1. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., and Schwienbacher, A.
Individual crowdfunding practices. Venture Capital 15,
4 (May 2013), 313–333.
2. Benartzi, S. and Lehrer, J. The Smarter Screen:
Surprising Ways to Influence and Improve Online
Behavior. Penguin Books, New York, 2015.
3. Carr, A. How Square Register’s UI Guilts You Into
Leaving Tips. Fast Company, New York, 2013; http://
4. Christenfeld, N. Choices from identical options.
Psychological Science 6, 1 (Jan. 1995), 50–55.
5. Datta, S. and Mullainathan, S. Behavioral design:
A new approach to development policy. Review of
Income and Wealth 60, 1 (Feb. 2014), 7–35.
6. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D.,
Metcalfe, R., and Vlaev, I. Influencing behaviour: The
Mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology 33, 1
(Feb. 2012), 264–277.
7. Evans, J.S. B. T. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning,
judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of
Psychology 59, 1 (Jan. 2008), 255–278.
8. Fogg, B.J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers
to Change What We Think and Do. Elsevier, Oxford,
U. K., 2003.
9. Fromkin, H. L. and Snyder, C. R. The search for
uniqueness and valuation of scarcity. Chapter 3 in
Social Exchange, K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, and R.H.
Willis, Eds. Springer U.S., Boston, MA, 1980, 57–75.
10. Gregor, S. and Lee-Archer, B. The digital nudge in the
Social Security Administration. International Social
Security Review 69, 3-4 (July-Dec. 2016), 63–83.
11. Hauser, J. R., Urban, G. L., Liberali, G., and Braun, M.
Website morphing. Marketing Science 28, 2 (Mar.
12. Hibbeln, M., Jenkins, J.L., Schneider, C., Valacich, J.S.,
and Weinmann, M. How is your user feeling? Inferring
emotion through human-computer interaction devices.
MIS Quarterly 41, 1 (Mar. 2017), 1–21.
13. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., and Puto, C. Adding
asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of
regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of
Consumer Research 9, 1 (June 1982), 90.
14. Hutchinson, J. M. C. and Gigerenzer, G. Simple
heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists
and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioural
Processes 69, 2 (May 2005), 97–124.
15. Johnson, E.J. and Goldstein, D.G. Do defaults save
lives? Science 302, 5649 (Nov. 2003), 1338–1339.
16. Johnson, E.J., Shu, S.B., Dellaert, B.G.C. et al. Beyond
nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing
Letters 23, 2 (June 2012), 487–504.
17. Jurca, G., Hellmann, T. D., and Maurer, F. Integrating
agile and user-centered design: A systematic mapping
and review of evaluation and validation studies of
agile-UX. In Proceedings of the 2014 Agile Conference
(Kissimmee, FL, July 28–Aug. 1). IEEE Computer
Society, Piscataway, NJ, 2014.
18. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H.
Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion,
and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives 5, 1 (Winter 1991), 193–206.
19. Ly, K., Mazar, N., Zhao, M., and Soman, D. A Practitioner’s
Guide to Nudging. Rotman School of Management
Working Paper No. 2609347, May 2013, 1–28;
20. Mandel, N. and Johnson, E. J. When webpages
influence choice: Effects of visual primes on experts
and novices. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 2
(Sept. 2002), 235–245.
21. Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M. et al. The
behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93
hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an
international consensus for the reporting of behavior
change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine
46, 1 (Aug. 2013), 81–95.
22. Miesler, L., Scherrer, C., Seiler, R., and Bearth, A.
Informational nudges as an effective approach in
raising awareness among young adults about the risk
of future disability. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16,
1 (Jan./Feb. 2017), 15–22.
23. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., and Taylor, S.J. Social influence
bias: A randomized experiment. Science 341, 6146
(Aug. 2013), 647–651.
24. Murdock, B.B. The serial position effect of free recall.
Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 2 (Nov. 1962),
25. Nielsen, J. Usability engineering at a discount. In
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction on Designing and Using
Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge-Based
Systems (Boston, MA). Elsevier, New York, 1989, 394–401.
26. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and Harjumaa, M. Persuasive
systems design: Key issues, process model, and
system features. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems 24, Article 28 (Mar. 2009),
27. Simon, H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69, 1
(Feb. 1955), 99–118.
28. Simons, A., Weinmann, M., Tietz, M., and Brocke,
vom, J. Which reward should I choose? Preliminary
evidence for the middle-option bias in reward-based crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (Hilton
Waikoloa Village, HI, Jan. 4–7). University of Hawaii,
Manoa, HI, 2017, 4344–4353.
29. Stanovich, K.E. Rationality and the Reflective Mind.
Oxford University Press, New York, 2011.
30. Sunstein, C.R. Nudging and choice architecture: Ethical
considerations. Yale Journal on Regulation 32, 2
31. Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving
Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT, and London, U.K., 2008.
32. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J. P. Choice
Architecture. SSRN Electronic Journal (2010), 1–18;
33. Tietz, M., Simons, A., Weinmann, M., and Brocke, vom,
J. The decoy effect in reward-based crowdfunding:
Preliminary results from an online experiment. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Information Systems (Dublin, Ireland, Dec. 11–14).
Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA,
34. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 4157
(Sept. 1974), 1124–1131.
35. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions
and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 4481 (Jan.
36. Wansink, B., Kent, R.J., and Hoch, S. An anchoring and
adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research 35, 1 (Feb. 1998), 71–81.
37. Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., and Brocke, vom, J.
Digital nudging. Business & Information Systems
Engineering 58, 6 (Dec. 2016), 433–436.
38. Weinmann, M., Simons, A., Tietz, M., and Brocke,
vom, J. Get it before it’s gone? How limited
rewards influence backers’ choices in reward-based
crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Systems (Seoul, South
Korea, Dec. 10–13). Association for Information
Systems, Atlanta, GA, 2017, 1–10.
Christoph Schneider ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
is an assistant professor in the Department of Information
Systems at City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong
Markus Weinmann ( email@example.com) is an
assistant professor in the Department of Information
Systems at the University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz,
Jan vom Brocke ( firstname.lastname@example.org) is a professor of
information systems, the Hilti Chair of Business Process
Management, Director of the Institute of Information
Systems, and Vice President for Research and Innovation
at the University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
Copyright held by the authors.
design cycle we have described here
to deliberately develop such choice
One final note of caution is that the
design of nudges should not follow a
“one-size-fits-all” approach, as their
effectiveness often depends on a decision maker’s personal characteristics. 16 In digital environments, characteristics of users and their environment
can be inferred from a large amount of
data, allowing nudges to be tailored.
System designers might design the
choice environment to be adaptive on
the basis of, say, users’ past decisions
or demographic characteristics. Likewise, big-data analytics can be used to
analyze behavioral patterns observed
in real time to infer users’ personalities, cognitive styles, or even emotional
states. 12 For example, Bayesian updating can be used to infer cognitive styles
from readily available clickstream data
and automatically match customers’
cognitive styles to the characteristics
of the website (such as through “
morphing” 11). Designers of digital choice
environments can attempt to “morph”
digital nudges on the basis of not only
the organizational goals but also users’
Any designer of a digital choice
environment must be aware of its
effects on users’ choices. In particular, when developing a choice environment, designers should carefully
define the goals, understand the
users, design the nudges, and test
those nudges. Following the digital-nudging design cycle we have laid
out here can help choice architects
achieve their organizational goals
by understanding both the users
and the potential nudging effects so
intended effects can be maximized
and/or unintended effects minimized.
This work was partially supported
by research grants from the University of Liechtenstein (Project No. wi-
2-14), City University of Hong Kong
(Project No. 7004563), and City University of Hong Kong’s Digital Innovation Laboratory in the Department
of Information Systems. We wish to
thank Joseph S. Valacich for valuable
comments on earlier versions, as well
as the anonymous reviewers for their
Watch the authors discuss
their work in this exclusive