Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Makes a Dark Pattern... Dark?: Design Attributes, Normative Considerations, and Measurement Methods

Open access
Mathur, Arunesh, Kshirsagar, Mihir, Mayer, Jonathan·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3411764.3445610
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is a rapidly growing literature on dark patterns, user interface designs—typically related to shopping or privacy—that researchers deem problematic. Recent work has been predominantly descriptive, documenting and categorizing objectionable user interfaces. These contributions have been invaluable in highlighting specific designs for researchers and policymakers. But the current literature lacks a conceptual foundation: What makes a user interface a dark pattern? Why are certain designs problematic for users or society?

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3411764.3445610

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. J. Howard Beales. 2003. The FTC’s Use of Unfairness Authority: Its Rise Fall and Resurrection. https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2003/05/ftcs-use-unfairness-authority-its-rise-fall-and-resurrection. · DOI
  2. 10.1177/0743915619859852 · DOI
  3. Harry Brignull. 2018. Dark Patterns. https://darkpatterns.org/. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  4. 10.1515/popets-2016-0038 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Ryan Calo. 2013. Digital market manipulation. Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 82(2013), 995.
  6. Ryan Calo and Alex Rosenblat. 2017. The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Colum. L. Rev. 117(2017), 1623.
  7. 10.1145/1772690.1772719 · DOI
  8. Richard Craswell. 1996. Compared to What-The Use of Control Ads in Deceptive Advertising Litigation. Antitrust LJ 65(1996), 757.
  9. Gregory Day and Abbey Stemler. 2020. Are Dark Patterns Anticompetitive?Alabama Law Review 72(2020) 1–45.
  10. 10.1145/3313831.3376600 · DOI · Paper page
  11. European Parliament and Council of European Union. 2018. Consent under the GDPR: valid, freely given, specific, informed and active consent. https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/consent-gdpr/. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  12. 10.1145/301353.301396 · DOI
  13. Brett Frischmann and Evan Selinger. 2018. Re-Engineering Humanity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316544846 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.505 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1145/3357236.3395486 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/3173574.3174108 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1145/2598510.2598541 · DOI
  18. Jon D Hanson and Douglas A Kysar. 1999. Taking behavioralism seriously: The problem of market manipulation. NYUL Rev. 74(1999), 630.
  19. Woodrow Hartzog. 2018. Privacy’s blueprint: the battle to control the design of new technologies. Harvard University Press.
  20. Justin Hurwitz. 2020. Designing a Pattern, Darkly. NCJL & Tech. 22(2020), 57.
  21. 10.5555/3378680.3378736 · doi:10.5555/3378680.3378736
  22. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston.
  23. 10.1007/978-1-4302-6422-4 · DOI
  24. Jamie Luguri and Lior Strahilevitz. 2020. Shining a Light on Dark Patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis 12 (2020), Forthcoming.
  25. 10.2478/popets-2020-0037 · DOI
  26. 10.17011/ht/urn.202008245641 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/3359183 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1145/3274388 · DOI
  29. 10.1145/3400899.3400901 · DOI
  30. Robert Noggle. 1996. Manipulative actions: a conceptual and moral analysis. American Philosophical Quarterly 33, 1 (1996), 43–55.
  31. 10.1145/3313831.3376321 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2014. Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, USA.
  33. National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL). 2020. Shaping Choices in the Digital World. https://linc.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/cnil_ip_report_06_shaping_choices_in_the_digital_world.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  34. 10.2307/1340281 · DOI
  35. 10.1086/292086 · DOI
  36. Natasha Dow Schüll. 2014. Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press.
  37. Simon Shaw. 2019. Consumers Are Becoming Wise to Your Nudge. https://behavioralscientist.org/consumers-are-becoming-wise-to-your-nudge/. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  38. 10.1145/3419249.3420132 · DOI
  39. 10.1017/bpp.2016.3 · DOI
  40. Cass R. Sunstein. 2020. Sludge Audits. Behavioural Public Policy(2020) 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.32 · DOI
  41. John Sweller. 2018. Measuring cognitive load. Perspectives on medical education 7, 1 (2018), 1–2.
  42. 10.1126/science.aau9241 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 2009. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
  44. 10.1145/3319535.3354212 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.025 · DOI
  46. 10.1145/3368860.3368865 · DOI
  47. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00974.x · DOI
  48. Allen Wood. 2014. Coercion, manipulation, exploitation. Manipulation: Theory and practice 1 (2014), 17–50.
  49. José P Zagal, Staffan Björk, and Chris Lewis. 2013. Dark patterns in the design of games. In Foundations of Digital Games 2013. Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games, Santa Cruz, CA, 8.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mathur, A., Kshirsagar, M., & Mayer, J.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-05-06
Pages
1-18
DOI
10.1145/3411764.3445610
OpenAlex
W3163081133
Cited by
331
References
6
FWCI
31.99
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.