Abstract

This paper examines the ethics of choice architecture and at what point nudges are beneficial versus when they create dark patterns that manipulate consumers. While many people do not know it, oftentimes one’s commercial decision making is being influenced without knowing, and this all revolves around the concept of choice architecture. Choice architecture has been present in business practices for a very long time (for example, grocery store layouts) before the internet and online shopping became popularised. As online-shopping technology continues to modernise and create convenience for consumers, more and more businesses have shifted their goods and services to be available through online purchase. While businesses were once influencing consumers in person, now they focus on funding efforts to design user interfaces and experiences with nudges or hurdles that either push a consumer to make a choice or prevent them from doing so. Many businesses might be implementing these strategies in order to look out for the consumer, but many times these actions act as dark nudges, influencing consumers to make a harmful decision, or dark sludges that completely impede and violate consumer autonomy and freedom of choice. This paper examines the psychological systems of the human brain that influence consumer decision making and assesses the design and ethics of choice architecture strategies.

Introduction

Over the years, as consumer spending has evolved with the emergence and popularity of online shopping, so has the choice architecture interventions that companies and businesses take in order to influence consumer decision making. First of all, it is important to identify exactly what choice architecture interventions, or “nudging”, is. Essentially, these nudges aim to change the decision-making behaviours of consumers by re-designing the environment in which people make decisions, but without infringing on their freedom of choice (Mertens et al., 2021).

Choice architecture deals with what is known as “libertarian paternalism”, which essentially is the idea that it is both legitimate and possible for institutions to influence the behaviours of people while also respecting their freedom of choice without using any coercion (Loo, 2021; Pilat & Krastev, 2021). Although, not made official until Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008), the concept of choice architecture has been around for a long time. For example, grocery stores, for decades, have been demonstrating choice architecture strategies when arranging their store layout and placing products in certain places all to influence consumer behaviours (Loo, 2021; Pilat & Krastev, 2021). Additionally, another example of this in-person choice architecture includes re-arranging the way a cafeteria is set up and the way the food choices are displayed (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).

The growth of technology has led to what is known as online choice architecture (OCA), which is the set of design features that impact choice in digital environments (Sobolev & Lesic, 2022). Most decisions online are influenced by the design of the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX). As a result, companies hire teams of designers and researchers to capitalise off of this strategy (Sobolev & Lesic, 2022). One of the most common examples of online nudges and choice architecture that impacts consumer decisions is Amazon’s one-click checkout (Sobolev & Lesic, 2022). Although these nudges can be beneficial for consumer decision making, these same tools can exploit consumers and get them stuck in dark patterns. Dark patterns are defined as “user interface design elements that compromise user autonomy by preventing informed choices and that may lead to adverse outcomes for the user, such as invasion of privacy, financial loss and technology addiction” (Kollmer & Eckhardt, 2022). Dark patterns can be split into what is called digital dark nudging and digital sludging. Digital dark nudging uses four main tactics to take advantage of consumer decision making: omitting, complicating, fabricating and composing information (Kollmer & Eckhardt, 2022). An example of this could be presenting non-essential options or nudges to the consumer while they are online in order to influence their decision making without coercion. However, on the other hand, digital sludges act as hurdles that can impede and restrict consumer decision making, violating the consumer’s autonomy and ability to freely choose. An example of this could be a website creating a very lengthy cancellation process for a subscription, so that it is more difficult for users to use their autonomy to back out (Kollmer & Eckhardt, 2022).

The online and in-person choice architecture is structured around the way the human brain works and to take advantage of human psychology – more specifically, behavioural heuristics – in order to benefit the businesses themselves. For example, choice architecture is framed off of human’s dual-process way of reasoning: System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 thinking is fast, quick thinking that ignores the evidence and prefers shortcuts for ultimate convenience; System 2 on the other hand is all about slow and purposeful thinking, and pursuing and exploring new evidence (Kahneman, 2011).

Objective and Goal

This paper seeks to answer the question: to what extent do nudges contribute to consumer decision making and at what point does choice architecture create dark patterns? This question is aimed at distinguishing where to draw the ethical line for choice architecture and nudging. It is important to understand which forms of choice architecture, both online and in person, are beneficial to the consumer’s wellbeing and at what point consumer rights are being violated by deceptive business practices. This situation becomes increasingly important as more and more businesses continue to promote their services online in order to cash out from the millions of people that use the internet everyday. By looking at pre-existing academic publications and studies, this paper will examine the different psychological systems at play and explore which areas of life are affected by comparing both in-person and online choice architecture cases. It is important to note that this paper will not only focus on the standard economic focus of consumer decisions, but it will also aim to explore why consumers make these decisions and which psychological biases are at play.

Core Thesis and Hypothesis

Due to the increase in the body of knowledge surrounding human psychology – more specifically, how human decision making works and why people make certain decisions based on System 1 and System 2 decision making – business practices are structured to cater to the preferences of the human mind. Although many times these practices ideally seek to provide and support the consumer to make good decisions, a lot of times these practices are structured in a way that tries to manipulate and deceive the consumer for profit. When choice architecture and nudges impede on consumer autonomy and freedom of choice, dark patterns occur and the ethical line of choice architecture needs to be drawn.

Literature Review

Whether shopping online or looking to renew a gym membership, consumers in the modern day are presented with more choices than ever before. Although consumer shopping habits have evolved with the rise of online commerce, the psychological processes behind pressing the “buy now” button have not. 

When shoppers are given a choice they often resort to the obvious option – essentially, the option that requires the least amount of effort. In a study examining the consumer process through online commerce, researchers observed that the options that were most frequently chosen were the ones most obviously observed (Reisen et al., 2008). Essentially, this shows how online commerce is simply playing a psychological game for what the consumer most blatantly sees on the screen first. To further explain how the consumer mind works, we must take into account that humans are said to have two thinking systems: System 1 being seen as fast and intuitive, and System 2 being slow and deliberate. The human mind naturally leans towards System 1 thinking – i.e., making quick impulsive decisions such as buying a piece of clothing or a piece of kitchenware. Since people generally default to this mode of thinking, consumers are more susceptible to buying the first option that is nudged through choice architecture (de Ridder et al., 2021). 

The psychology behind choice architecture being as simple as what the consumer sees first gives businesses seeking profit a motivation to utilise nudges and choice architecture in order to ensure maximum profit. Simply defined, choice architecture is the way that an environment is designed in order to encourage a certain outcome in which people make decisions. While choice architecture can be utilised in a physical sense, it can also be used to manipulate online consumers to buy a certain product, or nudge them in a certain direction. Across many experiments in nudge theory,  a common result is that transparency of these nudges often result in no change of choices whatsoever, which could suggest that nudges are even effective after disclosure (de Ridder et al., 2021). 

The key choice that must be addressed here is at what point do these nudges and choices become unethical. Luguri and Strahilevitz (2021) define these manipulative nudges as systems that purposely manipulate and exploit the user to either reveal confidential information that they did not wish to share or create an outcome for something they did not need. Using the logic presented in their article, nudges or choice architecture can have negative impacts and bad influences on consumer behaviour and should be considered as dark patterns and unethical. This is why it is important to find the line of ethics in this issue to protect consumers in the new digital age.

Analytical and Experimental Framework: Why Do Humans React to These Nudges?

This section of the paper will cover the specific psychological systems in the brain that make humans react to choice architecture and nudges. Humans respond to nudges because our brains are wired to make quick, intuitive judgements rather than slow, deliberate and rational ones. Psychologists call this System 1 thinking: the fast, automatic and emotional mode of thought that relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts). Also, the Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) states that consumers would prefer not losing over gaining in a financial situation under the same circumstances. This contributes to the vulnerability of the human brain when facing these nudges.

Nudges influence an economic decision by shaping the environment to provide a pathway, slowly guiding the customers to consuming. In an economic transaction, the amount of money might not be the only influencing factor, which is why consumers are always irrational. Brain power, time and emotions are all significant factors during an economic decision, especially when the price is relatively low or during an everyday purchase such as coffee. These nudges exploit these factors and use them as an advantage to attract consumption. For example, “only two left” sends a signal to customers that they need to make a quick decision, and oftentimes, the quicker the decision, the more irrational one gets. Also, the price often ends in “$0.99”, for example, rather than rounding to the nearest dollar, which creates an illusion of the product being significantly cheaper. When the customer does not have the brain power to comprehend the difference, the chance of purchase increases. These are all due to System 1 thinking occurring as our brains tend to ignore overwhelming information created by the nudges, leading to a specific outcome.

In online contexts, nudges like personalised recommendations or frictionless one-click purchases capitalise on attention scarcity and habit formation. These are tactics that are supposed to support the user with a more convenient or straight-forward experience while providing more profitable opportunities for the seller. However, when the choice architecture deliberately manipulates customers’ interests, such as hiding cancellation options or disguising costs, it creates dark patterns. Instead of achieving a balance between consumers’ utility and the seller’s profit, it targets consumers’ irrational System 1 vulnerability. The best example is when a subscription platform has a muddling cancellation process. Subscribers might not have the time or brain power to go through the whole procedure. Ultimately, nudges benefit decision-making when they align with consumers’ goals of maximising utility by reducing complexity and streamlining the purchasing system, but they become harmful when they override autonomy, steering customers into decisions they would not have made under rational System 2 thinking.  

The next section provides some context by looking at real-life examples of choice architecture. One of the most important developments in public shopping is undoubtedly the founding of the Swedish giant IKEA, by Ingvar Kamprad. Whilst initially being a backyard distributor of pens, the company grew to stardom by selling its unique style of furniture. IKEA’s unique style of display and architecture originated in Almhult, Sweden, in 1953. In modern times, however, the company has introduced far more cues and nudges that ensure customers rarely ever walk out without having paid for a good or service. One such study by Dr Bertil Hultén investigates the correlation between different sensory cues and shoppers’ behaviour in IKEA. In it, he writes that “sight, sound, scent and touch are the major sensory channels” (Hultén, 2012). IKEA itself believes that these stimuli are important, as all of its products follow their motto of “Democratic Design”. Their key principles are: form, function, quality, sustainability and low price. The former three serve the purpose of satisfying the sensory cue of sight, as well as touch. Furniture arrangements in IKEA all serve to let the customer use and handle the items in order to truly feel the product’s quality. While all people are known to be affected differently by their senses, research has proven that customers value touch most often in an attempt to gather the most amount of information (McCabe & Nowlis, 2003). Compared to the olfactory and auditory senses, tactility remains the most significant in terms of determining an item’s quality. This theory is backed up by numerous studies, which conclude that consumers prefer retail settings which enable them to physically attest to a product’s quality (Krishan & Morrin, 2008). Researchers also advocate that displays with an emphasis on touch can have positive implications for products that would have been disregarded originally. They believe that this can have the ability to increase impulse purchases (Peck & Childers, 2010) which emphasises tactility’s importance on one’s behaviour.

Case Study 1: Ikea

While touch is the most important factor for many people, it is untrue to say that other senses do not have a role to play in shifting consumer behaviour. For example, another sense that is heavily correlated with a brand’s image is sight, which is generally the target of most advertisement methods. The vast majority of these methods are usually related to visual cues, namely colour. Many studies have already concluded that different colours can influence activation-related affect (arousal) among other responses (Crowley, 1993). Olfactory stimuli on occasion has also been known to have an effect in one’s mind, manipulating one’s decisions without alerting them (Ward et al., 2003).

Hultén (2012) aimed to investigate how these three main senses play a role in consumer touch behaviour – more specifically, how consumers were affected by sensory stimuli when shopping for wine glasses. As a result, the study was conducted in the glass department of IKEA. The experiment was conducted with the control group being first met with grey floors, white walls, harsh lights and an odourless surrounding. The point-of-purchase for the wine glasses was in the corner of the department and was located among non-decorated shelves. These displays were further lit with a combination of spotlights and light strips, however no emphasis was placed on the glasses. The experimental group had the harsh lights swapped with softer lighting, as well as an assortment of placemats for the wines to rest on. A vanilla scent was also introduced in an attempt to affect customers’ responses as studies have shown that vanilla-scented products affect infants’ time spent looking at products (Mennella & Beauchamp, 1998). The findings concluded with the experimental group buying 153 glasses compared to the 93 sold to the control group. Traditional economics states that consumers spend based on scarcity alone, but in practice, this is untrue and Húlten’s study proves it. By altering the environment around the consumer, businesses can significantly change their behaviour without them knowing it explicitly. Manipulating sensory details is only one of many different aspects of choice architecture, with countless other options that companies can use.

Physical changes in the environment may also play a role in shaping consumer decisions as seen by IKEA’s “maze-like” layout. The added benefit of journeying through a one-way maze is that any customer who walks in must take the time to journey through the store. While inside IKEA, the customer experiences different layouts of potential rooms in their homes, like kitchens and home offices, giving the customer a sense of home (IGU Global, 2025). Customers also feel a sense of security and safety within the environment, giving them a nudge which encourages them to stay longer. Arrows on the floor also helpfully guide shoppers towards more and more exhibits, further increasing the chances of them purchasing something. Perhaps the most unique part of any IKEA store is the food court at the end of the route. This food court serves different dishes, ranging from chicken tenders to traditional Swedish meatballs. The restaurant works in tandem with the extra-long route, as by the time the customer has been through the exhibits, it is guaranteed that they would have burned many calories. 

IKEA also uses other ways to improve customer retention, such as removing clocks and any other time-tracking devices inside. This is in an attempt to have the customer lose track of their purpose while in the store, as well as their sense of time. Many casinos throughout the world also use this tactic for similar purposes. Online shopping platforms also attempt to improve user retention with tactics that share some semblance with their in-person counterparts. Many of these websites include interactive polls, pop-ups and other UX designs that cannot be ignored. For many online shoppers, things such as feedback, updates and personalisation can be the make-or-break for their experience. These online nudges can oftentimes be just as effective as in-person ones; however, it is important to note that everyone is affected differently by these changes. Compared to in-person nudges, online ones can be much more personalised, as data is constantly being contained, shared and updated among sites. In-person nudges on the other hand focus much more on physical and physiological feedback that is known to be effective for all people. It is much too difficult and expensive to personalise a whole experience for a singular consumer, and thus most companies simply disregard personalisation. It is important to note that for other markets however, personalisation can be a symbol of luxury and status and can be an excuse to charge higher prices.

Case Study 2: Amazon

IKEA is a great example of in-person choice architecture and how it impacts people, while Amazon is a great example of real-life online choice architecture. Amazon employs many tactics that solidify its place as the world’s leading online retailer.

While Amazon markets its own products on their websites, it also allows for independent third-party retailers to market their own items as well. When searching for a certain product on Amazon, individuals are shown a sponsored set of items first. These items are a result of the item winning a product auction via Amazon Ads (Amazon, n.d.). These advertisements are pay-per-click (PPC), which means that the retailer for this item only pays whenever an individual clicks on their ad. In addition to sponsored products, Amazon also shows ones marked with, “Amazon’s Choice”, “Bestseller” and “Limited-time deal.” This “featured seller” identification is also known as a “buy box”. These spots ensure that a product is noticed more frequently compared to ones that are not placed up front for the consumer to see. On Amazon, competition is a guarantee, with endless pages of different products to choose from and for many small businesses, winning the “buy box” could mean the difference between success and bankruptcy.

According to Dash et al.’s (2024) study however, related sellers won these “buy box” auctions more than 80% of the time. The study was conducted across four major countries: India, France, Germany and the USA. The study had participants answer survey choices regarding which seller they would choose when given an option. What swayed most of these people were the amount of ratings in total, which in these related sellers’ cases, was much more than other sellers. These related sellers were either: companies directly handled by Amazon; companies who paid Amazon to sell, store and ship their goods; or companies who paid Amazon for shipping and logistics. For most of the bad reviews that regarded logistics and shipping, Amazon would strike through them, leaving these products with higher ratings than in reality. Once the researchers recalculated the reviews and made them more accurate, preference towards them halved.

Many of these consumers often believe that the products placed at the top are the ones with the best quality. This may not always be the case with Amazon, as the study has found. The disproportionate number of related sellers winning the buy boxes also makes it harder for smaller businesses to thrive on Amazon. To conclude, this study accurately depicts the dark paths that nudging can have and how easy it can be for companies to exploit them.

Discussion

After looking at evidence from existing studies on choice architecture, the psychological theory surrounding it and specific case studies, it is clear that nudges play a major role in contributing to consumer decision making. In addition, this paper has also explored and confirmed that choice architecture can go from being beneficial to creating dark patterns when it coerces consumers to make decisions or violates their consumer rights, autonomy or freedom of choice. It is clear that there is a line that needs to be drawn to ensure that business practices and strategies that utilise nudging and choice architecture remain ethical and are beneficial, rather than harmful, to a consumer. Additionally, after comparing online choice architecture and in-person architecture with the IKEA and Amazon examples, it is evident that OCA has become more prominent due to the increase in popularity of online shopping. The main reason that nudges and choice architecture work so well is that they play into the psychological trends of consumers, and this is where nudges can diverge from benefitting consumer psychology to taking advantage of consumers. 

In order to establish a line of ethics to indicate and identify when choice architecture is beneficial versus when it can create dark patterns for consumers, more legislation policies around the world are being developed to protect consumers from exploitive choice architecture, making it easier to identify what legally qualifies as a harmful choice architecture nudge. For example, the Digital Services Act or DSA created by the European Union (EU) in 2024, prohibits a variety of different choice architecture tactics that businesses employ. Some of these tactics include:

• Fake urgency, such as when an alert on a website is not based on actual inventory, e.g., “this offer expires in 20 seconds!” (CBTW, 2025);
• Tricky opt-outs, such as when businesses make it easy to sign up for subscriptions, memberships etc., but when a customer wishes to cancel, the process is made to be very complicated (CBTW, 2025);
• Pre-ticked boxes;
• Buried key information, including pricing;
• Guilt-tripping UI, including using phrases which rely on inducing guilt or shame, such as “are you sure you want to cancel?” (CBTW, 2025); and
• Confusing navigation.

It is evident that choice architecture and the nudges implemented by businesses are so effective because they utilise behavioural heuristics. The backbone of this business strategy is reliant on System 1 thinking and the Prospect Theory that were introduced earlier in this paper.

Policy and Ethical Implications

It is clear that choice architecture and nudging can have an unfounded impact on consumer behaviour. As a result, certain lines have to be drawn to ensure that the consumer remains safe and aware. As mentioned earlier, the European Union created the Digital Services Act in 2024 that provides rules and regulations for online services that European citizens use, ranging from social media platforms to online travel services. The objective of this legislation is to create a space that respects consumer rights; part of what the DSA implements is a ban on dark patterns, which “manipulate choices in ways that may not align with the individual’s welfare” (Ungvarsky, 2019).

Additionally, the DSA was created alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA) that has rules for what are known as “online gatekeeper platforms” (European Commission, n.d.). Gatekeepers are essentially large digital platforms such as online search engines, messaging apps and app stores (European Commission, n.d.). In September of 2023, the European Commission designated the six gatekeepers under the DMA: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft (European Commission, n.d.). Similarly, the UK developed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) that gives the Competition and Markets Authory (CMA) new ways to enforce consumer law and protect consumer rights (CMA, 2026).

As technology continues to develop, it is important that these policies remain subject to change so that they are up-to-date with any new innovations in choice architecture. Currently, these policies act as models for other places around the world that have yet to establish similar legislation to combat harmful choice architecture.

Conclusion

Nudges can be found both online and in-person, and can have a huge impact on consumer behaviour. According to the Prospect Theory and System 1 and System 2 thinking, changes in our environment can change both our perception and our actions. It can oftentimes be difficult for people to notice these environmental changes, unless they consciously attempt to identify them. Even some senses that might not initially seem relevant, like our olfactory sense, can have a significant role to play. 

Therefore, companies have to ensure that their use of choice architecture is safe to the consumer rather than harmful. Big stores such as IKEA may have many details to keep consumers in their stores for longer, such as their maze-like layout, as well as their restaurant at the end. It is important to note however, that IKEA does not deny the fact that they use these nudges and instead embraces them as part of their identity. For many people, the long walks at IKEA and the experience of dining at the food court is not a trap they are forced into, but rather an experience they would pay for.

Online shopping is more nuanced however, with consumers often being left in the dark. The study from Dash et al., as mentioned earlier in the paper, concluded in one instance that there is foul play from certain online websites and the choice architecture strategies they choose to employ. While it is not explicitly stated from Amazon that their advertisements are 100% fair, it is ethically questionable that the consumer is largely unaware that endorsed products are not always to the standard the website makes them seem to be. Nudges like tags such as, “Amazon’s Choice” and “Best Seller” may not always tell the entire story. These items grow exponentially faster than others simply due to being listed, and in turn, continue to be listed as a “Best Seller”. 

Even though there are policies like the EU’s Digital Services Act or the DMA, it is important that as technology advances, policies are kept up-to-date in order to protect consumer rights, autonomy and freedom of choice. However, it is also important for consumers to remain knowledgeable about nudging and dark patterns, as well as the immoral paths and strategies that companies may take to expand profit. It is important to note that not all choice architecture strategies manipulate consumers, and a lot of these nudges can be beneficial to both consumers and businesses.

Overall, choice architecture and nudges are no longer beneficial once they start to create dark patterns and violate consumer rights, autonomy and freedom of choice. This research paper can act as a reference for future research endeavours in this field of study and can remind people of the importance of regulating this issue in the new digital age. 

Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A. and Loewenstein, G. (2019). Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices, Management Science, 65(5), pp. 2267–2290.

Amazon (n.d.) Amazon [online]. <https://www.amazon.com/>

CBTW (2025) Dark Patterns Are Now Illegal in the EU. Is Your Product Compliant? Collaboration Betters The World [online]. <https://cbtw.tech/insights/illegal-dark-patterns-europe>

Competition and Markets Authority (2026) Consumer protection under the DMCCA: progress and priorities, GOV.UK [online]. <https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/consumer-protection-under-the-dmcca-progress-and-priorities>

Dash, A., Chakraborty, A., Ghosh, S., Mukherjee, A. and Gummadi, K.P. (2024). Investigating nudges toward related sellers on e-commerce marketplaces: A case study on Amazon, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(2), pp. 1–31.

De Bruyne, T. (2026) What is choice architecture? Definition, examples and principles, SUE Behavioural Design Academy [online]. <https://www.suebehaviouraldesign.com/en/blog/choice-architecture-explained/>

De Ridder, D., Kroese, F. and Van Genstel, L. (2021) Nudgeability: Mapping Conditions of Susceptibility to Nudge Influence, Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 17(2), pp. 346-359.

European Commission (n.d.) About the Digital Markets Act, European Commission [online]. <https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en>

European Commission (n.d.) Gatekeeper’s Portal, European Commission [online]. <https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers-portal_en>

European Commission (n.d.) The Digital Services Act, European Commission [online]. <https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act>

Hultén, B. (2012). Sensory cues and shoppers’ touching behaviour: The case of IKEA, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(4), pp. 273–289.

IGU Global (n.d.) IGU Global [online]. <https://www.iguglobal.com/>

IKEA Museum (2026). Visit on site or explore our digital space, IKEA Museum. [online] <https://ikeamuseum.com>

Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 27(2), pp. 54-57.

Kollmer, T. and Eckhardt, A. (2023) Dark Patterns, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(2) pp. 201–208.

Loo, J. (2021). System 1 and system 2 thinking, The Decision Lab [online]. <https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/system-1-and-system-2-thinking>

Luguri, J. and Strahilevitz, L.J. (2021). Shining a Light on Dark Patterns, Journal of Legal Analysis, 13(1), pp. 43-109.

Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U.J.J. and Brosch, T. (2021). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1).

Pilat, D. and Krastev, S. (2021) Choice Architecture, The Decision Lab [online]. <https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/choice-architecture>

Radova, K. (2021) Case study: How IKEA uses the endowment effect and choice architecture to increase in-store sales, InsideBE [online]. <https://insidebe.com/articles/psychology-behind-ikeas-product-display/>

Reisen, N., Hoffrage, U. and Mast, F.W. (2008) Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation, Judgment and Decision Making, 3(8).

Sandford Martin, E. (2019) The wayfarer in New York (Wentworth Press).

Sobolev, M. and Lesic, V. (2022) Online choice architecture: The good, the bad, and the complicated, SSRN Electronic Journal.

Sunstein, C.R. and Thaler, R.H. (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron, SSRN Electronic Journal, 70(4).

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about wealth, health, and happiness.

Ungvarsky, J. (2019) Nudge theory, EBSCO Research Starter [online]. <https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/economics/nudge-theory>

Ungvarsky, J. (2020) Prospect Theory, EBSCO Research Starter [online]. <https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/prospect-theory>