skip to main content
10.1145/3491101.3519829acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Towards Understanding the Dark Patterns That Steal Our Attention

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Contemporary digital services often adopt mechanisms, e.g., recommendations and infinite scrolling, that exploit users’ psychological vulnerabilities to maximize time spent and daily visits. While these attention-capture dark patterns might contribute to technology overuse and problematic behaviors, they are relatively underexplored in the literature. In this paper, we first provide a definition of what are attention-capture dark patterns based on a review of recent works on digital wellbeing and dark patterns. Then, we describe a set 5 of attention-capture dark patterns extracted from a 1-week-long auto-ethnography during which we self-monitored our mobile and web interactions with Facebook and YouTube. Finally, we report on an initial study (N = 7) that explores whether and how a widespread mechanism, i.e., social investment, influence usage and users’ perception of the Facebook website. We discuss the implications that our work may have on the design of technologies that better align with users’ digital wellbeing.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3491101.3519829-talk-video.mp4

mp4

8.2 MB

References

  1. 2017. ‘Our minds can be hijacked’: the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia Accessed: 2021-08-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017. What is technology doing to us?https://samharris.org/podcasts/71-technology-us/ Accessed: 2021-08-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2018. YouTube’s AI is the puppet master over most of what you watch. https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-ces-2018-neal-mohan/ Accessed: 2021-08-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2021. California bans ‘dark patterns’ that trick users into giving away their personal data. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333506/california-bans-dark-patterns-opt-out-selling-data Accessed: 2021-08-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Eric P. S. Baumer, Rui Sun, and Peter Schaedler. 2018. Departing and Returning: Sense of Agency as an Organizing Concept for Understanding Social Media Non/Use Transitions. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 23 (Nov. 2018), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274292Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Harry Brignull. 2020. What are dark patterns?https://www.darkpatterns.org/ Accessed: 2021-08-06.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christopher Burr, Nello Cristianini, and James Ladyman. 2018. An Analysis of the Interaction Between Intelligent Software Agents and Human Users. Minds and Machines (2018), 735–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9479-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Christopher Burr, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2020. The Ethics of Digital Well-Being: A Thematic Review. Science and Engineering Ethics(2020), 2313–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00175-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Marta E. Cecchinato, John Rooksby, Alexis Hiniker, Sean Munson, Kai Lukoff, Luigina Ciolfi, Anja Thieme, and Daniel Harrison. 2019. Designing for Digital Wellbeing: A Research & Practice Agenda. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3298998Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Justin Cheng, Moira Burke, and Elena Goetz Davis. 2019. Understanding Perceptions of Problematic Facebook Use: When People Experience Negative Life Impact and a Lack of Control. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300429Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Hyunsung Cho, DaEun Choi, Donghwi Kim, Wan Ju Kang, Eun Kyoung Choe, and Sung-Ju Lee. 2021. Reflect, Not Regret: Understanding Regretful Smartphone Use with App Feature-Level Analysis. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 456 (oct 2021), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479600Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Felicia Cordeiro, Daniel A. Epstein, Edison Thomaz, Elizabeth Bales, Arvind K. Jagannathan, Gregory D. Abowd, and James Fogarty. 2015. Barriers and Negative Nudges: Exploring Challenges in Food Journaling. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1159–1162. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702155Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Thomas H. Davenport and John C. Beck. 2001. Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. Harvard Business School Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed.Sage Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Nir Eyal. 2014. Hooked : how to build habit-forming product. Portfolio/Penguin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennifer Gerson, Anke C. Plagnol, and Philip J. Corr. 2017. Passive and Active Facebook Use Measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. 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. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jane E. Klobas, Tanya J. McGill, Sedigheh Moghavvemi, and Tanousha Paramanathan. 2018. Compulsive YouTube usage: A comparison of use motivation and personality effects. Computers in Human Behavior 87 (2018), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.038Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Konrad Kollnig, Siddhartha Datta, and Max Van Kleek. 2021. I Want My App That Way: Reclaiming Sovereignty Over Personal Devices. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 393, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451632Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Uichin Lee, Joonwon Lee, Minsam Ko, Changhun Lee, Yuhwan Kim, Subin Yang, Koji Yatani, Gahgene Gweon, Kyong-Mee Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2014. Hooked on Smartphones: An Exploratory Study on Smartphone Overuse Among College Students. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2327–2336. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557366Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kai Lukoff, Ulrik Lyngs, Himanshu Zade, J. Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A. Munson, and Alexis Hiniker. 2021. How the Design of YouTube Influences User Sense of Agency. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 368, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445467Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kai Lukoff, Cissy Yu, Julie Kientz, and Alexis Hiniker. 2018. What Makes Smartphone Use Meaningful or Meaningless?Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 1, Article 22 (March 2018), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3191754Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ulrik Lyngs, Kai Lukoff, Petr Slovak, Reuben Binns, Adam Slack, Michael Inzlicht, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2019. Self-Control in Cyberspace: Applying Dual Systems Theory to a Review of Digital Self-Control Tools. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300361Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ulrik Lyngs, Kai Lukoff, Petr Slovak, William Seymour, Helena Webb, Marina Jirotka, Jun Zhao, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2020. ’I Just Want to Hack Myself to Not Get Distracted’: Evaluating Design Interventions for Self-Control on Facebook. 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, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376672Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Claudia Marino, Gianluca Gini, Alessio Vieno, and Marcantonio M. Spada. 2018. The associations between problematic Facebook use, psychological distress and well-being among adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders 226 (2018), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Arunesh Mathur, Mihir Kshirsagar, and Jonathan Mayer. 2021. What Makes a Dark Pattern... Dark? Design Attributes, Normative Considerations, and Measurement Methods. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445610Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas Mildner and Gian-Luca Savino. 2021. Ethical User Interfaces: Exploring the Effects of Dark Patterns on Facebook. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 464, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451659Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Alberto Monge Roffarello and Luigi De Russis. 2019. The Race Towards Digital Wellbeing: Issues and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland UK) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300616Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Pawarat Nontasil and Stephen J. Payne. 2019. Emotional Utility and Recall of the Facebook News Feed. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300252Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Gábor Orosz, István Tóth-Király, and Beáta Bőthe. 2016. Four facets of Facebook intensity — The development of the Multidimensional Facebook Intensity Scale. Personality and Individual Differences 100 (2016), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.038 Dr. Sybil Eysenck Young Researcher Award.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. J. E. R. Staddon and D. T. Cerutti. 2003. Operant Conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology 54, 1 (2003), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Philippe Verduyn, David Lee, Jiyoung Park, Holly Shablack, Ariana Orvell, Joseph Bayer, Oscar Ybarra, John Jonides, and Ethan Kross. 2015. Passive Facebook Usage Undermines Affective Well-Being: Experimental and Longitudinal Evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology General (02 2015). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelly Widdicks and Daniel Pargman. 2019. Breaking the Cornucopian Paradigm: Towards Moderate Internet Use in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Computing within Limits (Lappeenranta, Finland) (LIMITS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338103.3338105Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 2022
    3066 pages
    ISBN:9781450391566
    DOI:10.1145/3491101

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 28 April 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI '24
    CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 11 - 16, 2024
    Honolulu , HI , USA

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format