Theorizing Deception: A Scoping Review of Theory in Researchon Dark Patterns and Deceptive Design
Weichen Joe Chang

weich0521@gmail.com
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan

Katie Seaborn

seaborn.k.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACTThe issue of dark patterns and deceptive designs (DPs) in everyday
interfaces and interactions continues to grow. DPs are manipulative and malicious elements within user interfaces that deceive
users into making unintended choices. In parallel, research on DPs
has significantly increased over the past two decades. As the field
has matured, epistemological gaps have also become a salient andpressing concern. In this scoping review, we assessed the academic
work so far—51 papers between 2014 to 2023—to identify the stateof theory in DP research. We identified the key theories employed,
examined how these theories have been referenced, and call forenhancing the incorporation of theory into DP research. We also
propose broad theoretical foundations to establish a comprehensive
and solid base for contextualizing and informing future DP researchfrom a variety of theoretical scopes and lenses.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); • General and reference → Surveys and overviews;• Applied computing → Psychology.

KEYWORDS
Dark Patterns, Deceptive Design, Deceptive Design Pattern, Manipulative Design, Persuasive Design, Theory, User Interface Design,
Scoping Review
ACM Reference Format:
Weichen Joe Chang, Katie Seaborn, and Andrew A. Adams. 2024. Theorizing
Deception: A Scoping Review of Theory in Research on Dark Patterns andDeceptive Design. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24), May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI,
USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.
3650997

1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDElectronic devices, from personal computers to smartphones andtablets, have become the primary ways through which people accessdigital content and online services. There is also a continuing andexpanding problem with manipulative, disruptive, and sometimes
malicious elements of user interfaces (UIs) designed to trick users
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0331-7/24/05
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650997

Andrew A. Adams
aaa@meiji.ac.jp
Meiji University
Tokyo, Japan

into making unintended choices, referred to as dark patterns and/or
deceptive designs (DPs) [24]. Research on DPs has received attention and prompted critical discussions on ethical design practices
and human-computer interaction (HCI). Many DP taxonomies havebeen offered to clarify different types of DPs [23, 54]. Following
this research, DP awareness research conducted by Di Geronimo etal. [14] showed that 55% of participants could not recognize DPs
in the context of a typical app. In 2021, Bongard-Blanchy et al. [8]performed an online survey, finding that 59% of participants wereable to correctly identify five or more DPs across nine interfaces.
Furthermore, the results indicated differences in DP recognition
based on age and educational level. As long as DPs exist, researchon the conceptual and user sides will be needed.
Even so, it remains unclear what theories of deception, or thoserelated to it, are present or implied within the field and how these
theories have been utilized in research. Hence, we conducted ascoping review on theory in the DP literature. We asked: RQ1:
What theories of, or related to, deception are present or implied within the field? and RQ2: How have these theories
been used in research, regulatory, or design practice? We contribute a comprehensive summary of the state of the art on theory
in DP research. We have conducted an analysis of definitions andexplored how these theories have been used (or not). We identify
three important issues: (1) just under half of the papers (46.8%)
did not reference a theory; (2) nearly half of the papers (46.5%)
incorporated theories without providing sufficient details; and (3)two papers referred to theories that may not genuinely possess atheoretical nature. Our work offers a pathway for scholars new andold to this domain, enabling them to explore avenues for futurecontributions within DP scholarship. Simultaneously, this work
offers a better understanding of theory this emerging area of study,
as well as provocations for future scholarship opportunities.

2

METHODSThis scoping review was guided by the PRISMA Extension for
Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol [64]. We describe ourprocedure for identifying and screening papers next (summarized in
Supplementary Materials Appendix A). Our protocol was registered
before data analysis on December 1st 2023 via OSF1 .

2.1

Definitions

2.1.1 Dark Pattern. DPs are malicious interface designs that trick,force, or induce people into taking an action that is different fromwhat they intend or expect [9]. Brignull in 2010 registered darkpatterns.org to address the growing issue of deceptive design practices.
1 https://osf.io/3md9g

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Recently, there has been a shift in language around the word “darkpattern” in light of the negative associations it embodies between“darkness” and “badness.”2 “Dark” is less accurate than “deceptive”
and is also commonly used to describe skin tone, and thus to avoid
this racialized term, many are turning to other phrases, notably
deceptive design, including Brignull himself [9, 29], whose site is
now https://www.deceptive.design/.
2.1.2 Theory and Relevant Terms. The study of DPs is a multidisciplinary initiative. Authors may use different terms when referringto theory; for example, persuasion theory has been referred to as
persuasion “techniques” [10, 12, 67]. Theory may also be defineddifferently across disciplines. Gregor [26, p. 613] notes how thedomain of interest for a discipline can influence the nature of its
theorizing. Theory in mathematics and music, for example, means
different things, with knowledge developed, specified, and used indifferent ways across fields. We approached this challenge throughan iterative process. In the screening phase (subsection 2.3), two of
us read the abstracts and scanned the full-text, searching for terms
related to theory. We discovered five relevant terms—general theory, principle, model, framework, and mechanism—that captured
the notion of theory across all papers. We report on our results
below, but start by defining the terms and their varieties here.
When it comes to “theory,” a widely accepted definition is by
Sutton and Barry [61, p. 378], who defined general theory as theconnections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events,
structure, and thought occur. A principle can be defined as an rulethat universally regulates the formation, operation, or change of any
phenomena. Principles can appear in various modes: as logical inference in scientific laws, or as moral principles that we follow [47].
A model provides a simplified description of a phenomenon, and assuch is closely related to theory, as defined above [61]. Indeed, thedistinction between a theory and a model is not always clear [52].
A framework provides a structure for phenomena consisting ofdescriptive categories, but does not offer an explanation [52]. A
mechanism provides an explanation on how a phenomenon comes
about or how some significant process works [46].
The importance and finer differences of theory remain unknown
for DP studies, but we can learn from broader disciplines of practice. Abend [1] argues that theory is so important in the lexiconof contemporary sociology that sociologists use “theoretical” and“theorize” frequently and with weight Other fields of research with
empirical roots have struggled in their search for adequate theory, such as Operations Research in the 1990s. In that context,
Wacker [66, p. 362-363] justifies the need for theory:
There are three reasons why theory is important for
researchers and practitioners: (1) it provides a framework for analysis; (2) it provides an efficient method
for field development; and (3) it provides clear explanations for the pragmatic world.

Chang, Seaborn, and Adams

a set of relationships of variables, and (4) specificpredictions (factual claims).
The field of DP studies is young and already pluralistic. The community should work to consolidate our conceptualization of theory
for clarity and future consensus-building.

2.2

Eligibility Criteria

We adopted four eligibility criteria from the protocol established byGray et al. [24] and added one additional criterion to identify thepresence or implication of theories. In total, five eligibility criteria
were applied: 1) The record had to be written in English. 2) The
record had to explicitly mention “dark patterns” in the full text. 3)
The record had to be published in a journal, conference proceeding,government technical report, or a similar archival venue. 4) The
record had to include at least one empirical component. 5) The
record had to contain or imply theories within the field.

2.3

Data Collection and Screening

We started with a data set from the systematic review conducted byGray et al. [24] in 2022, covering work until September 13th , 2022.
We conducted a new search spanning the period from September
13th , 2022, to November 30th , 2023, adhering to the establishedprotocol delineated by Gray et al. [24]. We also replicated this search
protocol on Google Scholar and the ACM Digital Library, using the
precise search string “dark patterns” (enclosed within quotation
marks). This yielded 3,020 results in Google Scholar and 158 resultsin the ACM DL, both sorted by “relevance.” The initial 250 resultsfrom Google Scholar3 and all 158 results from the ACM DL were
downloaded and formatted in BibTeX. All BibTeX entries were thenimported into Rayyan.ai4 , a tool facilitating collaborative literature
reviews. 38 papers with a publication date before September 13th ,2022 were removed. Combining all results, we obtained 449 titles
and abstracts. 41 duplicate records and 39 records not written in the
English language were excluded. Finally, we attempted to download
the full text of the remaining 369 reports, retrieving all but eleven.
Screening the remaining papers for eligibility was conductedusing the five inclusion criteria stated above. Reports were excluded
based on the following factors: papers of an ineligible publication
type (e.g., popular press article, only an abstract, workshop, student
thesis, pre-print; n=87); reports unrelated to computing or DPs(e.g., medical or hard science publication; n=4); reports that did
not use DPs as a primary analytic or conceptual framing (e.g., only
referencing the term in an introduction or conclusion; n=130); andreports that were not empirical (e.g., no new data collected oranalyzed; only focus on argumentation; systematic review; n=28).
The first four criteria resulted in the exclusion of 249 reports for109. The fifth criterion, presenting or implying theories (i.e., notheory present; n=58) left 51 papers eligible for the analysis phase.

and also defines suitable theories:
Generally, academics point to a theory as being madeup of four components: (1) definitions of terms orvariables, (2) a domain where the theory applies, (3)2 https://www.acm.org/diversity-inclusion/words-matter

3We may have overlooked additional relevant literature beyond the first 250 results.

However, after the first 150 results, few papers showed evidence of citations and thevast majority appeared to be irrelevant to the search. Future work could explore thisbroader range of results to determine if we missed any important literature.
4 https://www.rayyan.ai/

Theorizing Deception

2.4

Data Analysis

We employed directed content analysis [31] to examine the included
literature in pursuit of identifying theories of deception and how
these theories were utilized. Two researchers read the abstracts andcontent of the papers to ensure inclusion. A single paper may haveincluded more than one theory and more than one type of theory.
We developed a preliminary round of codes generated based on
an initial review of more than half of dataset (27 reports). The two
researchers then confirmed the relevance and scope of the preliminary codes and used them to code all 51 reports. One researcher
coded all the papers, and then the other researcher confirmed thecodes across the entire dataset.

3

RESULTS

We present the theories referenced and elaborate on how thesewere utilized in this body of published research. The spreadsheet
containing the screened and included literature can be found athttps://bit.ly/theorizingdeception.

3.1

Theories Referenced

Five types of theories were confirmed in more than half of thedataset (27 reports):7.5% (n=19) general theory, 7.5% (n=3) principle, 15.0% (n=6) model, 20.0% (n=8) mechanism, and 10.0% (n=4)
framework. Forty theories were observed and cited a total of 99
times with the following breakdown: 69.7% (n=69) general theory,
3.0% (n=3) principle, 8.1% (n=8) model, 15.2% (n=15) mechanismand 4.0% (n=4) framework. While we found a diversity of theories,
fewer than half (46.8%, n=51) of the papers mentioned even one
theory. In those that contained at least one theory, 54.9% (n=28)
referred to two theories, 27.5% (n=14) mentioned three theories,
and 7.8% (n=4) gave four. 3.9% (n=2) and 2.0% (n=1) mentioned fiveor six theories. Of those mentioning theory, 53% (n=53) referenced
theories applied in the research or described in detail, i.e., core theories, while 46.5% (n=46) did not apply theories or merely mentioned
theories without detailed explanation, i.e., cursory theories. Sixteen
papers only mentioned name of the theory without any further
information. One stated use of theory but did not directly reference
and describe this usage. One record used a taxonomy as a theory.
3.1.1 General Theories. More than half (54.9%, n=28) of papers explicitly referenced Nudge theory. Five used Thaler & Sunstein’s [63,p. 8] definition: “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters
people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” 21.6%(n=11) mentioned Dual Process [33]. 11.8% (n=6) mentioned Choice
Architect [63]. The restant and our systematic framework of theory
name, definition, and the examples of how they were referenced,
are in Table 1 and Table 2. This framework shows the diversity oftheories, and which theories can be most commonly found, in DP
research, and how those theories were used.
3.1.2 Principles. These were less frequently referenced in the literature, with only three principles mentioned in DP research. 1.96%(n=1) each referenced one of Usability Heuristics [51], Social proof [12,45] and Dual Entitlement [34]. Details can be found in Supplementary Materials Appendix B.

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

3.1.3 Models. 3.92% (n=2) records referenced Fogg’s Behavioral
Model [19] and Mental model [53]. 1.96% (n=1) each referenced Persuasion knowledge model [20], Affect-Behavior-Cognition model [17],Big-five model [15, 21] or Self-control model [49]. Details can befound in Supplementary Materials Appendix C.
3.1.4 Frameworks. These are also infrequently referenced in theliterature; only four frameworks were mentioned. 1.96% (n=1) eachreferenced Stimulus-Organism-Response framework [32, 48], Semiotic framework [60], Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior
framework [50] or Behavior Change Wheel framework [50]. Details
can be found in Supplementary Materials Appendix D.
3.1.5 Mechanisms. These were slightly more frequent. 13.7% (n=7)
referenced the Strategies of Persuasion mechanism [18]. 3.92% (n=2)
referenced the Hyperbolic Discounting mechanism [40]. Details
can be found in Supplementary Materials Appendix E.

4DISCUSSION

Within the community of DP research, there is no consensus onwhat qualifies as or lies beyond the scope of theory. We have leaned
on a broad conceptualization of theory here, to ensure a comprehensive review. Our main finding is that the community could benefit
from establishing a uniform definition of what constitutes a theory for DP research. In short, DP scholarship should offer specifictheory/ies when referring to “theory.” This practice would enhance
the application and understanding of theory in the context of DP
studies. As our initial contribution to this process, we first discuss
three launching points for future research based on the state ofaffairs indicated by our scoping review, and then suggest ways
forward to deepen theorizing around DPs.

4.1

Uncovering the State of Affairs: Three
Launching Points

4.1.1 Point 1: Overall Undertheorizing. Theory represents a foundation in social science research by providing a systematic andstructured approach to understanding, explaining, and predicting
social phenomena. Abend [1, p. 173] wrote that “theory is one of
the most important words in the lexicon of contemporary sociology,” going on to explain that the “words ‘theory,’ ‘theoretical,’ and‘theorize’ are constantly and consequentially used by all sociologists.” Yet, DP research is under-theorized and potentially limited inscope given that less than half of the reviewed papers (46.8%, n=51)
reported on an explicit theory. Recent work is more focused onpractical research rather than offering theories about phenomena.
Our review also reveals that, apart from Nudge theory [63], there
is a noticeable absence of major theories. One-third of the papers
cited Nudge theory (n=28) [63], advocating for altering people’s
behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or
significantly changing their economic incentives. Dual Process theory [33] (n=11) was a far second, and posits that individuals think
and act under dual automatic and reflective systems. Some researchreferenced Choice Architect theory (n=6), which emphasizes theinfluence and responsibility of the individual(s) organizing the context in which people make decisions [63]. Seven studies referenced
Strategies of Persuasion mechanism which elaborates how sevenstrategies are commonly used in persuasive technology [18]. A

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Chang, Seaborn, and Adams

Table 1: Theory Used in Dark Patterns Research (Part 1)
Theory Name (Count)

Definition

Nudge (28)

ExampleChanges behavior in a predictable way withoutforbidding any options or significantly changing
economic incentives.
Dual Process: Automatic & Re- Distinguishing between two thinking systems:
flective System (11)fast/intuitive and slow/analytical.
Choice Architect (6)The responsibility for organizing the context inwhich people make decisions
Sludge (3)Prospect (3)Self-Determination Theory (2)Proxemics (2)Privacy Calculus (2)Persuasion (2)Theory of Planned Behaviour (1)Social Influence (1)“Established on former behavioral economists’ideas ... the idea of ‘nudge’ ...” [55, p. 4]“One way to explain it is through the dual-process
theories ...” [37, p. 4698]“Thaler and Sunstein ... how intentionally designed choice architectures can nudge people...” [27, p. 377:3]
Any aspect of choice architecture where friction “Richard Thaler refers to dark patterns as ‘sludge’makes it hard for people to obtain the best out- ...” [28, p. 377:3]
come for themA descriptive model of decision making under “... which states human beings’ risk-taking willrisk for creating alternative models
ingness ... ” [55, p. 2]
Competence, relatedness, and autonomy are vital “According to self-determination theory, autonfor optimal functioning, growth, and positive so- omy is one of the three ...” [3, p. 52]
cial development.
Individuals use of space as a specialized elabo- “The particular innovation we are concerned withration of culture Contex e.g.intimate, personal, is proxemic interactions ...” [25, p. 523]
social, and public zones.
A cost-benefit analysis/calculus when deciding “... privacy calculus theory, which presumes peowhether to disclose private information in various ple’s behaviour ... ”[22, p. 2]
contexts.
Influence is often exerted through six principles: “...social proof, scarcity, authority, ... reciprocationconsistency, reciprocation, social proof, authority, were used ...” [67, p. 4]
liking, and scarcity.
Individuals engage in a behavior if they perceive “According to the theory of planned behavior
that the benefits of success outweigh the draw- ...” [36, p. 5]
backs of failure.
Examines how individuals are influenced by oth- “... states that individuals develop their own opiners; proposes compliance, identification, and inter- ion” [36, p. 4]
nalization as three main types of social influence.

few utilized Sludge theory (n=3), a concept linked to the misuse ofnudge [62], or Prospect theory (n=3), which explains that people
dislike losses more than they like gains [35]. These theories areassociated with behavioral economics and psychology, highlightingthat DP research is significantly influenced by the broader body ofresearch in human behavior and psychology. The remaining theories were referenced less than three times. This raises opportunities
to explore other theories within and beyond these larger disciplines.

rather than objective and static way” [23, p. 534] referencing [65].
Short paper formats and work where theory was not the focus mayhelp explain these patterns. Still, they also reveal a broad recognition that theory is important even if overlooked. Indeed, there is apressing need to enhance the incorporation of theory into future DP
research. This would offer a systematic and structured approach tocomprehending, explaining, and predicting the social phenomenaof DPs, shifting the emphasis away from solely practical research.

4.1.2 Point 2: Insufficient Detail and Indirect Citations. We observedthat 46.5% of papers which referenced theories (n=46) did not explicitly cite or appear to apply these theories. In some instances (n=16),
terms such as ‘theory’ or ‘principle’ were mentioned without detail.
For example: “In line with theory on the cute aesthetic, the vast
majority of the new wave of home robots appear stunted in someway” [39, p. 377]. Similarly, some work only contained references toother work that referenced/used the theory in question, i.e., indirect
citations. An example: “The model of van Wynsberghe et al. provides one such model of ethics in design practice, creating a spacefor ethical theory to be taken up in a pragmatic and generative,

4.1.3 Point 3: Accidental Untheorizing. What is “theory”? This is atrickier question than it appears. Authors often use the same terms
to describe different epistemological phenomena. “Framework” isperhaps infamous. We found two papers in which “theory” mayhave been misapplied. One made reference but did not directly cite
or appear to use any theory: “The aim of this research is to cover
this gap of knowledge by using the theory about dark patterns ...” [6,p.3]. The other referred to a taxonomy as a theory: “The analyticalframework encompassed two main components: the application ofan adapted approach of dark patterns heuristics and theory ...” [58, p.

Theorizing Deception

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Table 2: Theory Used in Dark Patterns Research (Part 2)
Theory Name (Count)

Definition

ExampleSocial Control (1)Delinquency arises when an person’s bond to society is weak; includes attachment, commitment,
involvement, belief
Individuals are motivated to regain or protect
their behavior freedoms when these freedoms
are reduced or threatened.
A fear appeal’s effectiveness relies on the severityof a depicted event, the likelihood of its occurrence, and the efficacy of a protective response.
A minimal element in game design consisting ofa grapheme, an acousteme, and a motifeme.

“... the social control theory focused on the community” [11, p. 3]

Psychological Reactance (1)Protection-Motivation (1)Ludeme (1)Information Fiduciary (1)Grounded (1)Cognitive Development (1)“Guided by the Protection-Motivation Theory...” [43, p. 2]“... a proposition of a digital game grammar withthe ludeme as the ‘basic video game unit’ ...” [16,p. 10-11]
People and organizations who, because of their “... Balkin and Zittrain’s information fiduciary therelationship with another, assumes special duties ory ...” [44, p. 95]
with respect to the information they obtain in thecourse of the relationship.
A general methodology for developing theory “... conducted an open coding process derived fromthat is grounded in data systematically gathered the grounded theory method ...” [67, p. 11]
and analyzed
Key processes in children’s cognition develop- “According to Piaget’s theory of cognitive develment through their play, dreams, and imitation. opment ...” [58, p. 599]

600], citing [13, 68]. To be fair, it is unclear whether the referenced
taxonomy should be classified as theory.

4.2“... the psychological reactance theory suggests...” [3, p. 52]

Theorizing a Way Forward: General, Broad,and Specific

The limited theorization in the existing DP research literature relies, such as it is, very heavily on the psychological theories ofNudge [63], and to a more limited extent on Fast and Slow Thinking [33]. While psychology should play a key part in providing atheoretical foundation for DP research, it is not the only suitablesource. In addition, these two theories focus solely on the psychology of the user, completely ignoring the other side: the psychologyof the designers. Here, we highlight some broad theoretical backgrounds which seem to hold promise for providing a broad andsolid base for contextualising and informing future DP research.
We present these at three levels. First, there is the question of thegeneral theoretical framework. This leads to a set of broad theories and related bodies of work, from which some specific detailed
theories can be drawn and specialised for DP research.
4.2.1 General. DP research is dependent on a theory of mind to
explain why users act in ways that are not in their own interests andexamine whether that action is deliberately sought by the designerof the system (or not). This requires theorizing about the mental
models of users and designers. Theories of mind span the literaturein philosophy and (social, behavioral, and neuro-) psychology. The
key element for DP research may be autonomy: how autonomous
we should expect or seek people to be, and the consequences, bothindividually and societally, have been a subject of philosophicalenquiry for millennia. It is one of the key elements of the politicaltheories of Hobbes [30], Locke [42], and Rawls [57]. While philosophy gives a frame for the regulation, or its lack, of DPs in use, it
is to psychological theories of autonomy that DP researchers needto turn to understand how DPs work. Much social psychology addresses theories of how people’s autonomy is undermined, and how
their a-priori values and self-expectations may fail to be followed
in real world situations. As Adams [2] explained in considering
the influence of social network sites’ core policies around privacy,
standard social psychological theories [4, 5, 7] provide solid frames
in which to understand the self-harming choices made by users, andempirical approaches to confirming the reasons for those choices.
4.2.2 Broad. This theoretical frame of autonomy from philosophy
and psychology tends to focus primarily on the mind of the user.
Yet, DP research also needs to draw work on theories of sociology,
and in particular of criminology and victimology, which focus on
the social and psychological contexts of perpetrators and victims ofcrime and other anti-social activity. While most DP usage so far does
not rise to the level of crime itself, DPs are used in the furtheranceof anti-social online behavior and in support of fraudulent, evencriminal, activity. These philosophical frames could be usefully
deployed to model and assess level of vicitmization and level ofcriminology, which may be entwined or not, and may vary acrossindividuals as well as specific types or instances of DPs.
Investigating whether patterns leading users into unwanted activity are deliberate or inadvertent on behalf of designers will be a
key element in regulating DP deployment. If the designer (humans
and organisations) has an “innocent mind” [38], then identifying
the deceptive impact of their designs and providing them with a

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

way of avoiding it should be sufficient. If the designer is deliberately
deceiving the user, however, public pressure, at the very least, or
perhaps regulation will be necessary to remove or ameliorate thedeceptive design. For corporate actors (who are perhaps the majority of deployers of DPs), understanding their contextual frame isuseful, along the lines of Lessig’s Code [41] (Laws, Norms, Market,
and Architecture as regulators) or Paternoster and Simpson’s Rational Choice [56] (rational choices that consider all information andare judged based on risk vs. reward, favouring reward over risk).
4.2.3 Specific. Finally, there are specific theoretical frames in whichempirical studies can be designed and justified. Some have beentaken up already, as this work shows; there are otherwise too many
to list here. The choice should be geared around the motivationof the work. Still, we did find opportunities for greater specificity.
For example, some papers reviewed in this study referenced Cialdini [12]. A more specific theoretical framework for understanding
the victims of fraud developed by Stajano and Wilson [59], whichbuilds on the theory of Cialdini, offers a concrete structure throughwhich to consider how users fall prey to deceptive design. This kindof theory can aid researchers in showing how users can protect
themselves, how helpful designers can aid them (by avoiding luring
users or by providing them with additional tools to identify andavoid the traps), and how regulators can enforce better practice.

4.3

Limitations

We restricted our scoping review to records that used “dark patterns”
and “theory” as keywords in the title, abstract, and/or full-text. We
recognize that not all viable papers may have done so. We also notethat we may not have found theories that were implied but not
explicitly stated in the text. The term “dark patterns” is also shifting
to other terms, notably “deceptive designs,” so further analysis of
the existing literature will need to include this shift in terminology.
Since we only included the papers written in English, the results
may have demographic biases. We also did not perform a quality
assessment as recommended by the PRISMA-Sc protocol because
we were not evaluating the results of the included studies.

5

CONCLUSION

Dark patterns and deceptive user interface designs are a widespread
phenomenon and a sensitive topic from the point of view of experts
and purveyors. Here, we have shown the rather limited ways inwhich this mode of praxis has been approached within the HCI
literature from a theoretical lens. We aim to raise awareness andangle the light onto matters of theory in future research. We argue
that theory may guide designers, developers, researchers, industry
professionals, lawyers, regulatory bodies, and virtually all stakeholders towards consensus and deeper understanding of whether
and how “deceptive” and harmful these user interface patterns may
be for the average digital citizen.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Gray et al. [24] for providing an open data set. We also
note that Katie Seaborn conscientiously dissents to in-person participation at CHI; read their positionality statement here: https://bit.ly/chi24statement

Chang, Seaborn, and Adams

REFERENCES[1] Gabriel Abend. 2008. The Meaning of ‘Theory’. Sociological Theory 26, 2 (2008),
173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x[2] Andrew A Adams. 2014. Facebook code: Social network sites platform affordancesand privacy. Journal of Law, Information and Science 23, 1 (2014), 158–168.
[3] Sanju Ahuja and Jyoti Kumar. 2022. Conceptualizations of user autonomy within
the normative evaluation of dark patterns. Ethics and Information Technology 24(12 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09672-9[4] Solomon E. Asch. 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification anddistortion of judgments. In Groups, Leadership, and Men, H. Guetzkow (Ed.).
Carnegie Press, New York, NY, US.
[5] John A Bargh, Mark Chen, and Lara Burrows. 1996. Automaticity of social
behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 2 (1996), 230.
[6] Anders Bergesen, John Gullaksen, Mikael Hanssen, Aleksander Karlsson, andBirgitte Swensson. 2021. Dark patterns in cookie consent notices — Norway’s 50
most visited websites.
[7] Rod Bond and Peter B Smith. 1996. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis ofstudies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin 119,
1 (1996), 111.
[8] Kerstin Bongard-Blanchy, Arianna Rossi, Salvador Rivas, Sophie Doublet, Vincent
Koenig, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2021. “I Am Definitely Manipulated, Even When I
Am Aware of It. It’s Ridiculous!” - Dark Patterns from the End-User Perspective.
In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual
Event, USA) (DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462086[9] Harry Brignull. 2019. Deceptive patterns - home. https://www.deceptive.design/[10] Christoph Bösch, Benjamin Erb, Frank Kargl, Henning Kopp, and Stefan Pfattheicher. 2016. Tales from the Dark Side: Privacy Dark Strategies and Privacy Dark
Patterns. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2016 (07 2016), 237–254.
https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2016-0038[11] Ishita Chordia, Lena-Phuong Tran, Tala June Tayebi, Emily Parrish, Sheena
Erete, Jason Yip, and Alexis Hiniker. 2023. Deceptive Design Patterns in Safety
Technologies: A Case Study of the Citizen App. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg,Germany) (CHI’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 193,
18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581258[12] R.B. Cialdini. 2009. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Collins
e-books, New York, NY, USA.
[13] Refal Pradama Dahlan and Meredita Susanty. 2022. Finding Dark Patterns in
Casual Mobile Games Using Heuristic Evaluation. PETIR 15, 2 (2022), 185–195.
Issue 2. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:254353531[14] 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. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3313831.3376600[15] John Digman. 2003. Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model.
Annual Review of Psychology 41 (11 2003), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.ps.41.020190.002221[16] Bruno Dupont and Steven Malliet. 2021. Contextualizing Dark Patterns with theLudeme Theory: A New Path for Digital Game Literacy? Acta Ludogica 4 (2021),
4–22. Issue 1. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:266378823[17] Albert Ellis. 1991. The revised ABC’s of rational-emotive therapy (RET). Journalof Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 9, 3 (1991), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01061227[18] B. J. Fogg. 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We
Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Massachusetts, US. https://books.
google.co.jp/books?id=9nZHbxULMwgC[19] B. J. Fogg. 2009. A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. In Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Claremont, California,
USA) (Persuasive ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, Article 40, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999[20] Marian Friestad and Peter Wright. 1994.
The Persuasion Knowledge
Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts.
Journal of Consumer Research 21, 1 (06 1994), 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-pdf/21/1/1/50276032/jcr_21_1_1.pdf[21] Lewis Goldberg. 1991. An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The BigFive Factor Structure. Journal of personality and social psychology 59 (01 1991),
1216–29. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216[22] Paul Grassl, Hanna Schraffenberger, Frederik Borgesius, and Moniek Buijzen.
2021. Dark and bright patterns in cookie consent requests. Journal of Digital
Social Research 3, 1 (2021), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gqs5h[23] Colin M. Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs.
2018. The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal, QC, Canada)

Theorizing Deception(CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108[24] Colin M. Gray, Lorena Sanchez Chamorro, Ike Obi, and Ja-Nae Duane. 2023. Mapping the Landscape of Dark Patterns Scholarship: A Systematic Literature Review.
In Companion 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. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563703.3596635[25] Saul Greenberg, Sebastian Boring, Jo Vermeulen, and Jakub Dostal. 2014. Dark
Patterns in Proxemic Interactions: A Critical Perspective. In Proceedings of the2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (DIS’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598541[26] Shirley Gregor. 2006. The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly
30 (09 2006), 611–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742[27] Johanna Gunawan, Amogh Pradeep, David Choffnes, Woodrow Hartzog, andChristo Wilson. 2021. A Comparative Study of Dark Patterns Across Web andMobile Modalities. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 377 (oct2021), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479521[28] Johanna Gunawan, Amogh Pradeep, David Choffnes, Woodrow Hartzog, andChristo Wilson. 2021. A Comparative Study of Dark Patterns Across Web andMobile Modalities. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 377 (oct2021), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479521[29] Brignull Harry. 2023. Deceptive Patterns: Exposing the Tricks Tech Companies Use
to Control You. Testimonium Ltd, Eastbourne, England.
[30] Thomas Hobbes. 1651. Hobbes’s Leviathan. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
[31] Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative
Content Analysis. Qualitative health research 15 (12 2005), 1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687[32] Tianyang Huang. 2023. Using SOR framework to explore the driving factors ofolder adults smartphone use behavior. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10 (10 2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02221-9[33] Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New
York, NY, USA.
[34] Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler. 1986. Fairness and
The Assumptions of Economics. The Journal of Business 59 (10 1986), 285–300.
https://doi.org/10.1086/296367[35] Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis
of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47, 2 (March 1979), 263–291. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecm/emetrp/v47y1979i2p263-91.html[36] Kawon (Kathy) Kim, Woo Gon Kim, and Minwoo Lee. 2023. Impact of dark
patterns on consumers’ perceived fairness and attitude: Moderating effects oftypes of dark patterns, social proof, and moral identity. Tourism Management 98(2023), 104763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104763[37] Agnieszka Kitkowska, Johan Högberg, and Erik Wästlund. 2022. Barriers to a
Well-Functioning Digital Market: Exploring Dark Patterns and How to Overcome
Them. In 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. ScholarSpace,
Hawaii, US, 4697–4706. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2022.573[38] Joshua Kleinfeld. 2021. Why the mind matters in criminal law. Ariz. St. LJ 53(2021), 539.
[39] Cherie Lacey and Catherine Caudwell. 2019. Cuteness as a ‘Dark Pattern’ inHome Robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction (HRI). IEEE Press, Daegu, Republic of Korea, 374–381. https://doi.
org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673274[40] David Laibson. 1997. Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (02 1997), 443–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/
003355397555253[41] Lawrence Lessig. 2009. Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books, New
York, NY, US.
[42] John Locke. 1689. Second Treatise of Government. Watchmaker Publishing, Oregon,US.
[43] Yuwen Lu, Chao Zhang, Yuewen Yang, Yaxing Yao, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2023.
From Awareness to Action: Exploring End-User Empowerment Interventions for
Dark Patterns in UX. arXiv:2310.17846 [cs.HC][44] Jamie Luguri and Lior Jacob Strahilevitz. 2021.
Shining a Light on
Dark Patterns.
Journal of Legal Analysis 13, 1 (03 2021), 43–109.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa006 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jla/articlepdf/13/1/43/36669915/laaa006.pdf[45] Janetta Lun, Stacey Sinclair, Erin Whitchurch, and Catherine Glenn. 2007. (Why)Do I Think What You Think? Epistemic Social Tuning and Implicit Prejudice.
Journal of personality and social psychology 93 (12 2007), 957–72. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.957

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA[46] Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl F. Craver. 2000. Thinking about
Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67, 1 (2000), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/
392759[47] Hugh P. McDonald. 2009. Principles: The Principles of Principles. The Pluralist 4,
3 (2009), 98–126. https://doi.org/10.1353/plu.0.0028[48] A. Mehrabian and J.A. Russell. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology.
M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts, US.
[49] Janet Metcalfe and Walter Mischel. 1999. A Hot/Cool-System Analysis of Delayof Gratification: Dynamics of Willpower. Psychological review 106 (01 1999), 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3[50] Susan Michie, Maartje van Stralen, and Robert West. 2011. The Behaviour
Change Wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour changeinterventions. Implementation science : IS 6 (04 2011), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1748-5908-6-42[51] Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (CHI ’94). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191729[52] Per Nilsen. 2015. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation science : IS 10 (04 2015), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012015-0242-0[53] Donald A. Norman. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, Inc., USA.
[54] OECD. 2022. Dark commercial patterns. Number 336 in OECD Digital Economy Papers. OECD Publishing, Paris, France. 96 pages. https://doi.org/10.1787/44f5e846en[55] Sebnem Ozdemir. 2019. Digital nudges and dark patterns: The angels and thearchfiends of digital communication. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 35 (032019). https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz014[56] Raymond Paternoster and Sally Simpson. 2017. A rational choice theory ofcorporate crime. In Routine Activity and Rational Choice, Ronald Victor Gemuseus
Clarke and Marcus Felson (Eds.). Routledge, London, UK, 37–58.
[57] John Rawls. 2005. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York, NY,
US. Expanded edition from 1993 original.
[58] Carla Sousa and Ana Oliveira. 2023. The Dark Side of Fun: Understanding Dark
Patterns and Literacy Needs in Early Childhood Mobile Gaming, In Vol. 17 No. 1(2023): Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Games Based Learning.
European Conference on Games Based Learning 17. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecgbl.
17.1.1656[59] Frank Stajano and Paul Wilson. 2011. Understanding scam victims: Seven principles for systems security. Commun. ACM 54, 3 (2011), 70–75.
[60] Ronald K. Stamper. 1993. A semiotic theory of information and information
systems. In Proceedings of the Joint ICL/University of Newcastle Seminar on the
Teaching of Computer Science, Part IX: Information. University of Newcastle,
Newcastle, UK, 1-33 pages. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:64006127[61] Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw. 1995. What Theory is Not. Administrative
Science Quarterly 40, 3 (1995), 371–384. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393788[62] Richard H. Thaler. 2018.
Nudge, not sludge.
Science 361,
6401 (2018), 431–431.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau9241
arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aau9241[63] Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge. Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT and London.
[64] Andrea C. Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun,
Danielle Levac, David Moher, Micah D.J. Peters, Tanya Horsley, Laura Weeks,
Susanne Hempel, Elie A. Akl, Christine Chang, Jessie McGowan, Lesley Stewart,
Lisa Hartling, Adrian Aldcroft, Michael G. Wilson, Chantelle Garritty, Simon
Lewin, Christina M. Godfrey, Marilyn T. Macdonald, Etienne V. Langlois, Karla
Soares-Weiser, Jo Moriarty, Tammy Clifford, Özge Tunçalp, and Sharon E. Straus.
2018. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist andExplanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169, 7 (2018), 467–473. https://doi.org/
10.7326/M18-0850 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 PMID: 30178033.
[65] Aimee van Wynsberghe and Scott Robbins. 2014. Ethicist as Designer: A Pragmatic Approach to Ethics in the Lab. Science and Engineering Ethics 20, 4 (2014),
947–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9498-4[66] John G Wacker. 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal ofOperations Management 16, 4 (1998), 361–385.
[67] Qunfang Wu, Yisi Sang, Dakuo Wang, and Zhicong Lu. 2023. Malicious Selling
Strategies in Livestream E-commerce: A Case Study of Alibaba’s Taobao and
ByteDance’s TikTok. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 3, Article 35 (jun2023), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577199[68] José Pablo Zagal, Staffan Björk, and Chris Lewis. 2013. Dark patterns in thedesign of games. In International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games. ,Crete, Greece. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17683705