Deceptive Patterns
Interfaces engineered to make users act against their own interest, now regulated in several jurisdictions.
Definition
Harry Brignull's term, originally dark patterns and now more commonly deceptive patterns, for interface designs that trick users into decisions they did not intend. The category has moved from a critique to a regulated compliance concern.
Craft convention. True because the industry converged on it. Breaking it costs familiarity, not correctness.
On this page
Recognised types
| Pattern | What it does |
|---|---|
| Roach motel | Easy to enter, hard to leave. Common in subscription cancellation. |
| Confirmshaming | Frames declining in language designed to shame. |
| Sneak into basket | Adds items or extras the user did not select. |
| Hidden costs | Reveals fees only at the final step. |
| Misdirection | Uses visual weight to steer towards the option the business prefers. |
| Forced continuity | Charges silently at the end of a trial with no reminder. |
| Privacy Zuckering | Uses complexity to obtain data sharing the user did not intend. |
| Trick wording | Uses double negatives or ambiguous labels on consent controls. |
| Fake urgency | Counters and timers that are not measuring anything real. |
Tests for a design under suspicion
- 1.Would you explain this design to the user out loud, in plain words, and expect them to be fine with it?
- 2.Is declining as easy as accepting, in the same number of steps and with the same visual weight?
- 3.Would the user make the same choice if all information were presented at the first step?
- 4.Does any number on screen correspond to something real?
- 5.Can the user reverse the decision as easily as they made it?
In practice
Cancellation symmetry
SubscriptionsIf signing up takes two clicks, cancelling should take about two. Several jurisdictions now require this symmetry explicitly for consumer subscriptions.
Total cost shown early
Ecommerce and travelShowing the full price including fees at the first opportunity is now required in a growing number of markets, and it reduces abandonment at the final step regardless.
Sources
Where a source establishes something narrower than the popular reading of it, the note says so.
H. Brignull
The original taxonomy, maintained and updated.
Digital Services Act, Article 25
European Union, 2022
Prohibits online interfaces that deceive or manipulate users.
Bringing Dark Patterns to Light
US Federal Trade Commission staff report, 2022
Continue from here
Each link says what the connection is, so you can tell a principle from an alternative from a thing people mix this up with.
Applies when you are designing
Why this works
The reasoning this entry rests on.
- Anchoring BiasCognitive bias
- Authority BiasCognitive bias
- Decoy EffectCognitive bias
- Default EffectCognitive bias
- Endowment EffectCognitive bias
- Framing EffectCognitive bias
- Loss AversionCognitive bias
- Sunk Cost FallacyCognitive bias
- Product ThinkingMental model
- Social ProofPsychology
Applied through
Where this shows up as a concrete interface decision.
- CheckboxComponent
- Payments and CheckoutPattern
- Ratings and ReviewsPattern
- A/B TestingResearch method
- MicrocopyUX writing
Commonly confused with
Close enough to be mixed up, different enough to matter.
- Permission RequestsUX writing
A pre-prompt that informs is good practice. The same pattern that refuses to accept a decline is not.
Practical example
A worked decision where this was the deciding factor.
- Building Trust on a Payment ScreenCase study
- Designing a Cancellation FlowCase study
- Reducing Notification Volume Without Losing SignalCase study
Check your work
Review passes that test whether this was done properly.
- Design Ethics ChecklistChecklist
- Ecommerce ChecklistChecklist
Short definition
The one-paragraph version, for when that is all you need.
- ConsentTerm
- Deceptive PatternTerm
- GDPRTerm
Related concept
Connected closely enough to change how you apply this.