Much of our digital landscape today and how we engage with technology is shaped by UX design, affording designers a great deal of responsibility to imagine what interactions with users could look and feel like.
Too often, though, design decisions are driven by a desire to maximize profits, even for short-term gains, without acknowledging the potential damage to relationships with users. This becomes more harmful when users are tricked or misled by engineered schemes designed to make them perform actions they may not fully understand, be aware of, or intend.
We understand this phenomenon as deceptive patterns that have become quite popular recently.
As a designer, it is important to actively center the ethical implications of your work throughout the creative and decision-making processes. Deceptive UX comes at the expense of eroding trust with users. It hinders the possibility of cultivating relationships built on transparency, informed consent, and empowerment.
In this article, I will unpack how deception as a tactic leads to worsening user outcomes and share ways to begin to reimagine ethical engagement with users.
Deceptive patterns show up throughout the user experience in myriad ways, some more overt than subtle, and contribute to a culture where manipulation and exploitation are normalized. Advocacy efforts focus on increasing awareness of deceptive patterns among users and calling for greater regulatory compliance and control.
However, there is also a need to address the widespread use of these patterns by transforming how organizations approach UX design. This requires evaluating intent and taking responsibility for how design decisions affect user outcomes.
Deceptive patterns, in my view, are only the tip of the iceberg. Though often framed as “harmless” or operating in the background, they undermine users’ sense of agency, control, and privacy. To address deceptive patterns effectively, we must tackle the root causes of how deceptive tactics become embedded in the design process.
Let’s reflect on how we engage with digital platforms and applications, particularly when we encounter deceptive patterns. I’ll share a few prompts and scenarios to help guide your exploration:
Deceptive patterns are an extension of discriminatory design practices, which seek to exploit and manipulate users.
Deceptive patterns often work by weaponizing users’ cognitive tendencies and behavioral patterns. This is done to lead users into perform actions that do not necessarily align with their best interests.
When engaging with a digital product or service, users want to feel empowered and have control over their engagement. However, user agency is frequently undermined when presented with the illusion of choice, only to be funneled into a predetermined outcome.
An example is how signing up for a Times+ subscription requires users to opt out of receiving communications. Rather than having the choice to opt in, the user is already forced to receive these updates. The two options presented are also contradictory — users must check one box to opt out of updates from The Times while checking another box to opt in for updates from selected partners. This inconsistency is intentionally designed to create ambiguity and confusion, tricking users into making unintended choices.
Another common type of deceptive pattern is obscured pricing where the lack of transparency hinders the user’s ability to make well-informed financial decisions. An example of this is how UserTesting does not have its pricing readily available upfront. Plus, interacting with their chatbot to request more information requires you to share your personal details.
Evidently, bad UX design practices compromise the user experience and leave users feeling frustrated and betrayed. Such practices also put marginalized users at greater risk as they are more likely to experience harm. This not only has a lasting impact on brand loyalty and reputation but undermines the possibility of cultivating meaningful relationships with users.
We must collectively confront how deception and manipulation creep into our design practices and intentionally invest in building relational trust and practicing accountability.
Building relational trust is an ongoing, evolving practice that requires embracing change and creating space for genuine community engagement.
We must shift toward relational approaches that meaningfully involve people through the design process. Only then will we be able to foster a sense of well-being and sustained engagement.
LogRocket's Galileo AI watches sessions and understands user feedback for you, automating the most time-intensive parts of your job and giving you more time to focus on great design.
See how design choices, interactions, and issues affect your users — get a demo of LogRocket today.
Discover how to craft UX-friendly hero sections with examples, design tips, and strategies that drive engagement and conversion.
While Apple’s Liquid Glass can’t yet be perfectly recreated with CSS or Figma, we can still think about how to adopt the effect thoughtfully in our designs.
Figma Make is here to automate your design-to-code workflow. I tested it. Let’s talk about the good, the bad, and the straight-up weird.
After designing AI search systems, I’ve seen what builds trust — and what kills it. Here’s my take on what really works.
Learn more →
