Do Dark Patterns Exist?

In my book “Enviesados,” about psychology and cognitive biases applied to design, I have explored how easily our minds can be influenced and how it’s feasible to design products based on cognitive biases and principles of Psychology.

We create these designs to facilitate better decision-making for users, aligning business interests with those of the individuals who utilize our products and services.

Ethics x Dark Patterns

However, we need to delve into a crucial matter: ETHICS.

What’s the line between persuading individuals to follow a path we consider ideal and deceiving them to unilaterally benefit our businesses?

With the knowledge of how unconscious biases are produced — through information manipulation, visual arrangement of elements, and crafting a controlled environment — we theoretically hold the power to decide for users.

We wouldn’t just assist them in making better and quicker decisions; we would make decisions on their behalf, unbeknownst to them. Our designs would become the puppeteer, and the users, the marionettes.

For those who uphold the notion of maintaining professional integrity and ethics, how can they leverage this knowledge of psychological phenomena without crossing ethical boundaries? After all, if we influence someone else’s opinion and decisions, it’s manipulation regardless of intent… or is there a distinction?

What are “Dark Patterns”?

When we refer to Dark Patterns, we’re alluding to interfaces where designers employ their understanding of human behavior and user desires to implement deceptive functionalities that aren’t in the user’s best interest [3].

This term (Dark Patterns) was coined by Harry Brignull in 2010. He initially introduced the concept of ethically questionable design approaches through this neologism, defining Dark Patterns as: “a user interface that has been meticulously crafted to induce users to do things… they aren’t mistakes, they’ve been carefully designed with a solid grasp of human psychology and lack consideration for the user’s interests” [2].

Nevertheless, despite this definition being widely adopted, it seems to have significant gaps. What user interests should we have in mind? What distinguishes inducing or motivating them to follow a path we believe is ideal for both sides (business and user)? Is deceiving the user (e.g., concealing or fabricating information during a sale) the same as practicing Dark Patterns?

There are various types of Dark Patterns, as detailed on the website www.deceptive.design, created by Harry Brignull:

• Tricky Questions: While completing a form, you respond to a question that leads you to provide an unintended answer. At first glance, the question appears to ask one thing, but upon closer inspection, it inquires about something entirely different.
• Sneak into Basket: You attempt to purchase an item, but at some point during the shopping journey, the website adds an extra item to your cart.
• Roach Motel: You enter a situation with ease, but then discover it’s difficult to exit (e.g., a premium subscription).
• Privacy Zuckering: You’re encouraged to publicly share more information about yourself than intended.
• Price Comparison Prevention: The store makes it challenging for you to compare the price of one item with another, leaving you unable to make an informed purchase decision.
• Misdirection: The design intentionally directs your focus toward one aspect to distract you from another.
• Hidden Costs: As you reach the final checkout step, you uncover unexpected charges (e.g., a delivery fee).
• Bait and Switch: You commit to an action, but a different and unwanted outcome occurs (e.g., encountering a tempting ad, but upon attempting to finalize the purchase, realizing that the option is no longer available, and the store presents more favorable alternatives for the business).
• Confirm Shaming: Blaming the user for choosing a certain option. The option to decline is worded in a way that shames the user (e.g., when a site displays an offer with buttons saying “I don’t want a discount” and “I want a discount!”).
• Disguised Ads: Advertisements designed to resemble other types of content or navigation, enticing you to click on them.
• Forced Continuity: After your free trial period with a service concludes, your credit card starts being charged without notice.
• Friend Spam: A product requests your email or social media permissions under the pretext of achieving a desirable outcome (e.g., finding friends), but then sends spam to all your contacts in a message that claims to be from you.

Dark Patterns x Persuasive Patterns

In a video published by the Nielsen Norman Group, Dark Patterns are presented as distinct from what they term Persuasive Patterns, arguing that the crucial difference lies in the intention and outcome of the design interaction. They illustrate this with an example using the Scarcity Principle, a psychological social phenomenon where people attribute more value to something when they perceive it as scarce [1].

They contend that there’s no harm in employing this concept to influence users to make faster decisions before a product (or opportunity) runs out. In this scenario, it wouldn’t inherently qualify as a Dark Pattern, as the intention is to encourage the person to buy before the opportunity disappears — unless the scarcity is fabricated. However, I fundamentally disagree.

If a website is designed in a manner that influences a purchase, the user might end up buying on impulse, opting for something they hadn’t considered, or simply being persuaded to invest in something they wouldn’t at that moment — even if the scarcity is genuine. Thus, I disagree with the distinction between Dark Patterns and Persuasive Patterns. Both possess the power to compel people to take action, ultimately favoring the business.

Do Dark Patterns really exist in the user experience?

My role as a designer and researcher is to question. This remains unchanged with Dark Patterns. Therefore, I question: Do Dark Patterns genuinely exist?

As you likely know, we aren’t as rational as we envision. We’re influenced by [almost] everything around us incessantly.

Whether it’s your dog lying with its paws beneath its head, giving you a melancholic look, beseeching for a portion of your lunch; your loved one using affectionate words in a gentle tone to request a gift; your selection of a dish due to enticing photos and descriptors on the menu [4]; your grabbing a KitKat from the pharmacy checkout; your purchasing a pricier product merely because a handful claimed it was worthwhile; or even your idol endorsing a political candidate and causing you to alter your vote.

Intentionally or not, a design (whether for a website, application, or any product or service) can reshape our perception of something and prompt us to make decisions solely based on how it’s conceived. It might be due to a shade of color our eyes perceived, an image we saw, words we read, the arrangement of elements, the beauty (or lack thereof) of a website’s screens. Everything we see, hear, and feel can shape our judgments and impact our decisions.

If the difference between Dark Patterns and persuasive designs is intention, what determines whether an intention is good or bad? How can we ensure that a design — intended to influence people — truly benefits the user and fully caters to their needs and interests? How can we possibly delve so deeply into the countless individuals who use our products and services? When money and data come into play, the scenario and its questions can become sensitive, ambiguous, and unclear concerning right and wrong.

“Impostor Designs” instead of Dark Patterns

I definitively don’t believe that the term Dark Patterns is ideal. Once more: we’re influenced all the time. So, I believe that there are designs that deceive users with false information and contrived options, and this doesn’t necessarily correlate with applying psychological concepts or crafting projects capable of instilling cognitive biases in users.

I prefer to label them simply as Impostor Designs. Harry Brignull has referred to these ill-intentioned designs as Deceptive Designs.

Bottom line

As professionals who create and develop products and services that impact people’s lives, we bear the responsibility of influencing our users for the better. Consider the business aspect, but above all, think about the individuals who will benefit from it. After all, if your intention is to deceive your customer, once they realize they’ve been tricked, they won’t want to see you again.