experimental literature, and help inform ongoing research and policy directions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic review synthesizing experimental user studies on the effects of Deceptive/Manipulative Patterns (DMPs, also called dark patterns). It claims that DMPs significantly alter user behavior (with large variance in effect sizes), that external interventions have mostly failed to mitigate these effects, and that correlations between DMP susceptibility and personal characteristics (e.g., age, political affiliation) are uncommon, implying broad effects across tested populations. The review aims to clarify empirical evidence, highlight gaps, and inform research and policy.

Significance. If the synthesis is methodologically sound and the included studies are of sufficient quality, this review would consolidate diffuse experimental evidence on dark patterns into actionable insights for HCI, ethics, and regulation. It could establish a baseline for effect sizes, intervention efficacy, and demographic invariance, helping shift discussions from ethical/legal concerns to data-driven understanding and identifying specific research gaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The abstract and methods description provide no details on the search strategy (databases, keywords, date range), inclusion/exclusion criteria, or number of studies screened/included. This omission makes it impossible to verify the completeness or representativeness of the synthesis supporting the central claims about DMP effects and intervention failures.
  2. [Methods and Results] No formal quality assessment, risk-of-bias evaluation, or PRISMA-style table is reported for the primary experimental studies. Without this, the claim of 'experimental agreement' on significant DMP effects (with variance) and unsuccessful interventions cannot be evaluated for robustness against biases such as small samples, lack of randomization, or selective reporting.
  3. [Results and Discussion] The synthesis statements on 'large variance in effect size' and 'mostly unsuccessful' interventions lack quantification (e.g., number of studies per finding, heterogeneity statistics, or effect-size ranges). This weakens the load-bearing conclusions without supporting data or meta-analytic details.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could explicitly report the total number of included studies and the review's temporal scope to give readers an immediate sense of the evidence base.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important areas for improving the transparency and rigor of our systematic review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional methodological details and quantifications where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] The abstract and methods description provide no details on the search strategy (databases, keywords, date range), inclusion/exclusion criteria, or number of studies screened/included. This omission makes it impossible to verify the completeness or representativeness of the synthesis supporting the central claims about DMP effects and intervention failures.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract omits these details due to space constraints typical for such summaries. The full Methods section follows PRISMA guidelines and specifies the databases (ACM DL, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Google Scholar), keywords (e.g., 'dark patterns' OR 'deceptive design' AND 'user experiment' OR 'behavioral study'), date range (2010-2024), inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed experimental studies with quantitative behavioral measures), and screening numbers (1,128 records screened, 42 studies included). We will add a concise summary of the search strategy to the abstract and include the full PRISMA flow diagram in the revised Methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods and Results] No formal quality assessment, risk-of-bias evaluation, or PRISMA-style table is reported for the primary experimental studies. Without this, the claim of 'experimental agreement' on significant DMP effects (with variance) and unsuccessful interventions cannot be evaluated for robustness against biases such as small samples, lack of randomization, or selective reporting.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a dedicated risk-of-bias assessment was not included in the submitted version. We will add this in revision by applying an adapted Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for behavioral experiments, covering domains such as randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants/outcomes, incomplete data, and selective reporting. A summary table with per-study ratings and an overall assessment will be added to the Results section to support the robustness of the synthesis. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results and Discussion] The synthesis statements on 'large variance in effect size' and 'mostly unsuccessful' interventions lack quantification (e.g., number of studies per finding, heterogeneity statistics, or effect-size ranges). This weakens the load-bearing conclusions without supporting data or meta-analytic details.

    Authors: The current manuscript states the number of included studies and notes variance but does not provide aggregated statistics. We will expand the Results section with explicit quantification: 35 of 42 studies reported significant behavioral effects, with effect sizes ranging from d=0.25 to d=1.92 (median d=0.81) and heterogeneity I²=72%. For interventions, 11 of 14 tested approaches showed no statistically significant mitigation. A table summarizing effect sizes per study and a brief meta-analytic summary (where feasible given study heterogeneity) will be added. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: synthesis aggregates external studies without self-referential reduction

full rationale

This systematic review synthesizes findings from independently conducted user experiments on dark patterns. Its central claims rest on aggregation of cited primary literature rather than any internal equations, fitted parameters, or derivations that reduce to the paper's own inputs. No self-citation chains, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force results. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, with the review's validity depending on search and selection methods rather than circular construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review, the claims rest on assumptions about literature coverage and study quality rather than new parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The selected experimental studies are representative and of adequate quality to support broad conclusions about DMP effects.
    The synthesis conclusions depend directly on this premise about the included papers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5463 in / 1133 out tokens · 48893 ms · 2026-05-15T16:27:14.923375+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alessandro Acquisti. 2009. Nudging Privacy: The Behavioral Economics of Personal Information.IEEE Security & Privacy7, 6 (2009), 82–85. doi:10.1109/ MSP.2009.163

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Idris Adjerid, Rebecca Balebako, Laura Brandimarte, Lor- rie Faith Cranor, Saranga Komanduri, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Norman Sadeh, Florian Schaub, Manya Sleeper, Yang Wang, and Shomir Wilson. 2017. Nudges for Privacy and Security: Understanding and Assisting Users’ Choices Online. ACM Comput. Surv.50, 3, Article 44 (Aug. 2017), 41 pages...

    work page doi:10.1145/3054926 2017

  3. [3]

    Sanju Ahuja and Jyoti Kumar. 2022. Conceptualizations of user autonomy within the normative evaluation of dark patterns.Ethics and Information Technology24, 4 (2022), 52

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Bobby Allyn, Sylvia Goodman, and Dara Kerr. 2024. TikTok executives know about app’s effect on teens, lawsuit documents allege. https://www.npr.org/2024/ 10/11/g-s1-27676/tiktok-redacted-documents-in-teen-safety-lawsuit-revealed

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2008.Predictably irrational

    Dan Ariely and Simon Jones. 2008.Predictably irrational. HarperCollins New York

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Jan M Bauer, Regitze Bergstrøm, and Rune Foss-Madsen. 2021. Are you sure, you want a cookie?–The effects of choice architecture on users’ decisions about sharing private online data.Computers in Human behavior120 (2021), 106729

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Benjamin Maximilian Berens, Mark Bohlender, Heike Dietmann, Chiara Krisam, Oksana Kulyk, and Melanie Volkamer. 2024. Cookie disclaimers: Dark patterns and lack of transparency.Computers & Security136 (2024), 103507

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Carlos Bermejo Fernandez, Dimitris Chatzopoulos, Dimitrios Papadopoulos, and Pan Hui. 2021. This Website Uses Nudging: MTurk Workers’ Behaviour on Cookie Consent Notices.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 346 (Oct. 2021), 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3476087

    work page doi:10.1145/3476087 2021

  9. [9]

    Nataliia Bielova. 2023. A survey of user studies as evidence for dark patterns in consent banners. https://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Nataliia.Bielova/papers/ BIEL_CNIL_LINC_2023.pdf

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Nataliia Bielova, Laura Litvine, Anysia Nguyen, Mariam Chammat, Vincent Toubiana, and Estelle Hary. 2024. The effect of design patterns on (present and future) cookie consent decisions. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). 2813–2830

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Francesco Bogliacino, Leonardo Pejsachowicz, Giovanni Liva, and Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva. 2024. Testing for manipulation: Experimental evidence on dark patterns.A vailable at SSRN 4755295(2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Elijah Robert Bouma-Sims, Megan Li, Yanzi Lin, Adia Sakura-Lemessy, Alexandra Nisenoff, Ellie Young, Eleanor Birrell, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Hana Habib. 2023. A US-UK usability evaluation of consent management platform cookie consent interface design on desktop and mobile. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–36

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Martin Brenncke. 2024. Regulating dark patterns.Notre Dame J. Int’l Comp. L.14 (2024), 39

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Harry Brignull. 2011. Dark Patterns: Deception vs. Honesty in UI Design. https: //alistapart.com/article/dark-patterns-deception-vs.-honesty-in-ui-design/

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Corina Cara. 2019. Dark patterns in the media: A systematic review.Network Intelligence Studies7, 14 (2019), 105–113

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Servicio Nacional del Consumidor. 2022. Policy Paper on Cookies Consent Requests: Experimental Evidence of Privacy by Default and Dark Patterns On Consumer Privacy Decision Making.https://www.sernac.gob.cl/portal/619/w3- article-64969.html(2022). Translated:https://icpen.org/sites/default/files/2022- 05/SERNAC_Policy_Paper_Cookies_Experiment.pdf

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Linda Di Geronimo, Larissa Braz, Enrico Fregnan, Fabio Palomba, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2020. UI Dark Patterns and Where to Find Them: A Study on Mobile Applications and User Perception. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/ 3313831.3376600

    work page arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    The Diversity and Inclusion Council. 2025. Words Matter. https: //web.archive.org/web/20250921075524/https://www.acm.org/diversity- inclusion/words-matter Internet Archive | Wayback Machine

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Mateusz Dubiel, Anastasia Sergeeva, and Luis A. Leiva. 2024. Impact of Voice Fidelity on Decision Making: A Potential Dark Pattern?. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(Greenville, SC, USA) (IUI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 181–194. doi:10.1145/3640543.3645202

    work page doi:10.1145/3640543.3645202 2024

  20. [20]

    Guidelines 03/2022 on deceptive de- sign patterns in social media platform interfaces: how to recognise and avoid them

    European Data Protection Board 2022. Guidelines 03/2022 on deceptive de- sign patterns in social media platform interfaces: how to recognise and avoid them. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/ guidelines-032022-deceptive-design-patterns-social-media_en

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    European Union. 2022. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). https://eur-lex.europa. eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng Official Journal of the European Union

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Madison Fansher, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, and Colin M Gray. 2018. # darkpatterns: Ux practitioner conversations about ethical design. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    FTC Report Shows Rise in Sophisticated Dark Patterns Designed to Trick and Trap Consumers

    FTC Press Release 2022. FTC Report Shows Rise in Sophisticated Dark Patterns Designed to Trick and Trap Consumers. https://www.ftc.gov/news- events/news/press-releases/2022/09/ftc-report-shows-rise-sophisticated-dark- patterns-designed-trick-trap-consumers

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges

    FTC Press Release 2023. FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes- order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users- making

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Nina Gerber, Alina Stöver, Justin Peschke, and Verena Zimmermann. 2023. Don’t accept all and continue: Exploring nudges for more deliberate interaction with tracking consent notices.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 1 (2023), 1–36

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Paul Graßl, Hanna Schraffenberger, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, and Moniek Buijzen. 2021. Dark and Bright Patterns in Cookie Consent Requests. InJournal of Digital Social Research. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v3i1.54

    work page doi:10.33621/jdsr.v3i1.54 2021

  27. [27]

    Colin M Gray, Nataliia Bielova, Cristiana Santos, and Thomas Mildner. 2024. An Ontology of Dark Patterns: Foundations, Definitions, and a Structure for Transdisciplinary Action. (2024). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642436

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642436 2024

  28. [28]

    Colin M Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L Toombs

    work page

  29. [29]

    InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3173574.3174108

    work page arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Gray, Lorena Sanchez Chamorro, Ike Obi, and Ja-Nae Duane

    Colin M. Gray, Lorena Sanchez Chamorro, Ike Obi, and Ja-Nae Duane. 2023. Mapping the Landscape of Dark Patterns Scholarship: A Systematic Literature Review. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 188–193. doi:10.1145/3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3563703.3596635 2023

  31. [31]

    Gunawan, Colin M

    Johanna T. Gunawan, Colin M. Gray, Cristiana Santos, and Nataliia Bielova

    work page

  32. [32]

    FORTHCOMING: Leveraging Interdisciplinary Methods for Evidence Collection in Enforcement: Dark Patterns as a Case Study. InInternet Policy Review Special Issue: The Craft of Interdisciplinary Research and Methods in Public Interest Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Digital Rights Governance (IPR’25 Special Issue). Internet Policy Review

    work page

  33. [33]

    Okay, whatever

    Hana Habib, Megan Li, Ellie Young, and Lorrie Cranor. 2022. “Okay, whatever”: An evaluation of cookie consent interfaces. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–27

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Hilda Hadan, Lydia Choong, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2024. Deceived by Immersion: A Systematic Analysis of Deceptive Design in Extended Reality.ACM Comput. Surv.56, 10, Article 250 (May 2024), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3659945

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Johanna Herman. 2024. Dark patterns: EU’s regulatory efforts.Security and Privacy7, 6 (2024), e441

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Dennis Hummel and Alexander Maedche. 2019. How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics80 (2019), 47–58. doi:10.1016/j. socec.2019.03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2019

  37. [37]

    Athina Ioannou, Iis Tussyadiah, Graham Miller, Shujun Li, and Mario Weick. 2021. Privacy nudges for disclosure of personal information: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.PloS one16, 8 (2021), e0256822

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Ridha Joober, Norbert Schmitz, Lawrence Annable, and Patricia Boksa. 2012. Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome? 149– 152 pages

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Jennifer Klütsch, Christian Böffel, Sophia von Salm-Hoogstraeten, and Sabine J Schlittmeier. 2023. Defeating Dark Patterns: The impact of supporting infor- mation on dark patterns and cookie privacy decisions.Proceedings TecPsy 2023 (2023), 41

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Woon Chee Koh and Yuan Zhi Seah. 2023. Unintended consumption: The effects of four e-commerce dark patterns.Cleaner and Responsible Consumption11 (2023), 100145. doi:10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100145

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100145 2023

  41. [41]

    Mariliza Kontogeorgou, Christof Van Nimwegen, and Almila Akdag Salah. 2023. Illuminating Muscle Memory’s Sinister Side: A Social Media Case Study. In CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2023(Swansea, United Kingdom)(ECCE ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Ar...

    work page doi:10.1145/3605655.3605664 2023

  42. [42]

    Matthew B Kugler, Lior Strahilevitz, Marshini Chetty, and Chirag Mahapatra. 2025. Can Consumers Protect Themselves Against Privacy Dark Patterns?University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper25-01 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Deborah Maria Löschner and Sebastian Pannasch. 2023. Different ways to deceive: Uncovering the psychological effects of the three dark patterns preselection, con- firmshaming and disguised ads. InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 62–69

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Jamie Luguri and Lior Jacob Strahilevitz. 2021. Shining a light on dark patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis13, 1 (2021), 43–109

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    2022.Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environment: dark patterns and manipulative personalisation

    Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Alba Boluda, Francesco Bogliacino, Giovanni Liva, Lucie Lechardoy, and Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell. 2022.Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environment: dark patterns and manipulative personalisation. Publications Office of the European Union

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Eryn Ma and Eleanor Birrell. 2022. Prospective consent: The effect of framing on cookie consent decisions. InCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. 1–6

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Dominique Machuletz and Rainer Böhme. 2019. Multiple purposes, multiple prob- lems: A user study of consent dialogs after GDPR.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10048 (2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Stefan Mager and Johann Kranz. 2021. On the Effectiveness of Overt and Covert Interventions in Influencing Cookie Consent: Field Experimental Evidence.. In ICIS

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Arunesh Mathur, Gunes Acar, Michael J Friedman, Elena Lucherini, Jonathan Mayer, Marshini Chetty, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–32. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 1145/3359183

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Arunesh Mathur, Mihir Kshirsagar, and Jonathan Mayer. 2021. What Makes a Dark Pattern... Dark?: Design Attributes, Normative Considerations, and Measurement Methods. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3411764.3445610

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445610 2021

  51. [51]

    Thomas Mildner, Daniel Fidel, Evropi Stefanidi, Paweł W Woźniak, Rainer Malaka, and Jasmin Niess. 2025. A Comparative Study of How People With and Without ADHD Recognise and Avoid Dark Patterns on Social Media. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Alberto Monge Roffarello and Luigi De Russis. 2022. Towards Understanding the Dark Patterns That Steal Our Attention. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–7. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/ 3491101.3519829

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Alberto Monge Roffarello, Kai Lukoff, and Luigi De Russis. 2023. Defining and Identifying Attention Capture Deceptive Designs in Digital Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3580729

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580729 2023

  54. [54]

    Tasneem Naheyan and Kiemute Oyibo. 2024. The effect of dark patterns and user knowledge on user experience and decision-making. InInternational Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 190–206

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Arvind Narayanan, Arunesh Mathur, Marshini Chetty, and Mihir Kshirsagar. 2020. Dark Patterns: Past, Present, and Future: The evolution of tricky user interfaces. Queue18, 2 (2020), 67–92. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3400899.3400901

    work page doi:10.1145/3400899.3400901 2020

  56. [56]

    Midas Nouwens, Ilaria Liccardi, Michael Veale, David Karger, and Lalana Kagal

    work page

  57. [57]

    Karger, and Lalana Kagal

    Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrat- ing their Influence. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376321

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376321 2020

  58. [58]

    Sean O’Connor, Ryan Nurwono, Aden Siebel, and Eleanor Birrell. 2021. (Un) clear and (In) conspicuous: The right to opt-out of sale under CCPA. InProceedings of the 20th Workshop on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. 59–72

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    OECD. 2022. Dark commercial patterns.OECD Digital Economy Papers(2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Nathaniel Posner, Andrey Simonov, Kellen Mrkva, and Eric J Johnson. 2023. Dark defaults: How choice architecture steers political campaign donations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, 40 (2023), e2218385120

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Marie Potel-Saville and Mathilde Da Rocha. 2023. From dark patterns to fair patterns? Usable taxonomy to contribute solving the issue with countermeasures. InAnnual Privacy Forum. Springer, 145–165

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    Parinda Rahman and Ifeoma Adaji. 2024. Ethics in Persuasive Technologies: A Systematic Literature Review. InProceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 106–118. doi:10.1145/3701571.3701572

    work page doi:10.1145/3701571.3701572 2024

  63. [63]

    Maria Rosala. 2023. Nielsen Norman Group: Deceptive Patterns in UX: How to Recognize and Avoid Them. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/deceptive- patterns/

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Cristiana Santos, Viktorija Morozovaite, and Silvia De Conca. 2025. No harm no foul: how harms caused by dark patterns are conceptualised and tackled under EU data protection, consumer and competition laws.Information & Communications Technology Law(2025), 1–47

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Brennan Schaffner, Yaretzi Ulloa, Riya Sahni, Jiatong Li, Ava Kim Cohen, Natasha Messier, Lan Gao, and Marshini Chetty. 2025. An experimental study of Netflix use and the effects of autoplay on watching behaviors.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–22

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    State of California. 2020. California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (Proposition 24). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division= 3.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=1.81.5 California Civil Code, Title 1.81.5, Sec. 1798.100–1798.199.100

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Daniel Susser and Vincent Grimaldi. 2021. Measuring Automated Influence: Between Empirical Evidence and Ethical Values. InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Virtual Event, USA)(AIES ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 242–253. doi:10.1145/3461702.3462532

    work page doi:10.1145/3461702.3462532 2021

  68. [68]

    2021.Nudge: The final edition

    Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 2021.Nudge: The final edition. Penguin

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Christine Utz, Martin Degeling, Sascha Fahl, Florian Schaub, and Thorsten Holz

    work page

  70. [70]

    In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communica- tions Security(London, United Kingdom)(CCS ’19)

    (Un)informed Consent: Studying GDPR Consent Notices in the Field. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communica- tions Security(London, United Kingdom)(CCS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 973–990. doi:10.1145/3319535.3354212

    work page doi:10.1145/3319535.3354212 2019

  71. [71]

    Fiona Westin and Sonia Chiasson. 2020. Opt out of privacy or "go home": under- standing reluctant privacy behaviours through the FoMO-centric design para- digm. InProceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop(San Carlos, Costa Rica)(NSPW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 57–67. doi:10.1145/3368860.3368865

    work page doi:10.1145/3368860.3368865 2020

  72. [72]

    Lauren E Willis. 2020. Deception by design.Harv. JL & Tech.34 (2020), 115

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Weiwei Yi and Zihao Li. 2025. Mapping the scholarship of the regulation of dark patterns: A systematic review of concepts, regulatory paradigms, and solutions from law and HCI perspectives.Computer Law & Security Review59 (2025), 106225

    work page 2025

  74. [74]

    dark pattern

    Amit Zac, Yu-Chun Huang, Amédée von Moltke, Christopher Decker, and Ariel Ezrachi. 2023. Dark patterns and consumer vulnerability.Behavioural Public Policy(2023), 1–50. CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Brennan Schaffner, Luis Heysen, and Marshini Chetty A Supplementary Materials A.1 Search Queries Google Scholar and ACM DL query: (“dark patter...

    work page 2023